Natural Law Theory - Arguments Flashcards
Give the argument that: Telos is universal
Who:
St. Thomas Aquinas, who proposed the natural law theory.
What:
Telos is a things behavioural inclination towards the good as a part of its nature and accessed through reason. Therefore it is universal as both reason and human nature are available to all.
Why:
1) All humans have reason.
This is plausible as God creates all beings with reason so that we may have access to God’s natural law; for the fulfillement of our telos and reaching eudaimonia with God by following the primary precepts.
2) if 1) then telos is universal.
This is plausible as if all humans have reason then that reason should point towards a unified goal for humanity - eudaimonia with God.
3) Thus, telos is universal.
Analogy: If everyone is given the same watch by a watchmaker, you would logically conclude they should all show the same time. Likewise, if everyone is given reason by God, all reason should point towards the same telos.
Give the argument that: There is cross-cultural moral relativism
Who:
J.L Mackie, contributed to the problem of evil with the inconsistent triad…
What: The existence of cross-cultural moral relativism indicates that there is not a universal moral law, or telos.
Why:
1) There is cross-cultural moral relativism.
This is plausible as it can be seen that in different cultures primary precepts are interpreted differently.
2) if 1) then telos is not universal.
This is plausible as telos cannot be universal if our reasoning leads to different morals between cultures, especially where neither could be called objectively wrong (such as if murder was always morally good).
3) Thus telos is not universal.
Example: In western cultures, such as the UK and USA putting an elderly person in a care home would be considered the best way to keep an orderly society, however in eastern cultures such as Japan or South Korea this would be frowned upon in favour of taking care of the elderly in ones own home.
Give the argument of moral objectivism
Who:
Moral objectivists
What:
Cultures disagree on the non-moral facts, not the moral. Therefore, telos can still be universal.
Why:
In a nutshell, moral objectivists would argue that in the situations Mackie describes with cross-cultural moral relativism, the cultures are actually disagreeing over non-moral facts rather than any moral facts. In the example used, neither culture disagrees with the primary precept ‘Live in an orderly society!’, rather they disagree on which environment would be best suited for elderly individuals, which is not a moral dispute and thus does not contradict the existence of a universal telos.
Give the argument that the doctrine of double effect gets the right answer in difficult situations
Who:
Aquinas
What:
The doctrine of double effect, which posits that an action which violates the primary precepts is justified as good insofar as the bad effect is beside the intention, allows for the correct answer in difficult hypothetical situations, such as the painkiller dosage problem, where a doctor chooses to raise a painkiller dosage knowing it will kill the terminally-ill patient.
Why:
1) In the painkiller dosage problem, Natural Law theory will recognise that the doctor did the right thing through the doctrine of double effect.
This is plausible because the doctine of double effect will recognise that what the doctors action was morally good since they had the intention of fulfilling the primary precept to live in an orderly society by reducing the pointless suffering of terminally-ill patients, and the death of the patient was an unintended consequence and hence the act is still morally good.
2) If 1) then the doctrine of double effect gets the right answer in difficult situations.
This is plausible as it agrees with our moral intuition that the doctor did the morally good thing in this situation by reducing pointless suffering of terminally-ill patients.
3) Thus the doctrine of double effect gets the right answer in difficult situations.
Give the argument that the doctrine of double effect leads to a slippery slope.
Who:
Archbishop Anthony Fischer, who uses this argument in the context of euthanasia.
What:
The doctrine of double effect could allow for a moral slippery slope, as morally bad acts such as murder can be considered good based on intended effects, which can be lied about.
Why:
1) The doctrine of double effect can allow for decievement.
This is plausible as no one can truly know the intended effects someone has in mind beside the person doing the act, so that person can easily lie about having morally good intentions.
2) If 1) then the doctrine of double effect is a bad ethical doctrine.
This is plausible as if people cn easily lie about having morally good intentions then the doctrine of double effect can be easily abused by individuals to do morally evil acts.
3) Thus, the doctrine of double effect is a bad ethical doctrine.
Example: Non-voluntary euthanasia can be forced onto patients and be considered as morally good under the misuse of the doctrine of double effect.
Give the argument that the slippery slope argument only occurs IF misused.
