Transcript NaturalMoralLaw

Natural Moral Law
Philosophy and Religion Department
Wellington College
Introducing Natural Moral Law
• It is an absolutist and deontological approach to
ethics, prescribing fixed moral rules and real duties.
• The theory can be traced back to ancient ideas of
natural morality: the view that humans have an
inherent sense of right and wrong. Aristotle: “the
natural is that which everywhere is equally valid”.
• The Stoic philosophers emphasised the importance of
rationality in the working of the world. Cicero: “True
law is right reason in agreement with nature”.
• However, it is best known as a Christian system of
ethics. The Bible hints at such ideas; St Paul argues
that some morals are known from nature (Romans 1).
Thomas Aquinas: purpose and reason
• In Summa Theologica, Aquinas argues
that natural law resides within the
purpose of nature, created by God.
• It is the destiny of humans to achieve
union with God, and Natural Moral
Law helps them to achieve this.
• Aquinas argues that a very basic law
is evident in nature and known through
reason: “good is to be done and
pursued, and evil is to be avoided. All
other precepts of the law of nature are
based on this.”
Reason and Revelation
God’s law is perceived
in two ways. Firstly,
through revelation (the
Bible) the word of God
is given. This stands in
harmony
with
the
second way of knowing:
what can be discerned
through the proper use
of
human
reason.
Natural Moral Law is a
rational
system
of
ethics, but is supposed
to find agreement with
what is revealed in
Scripture.
For Aquinas, a moral
error is equivalent to
an error in reason. If
one is being truly
rational,
one
will
always discern what is
right. Immoral lives are
irrational
and
contradict the teaching
of the Bible: “to
disparage the dictate
of reason is equivalent
to condemning the
command of God.”
Real and Apparent Goods
Aquinas
assumes
that
human nature is essentially
good. However, if humans all
naturally seek what is good,
then why do they sometimes
choose what is bad? He
solves this problem by
drawing
a
distinction
between ‘real’ and ‘apparent’
goods: what is actually good
and what only seems good.
A moral error involves choosing an
apparent
good,
mistakenly
supposing that it is really good. If I
eat ten hamburgers, I may think it’s
good because I’ll enjoy it. However,
it is not a real good, because rational
reflection will show that it will make
me fat and depressed. The same
would be true for stealing cars,
adultery, etc. They might seem good,
but they’re not.
Interior and Exterior Acts
• As with other deontological theories,
intentions are important in Natural
Moral Law (compare Kant).
• Aquinas described the action itself as
the ‘exterior act’ and the intention as the
‘interior act’, so that both are part of the
ethical action.
• Accordingly, actions are only truly moral
if they are good in both interior and
exterior terms. The ultimate interior
motivation for ethics should be giving
glory to God.
• So, I should not give money to charity
just to make people like me. I should do
it to serve God.
The Primary Precepts
•
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
Aquinas goes on to develop the Five Primary Precepts of
ethics in his Natural Moral Law. Ultimately, these are derived
from his general assumption that humans are naturally
motivated to do good and avoid evil.
Firstly, the most basic and natural good is to seek selfpreservation. This is necessary for all other moral goods.
Secondly, once the human has survived, the next obvious
natural good is reproduction.
Thirdly, once more humans are being born, there is an
obligation to nurture them through education.
Fourthly, given that humans are able to learn, they must then
learn to live together and live in society.
Fifth and finally, since society is established, humans should
turn to their ultimate source and give worship to God.
Secondary Precepts
• From out of the very general commands
of the primary precepts, Aquinas then
allows that secondary precepts will
emerge – more specific rulings or
applications.
• For example, suicide might be
considered wrong because it breaks the
first precept of self-preservation.
• Another example: the modern Roman
Catholic Church has prohibited
contraception on the grounds that it
breaks the precept of reproduction.
Natural Moral Law is still in use in the
world today.
Strengths of Natural Moral Law
• Certainty: Being an absolutist system, it is a
source of clear values and moral certainty.
• Universalism: Its focus on reason allows it
to transcend the differences between
cultures and focus upon common moral
ideas shared by many.
• Purpose: Its emphasis upon the purpose of
humanity gives people structure and
meaning in their lives.
Weaknesses of Natural Moral Law
• No agreed moral law: a relativist
objection. The world is full of different
moralities, not clear and common ethics.
• No such thing as essential human
nature: so argues the philosopher Kai
Neilson. Science gives no justification for
the view that humans have the same
natural inclinations.
• Legalistic morality: the unbending
absolutism of NML means that it is not
understanding of individual circumstances.
Critical Perspectives on Natural Law: James Rachels
The modern moral philosopher James Rachels has
passed critical judgement on Natural Moral Law in his
Elements of Moral Philosophy. Rachels begins by
observing that Natural Law is based upon “a certain
view of what the world is like” – a view which involves
rational order and purpose. If that world-view is
challenged, then Natural Law is challenged. He
observes that Christians (unlike Aristotle) have been
willing to claim that nature even reflects what God has
intended.
For Rachels, Natural Law runs into two key problems.
The first of these is Hume’s “is-ought gap” the view
that what is the case and what ought to be the case are
logically entirely distinct. Natural Law mixes these two
things together by saying that morals are present in
nature. The second problem is the seemingly dated
nature of Natural Law’s outlook (see across); it claims
that the natural world reflects values, but this does not
seem to be granted by modern science.
“The Theory of Natural
Law has gone out of
fashion because the view
of the world on which it
rests is out of keeping
with modern science. The
world as described by
Galileo, Newton, and
Darwin has no place for
‘facts’ about right and
wrong.”
Is it really so far fetched to believe in
universal moral values? What about
the modern idea of universal rights?
Does moral relativism have a better
track record on ethics in our world?
Can science really show that the
idea of Natural Law is dated?
Evaluation Questions
Is Aquinas’ emphasis upon revelation
and experience (as well as reason) a
better form of absolutism than Kant’s
coldly rational deontology? Or, is
Kant’s rationalism more persuasive?
Could the idea of ‘natural’
morality survive if we did not
believe in God?
Is it possible to update this ancient theory,
or get it to change with the times?