Transcript Natural Law
Natural Law
Is there anything that is steady and secure?
Answer: God’s order and eternal plan with the
universe and man’s special place among the
creatures; “a rational animal”.
Implications:
There are some values given in creation: life,
procreation, knowledge and social relations.
Man can through his reasons distinguish between
right and wrong
Case: Cambodia, Ruanda, Darfur,
Zimbabwe, Kosovo…are some recent
examples of countries that have been
threatened by severe oppression and
genocide. Is it morally right for
neighbours to intervene in order to
restore peace?
Case
Morally relevant aspects:
Oppression and poverty – obstacles to life and social relations
The international order – based in a natural order;
preservation of peace
The intention of the intervener?
A possible reasoning:
The choice is between intervention and letting the genocide
continue
If there is a reasonable chance of a successful intervention
and the violence is proportional to the goal, and
If the intention is to restore peace ,
Then, an intervention is morally legitimate.
Thomas Aquinas
1224-1274
Sources: Aristotle “the Philosopher” and
Augustine
Summa Theologica
Teleology: criteria of a right act is the goal
(telos) achieved, but what is the goal?
Development of what is potential; the ends and
purposes that are essential to being human; life,
procreation etc
Eudaimonism: happiness is the ultimate aim for
human life
Theology: the ultimate aim of human life is
knowledge of God
Background: Natural law theory
The four laws:
the eternal law; God’s creation and plan
the natural law; human nature and
practical rationality
the human law; moral and legal rules
the revealed law
The theory of Natural law:
Criteria for a right action? Implications for
moral decision-making?
Two methods to make moral decisions:
To find out what is “natural” – according
to nature (ex prohibition of suicide)
What is according to the common good?
(teleology)
Decision making procedure
The principle of double effect
Act A has both good and bad effects
A is morally right if:
1) the good effects are intended, and
2) the bad is not out of proportion to the
good effects
A patient is in the last stage of his life
because of cancer
He has severe pains
The doctor decides to give morphine to
relieve pain (intention)
The patient dies (not intended but
possible effects)
Is the act right?
Principle of double effect
God
Angels
Man (“ensouled body”)
Animals
Plants
Inanimate things
Human dignity
Soul
animal soul
vegetative soul
Materia
Two points of departure for Evangelical
Protestantism (ex Karl Barth):
◦ A different view of man : man is sinful –
negative anthropology
◦ Moral insights through revelation – not through
nature/reason
“God speaks man
listens
God commands
man obeys”
Karl Barth
Is abortion of a foetus with genetic
disease permitted?
Gods command: Thou should not kill!
The foetus is a human life
Abortion is killing a human life
Abortion is not permitted
Presuppose a controversial assumption:
the existence of God
how do we know what is God’s will?
Denies the communicative character of
morality
Denies the possibility of unity between
Christians and non-Christians
Problems with the divine
command theory