Who:
Natural Law theorists
What:
The slippery slope argument fails as it assumes the worst case scenario - that the doctrine of double effect will be intentionally misused.
Why:
In a nutshell, the slippery slope argument fails because his reductio of the doctrine of double effect is dependent on the fact that the doctrine is misused which would present a society which wants to misuse the doctrine for their own benefit - however any ethical doctrine in a society which doesn’t want to be moral will fail so this is an unfair criticism.
Give the argument that telos is empirical.
Who:
Aquinas, came up with the five ways to demonstrate God’s existence through philosophical thinking.
What:
Aquinas’ fifth way posits that things do not act randomly, but rather seem to always tend towards an end - their telos.
Why:
1) Natural things regularly achieve a purpose.
This is plausible through observation. For examples we observe how giraffes have long necks to help achieve the purpose of excellent nutrition. Another example is that our legs help us reach the purpose of walking.
2) If 1) then natural things must be guided towards their purpose by God.
This is plausible through Aquinas’ bow and arrow analogy. An arrow flies in the air to reach a target, but something must have sent that arrow flying - a bow. Likewise, natural things tend towards a purpose, but something must have triggered this motion - God.
3) Thus, natural things must be guided towards their purpose by God.
Give the argument that telos is unscientific.
Who:
Richard Dawkins, the faith school menace, evolutionary biologist and religious critic.
What:
There is no scientific basis for telos, while it may be empirical there is no room for it in modern scientific discussion since we evolve randomly through natural selection - science is complete without purpose.
Why:
1) Things in nature come to be fine-tuned through evolution.
This is plausible through an understanding of the theory of evolution. Evolution occurs over time when the offspring of a species is born with a random mutation which, if it proves to be advantageous, will be passed onto offspring till a majority of the species carries the mutation. In this model, it is clear that advantageous mutations allow for fine-tuning.
2) If 1) then things in nature don’t have a purpose given to them by God.
This is plausible because evolution leaves no room for purpose. Since things in nature are able to flourish through random advantageous mutations there is no need for purpose - the evolutionary model fully works without it.
3) Then things in nature don’t have a purpose given to them by God.
Give the argument that telos is scientific.
Who:
Neo-Aristotelian Phillipa Foot
What: Telos is infact observed scientifically, one good example is an oak tree.
Why: In a nutshell, Foot replies claims that telos is unscientific by arguing that it is observable in a scientific context. Take an oak tree, by observing it over a period of time we can observe what things contribute to its flourishing, such as sunlight and nutritious soil. Therefore, it is clear that telos is scientific since telos can be observed in an oak tree - inclined to what enables its flourishing
Give the argument that everyone has a good conscience.
Who:
Aquinas
What:
Concerned with accessing God’s eternal law through our God-given ratio, which due to our seeking of good (synderesis), allows us to find out the primary precepts that subscription to will allow for fulfillment of our telos - eudaimonia with God.
Why:
1) Everyone has a good conscience.
This is demonstrably plausible through an example borrowed from Mencius of a child falling down a well. If we were to see a child about to fall down the well, our first instinct would be to go help the child rather than let it fall in. From this example we can generalise that we instinctively want to do good and thus everyone has a good conscience.
2) If 1) then conscience must be from God as a way to find out about his laws.
This is logically plausible because if everyone has a good conscience then it allows for the natural law as derived from God’s eternal law to be universally accessible to all people - which is consistent logically with the fact that everyone needs to have the ability to be morally good.
3) Thus, the conscience must be from God as a way to find out about his laws.
Give the argument that the 5 primary precepts are practical.
Who:
Aquinas
What:
The 5 primary precepts are practical since they get the correct answer in moral thought experiements where there is a clear intuitive answer.
Why:
1) Natural law/The 5 primary precepts would argue that generally speaking, murder is wrong.
This is plausible since murder would violate the primary precept ‘Preserve life!’ - and so would be considered morally wrong by the Natural law theory.
2) If 1) then natural law/the 5 primary precepts is a good ethical theory/are good ethical precepts.
This is plausible since the judgement of a good ethical theory in a thought experiement should align with our moral intuitions in that situation. It is intuitive to us that murder should be, generally speaking, morally wrong and thus it would be absurd to accept an ethical theory that challenges that view.
3) Thus, natural law/the 5 primary precepts is a good ethical theory/are good ethical precepts.
Give the argument that secondary precepts are more important that primary precepts.
Who:
Natural law theorists, internally debating natural law theory.
What:
Secondary precepts are more important than primary precepts because they give more clarity for the application of natural law.
Why:
1) Secondary precepts tell us which actions are not good.
This is plausible since a secondary precept is the judgement we get from applying the primary precepts to practical situations and they allow us to know what we cannot do. While we are commanded to reproduce, the primary precept does not detail how to achieve this, whereas secondary precepts such as ‘Do not have contraceptive sex!’ and ‘Do not have abortions!’ tell us how to actually fulfill this primary precept to enable our flourishing by telling us what violates these primary precepts.
2) If 1) then secondary precepts offer more clarity than primary precepts.
This is plausible since secondary precepts direct us towards the actions we must take to fulfill/avoid violating the primary precepts - helping us achieve moral goodness within natural law theory by aiming to be virtuous within the framework of the theory.
3) Thus secondary precepts offer more clarity than primary precepts.
Give the argument that secondary precepts are meaningless without primary precepts.
Who:
Natural law theorists
What:
The secondary precepts are reliant on the primary precepts for significance, therefore they cannot be more important.
Why:
In a nutshell, the secondary precepts are ultimately derived from the intuitive 5 primary precepts. As such, any weight that the secondary precepts carry within our lives is entirely reliant on the qualities of the primary precepts - i.e being given to us by God to reach eudaimonia.
Give the argument that the doctine of double effect is intuitively necessary.
Who:
Natural law theorists
What:
For natural law theory to be a complete ethical theory, it would make sense for it to have a method of resolving the unlikely but possible situation of conflicting primary precepts - therefore making the doctrine of double effect an intuitively good ethical doctrine since it offers this resolution.
Why:
1) The doctrine of double effect solves the problem of conflicting duties.
This is plausible as, according to the doctrine, an action can be still good despite its bad consequences insofar as the bad consequences occur beside the intention. This means that even if there is a conflict of primary precepts, as long as the violation of one primary precept happens beside the intention to fulfill another - we can still do the morally good thing in situations.
2) If 1) then the doctrine of double effect is an intuitively good ethical doctrine.
This is plausible since the doctrine allows for the completeness of natural law theory, where it can encapsulate the most difficult situations. This is intuitively necessary for any ethical theory since if it only worked in black and white ethical dilemmas, such as the question of if murder is morally right, then it would be a poor ethical theory since it cannot respond to the nuances of the real world.
3) Thus, the doctrine of double effect is an intuitively good ethical doctrine.
Give the argument that the doctrine of double effect shouldn’t be necessary.
Who:
Consequentialists (Peter Singer for example)
What:
The importance of intented and unforeseen consequences within the doctrine of double effect indicates that natural law is an incomplete ethical theory since it must switch the focus to intention to justify itself.
Why:
1) The doctrine of double effect is inconsitent with the rest of natural law.
This is plausible since while the rest of natural law is concerned with the inherent moral truth of the 5 primary precepts given by God to be accessed with ratio to allow us to reach our telos and achieve eudaimonia, the doctrine of double effect is concerned with the consequences of ones actions and whether they are intended or not - this is inconsistent with the rest of the ethical theory that rests on hard moral facts.
2) if 1) natural law is flawed because of the doctrine of double effect.
This is plausible since the doctrine of double effect serving as an exemption to the deontological approach of natural law gives the appearance of a patch or work-around to make natural law appear as a good ethical theory.
3) Thus natural law is flawed because of the doctrine of double effect.
Give the argument that the doctrine of double effect reflects the reality of the worlds ethical situations.
Who:
Natural law theorists
What:
The doctrine of double effect is a product of the reality of the world, and the good of an action is still dependent on the fulfillment of primary precepts.
Why:
In a nutshell, the doctrine of double effect, while appearing inconsistent prima facie, is made necessary by the reality of ethical situations in the real world. Moreover, even when the doctrine is in use, the goodness of an action is still soley dependent on whether it fulfills a primary precept - so the distinction between good and bad moral acts remains consistent within natural law theory and as such the doctrine of double effect is a good ethical doctrine for taking into consideration the nuance of real world situations.
