AO1 Flashcards
(12 cards)
name the aspects of NML
- telos and synderesis rule
- the good
- reason
- primary precepts
- secondary precepts
- four tiers of law
- dode and proportionalism
- sarte’s existentialism
explain ‘telos’
Aristotle and Aquinas argue human beings have a unique telos.
for Aristotle, this is found in rational thought. while we share many features with other creatures (ability to reproduce/ grow/ feel emotion) we’re unique in our ability to reason and reflect. in exercising our reason, we’re flourishing in our community and achieving our telos.
Aquinas develops this. as humans we’re uniquely able to reflect on our moral behaviour and consider whether things we do are good/ bad. for Aquinas the main moral rule is that we ‘do good and avoid evil’ (this is the innate principle of natural disposition directing one towards good and away from evil, the synderesis rule. all other moral rules are taken from this). ultimately, humans using reason can work out what’s good and how to achieve life goals, as we can only be what God meant us to be in another life.
Aquinas believes in reaching eudaimonia (union with God) by following laws/ precepts.
explain Aquinas’ view of reason
reason can help us distinguish between real (satisfy needs) and apparent (satisfy wants) needs, assisting us in acting morally. Aquinas believed humans wouldn’t willingly pursue evil as they naturally strive for perfection. when people choose evil it’s just an error of judgement which has left them following an apparent good.
reason identifies 4 natural/ cardinal virtues: prudence, temperance, fortitude, and justice (bible reveals last 3: faith, hope, charity). Aquinas identifies 7 vices/ cardinal sins: pride, avarice, lust, envy, gluttony, anger, and sloth. we should develop virtues and eliminate vices.
explain primary and secondary precepts
Aquinas believes when we reflect on our telos and understand the key rule (guiding principle- ‘good is to be done and pursued’), there are 5 divisible PPs (descriptive) that help us follow this (self evident, naturally inclined to persue).
1. preservation of innocent life- it’s evident life is important, our own and others, it’s natural and reasonable for a person to be concerned with this.
2. to reproduce- ensure life continues, this is the main purpose of sexual intercourse.
3. education- particularly of the young, it’s natural for humans as intellectual creatures to learn.
4. to live in a peaceful/ ordered society- as social beings it’s good, as its where it’s possible to fulfil our purpose.
5. to worship God- as spiritual beings we should recognise God as source of life and live in a way that pleases him.
these are absolute and universal, but as general statements don’t necessarily tell is exactly how to act.
so Aquinas suggests SPs (prescriptive) are needed, more specific rules deduced from PPs used as guidance. (e.g. killing is wrong because of PP1) PPs are fixed and are what is good for humans, SPs may have some flexibility as we have to consider how PPs are to be applied in each situation.
explain the four tiers of law
Aquinas sees universe as created with a God-given order (order is also seen as the moral law built into universe). he argues there are 4 levels of law.
1. the eternal law- the law as known in the mind of God, his knowledge of right and wrong, the world as his ‘blue print’. Aquinas refers to effects of eternal law in terms of moving all things towards their end and purpose; Gods wisdom is reflected in his creation. these are moral truths we, at human level, may be unable to fathom. we are to figure out God’s will, not instruction, and act upon it. if something fulfills it’s purpose it’s following eternal law.
2. the divine law- guidance towards eternal. the law revealed by God through commands/ bible and teachings. through revelation, e.g. in scripture (10 commandments, moral teachings of Jesus like the sermon on the mount). the emphasis is on the spirit of the law, not list of rules. Aquinas primarily believes law is rational rather than revealed, believes DLs revealed by God are reasonable (we could work them out as it’s what our natural reason is capable of knowing).
3. natural law- the moral thinking we’re all able to do, whether or not we’ve had divine revelation of scripture (‘right reason in accordance with nature’). all humans have capacity (given by God) to consider and work out moral rules necessary for achieving our purpose, these transcend time and culture. this involves a rational reflection on our human nature, considering how we might follow synderesis rule and working out SPs for situations. (can be known through revelation- bible or human reason- obeying based on moral compass).
4. human law- customs and practices of a society, devised by govs and societies. arises from the fact that as social animals we need regulations to function cooperatively. ideally, gov laws should be based on what we reason from natural law. if they weren’t aligned, Aquinas said ‘subjects are not obliged to obey them’. human law introduces SPs.
Aquinas sees relationship between these 4 as hierarchal, other laws ultimately rely on eternal law.
explain interpreting the natural law
Aquinas’ use of PP and SPs can be viewed in different ways. for Aquinas, SPs are possible applications rather than hard fast rules.
1. one interpretation is Catholic church (particularly manualists) who have made quite fixed SPs (e.g. rejection of all artificial contraception). this view is often seen as rigid/ outdated.
2. thinkers who go back to Aristotle, who see the aim of human beings as eudaimonia. his virtue ethics argue we have to develop good character traits to enable us to fulfil our function and reach eudaimonia. in the same way telos (based on our ability to reason) makes us fully human.
3. modern NL thinkers (like john Finnis) have developed ideas based on Aquinas and Aristotle. Finnis is interested in NL as an ethical theory and a philosophy of law. he uses Aristotle’s idea of phronesis (practical wisdom/ reasoning) to suggest there are certain basic goods of human flourishing (knowledge, play, friendship etc). from these, more specific rules can be put forward such as pursuing basic goods for all. he argues all though we should think about consequences, ends don’t justify means.
compare Aquinas and telos to sarte’s existentialism
- Aquinas and telos- he believes there is a fixed human nature, we are made in the image of God and have a clear purpose/ telos. Aquinas and Aristotle are ‘essentialists’, there is something that it is to be human that we cannot change. this is that we aim to fulfil the PPs and it’s morally right for us to do so, its built into our human nature.
- in contrast to essentialist is existentialist view (stresses uniqueness of each individual by arguing existence comes before essence). Sartre is an associated thinker, view is that objects may have a fixed nature as they’re made this way, but humans are fundamentally different. Sartre believes humans could only have telos if made by God, but as an atheist concludes we came into existence first then decided ourselves what our essence is. Sartre argues we have a tendency to deny our freedom and behave as if we were mere objects, our essence is not fixed we can change.
what are interior and exterior acts
distinction between the two helps understand the double effect. for Aquinas a good act must have a good motive (interior) as well as being a good action as viewed on the outside (exterior).
both are important, good I cant make bad E good, unless DDE applies. acts are either intrinsically good or bad.
explain the double effect
put forward by scholars other than Aquinas, doctrine of double effect covers areas where an action may produce several effects: some good and some bad. Aquinas looks at the difference between the external act (what happened) and internal (motive), what matters is which effect is intended (as NL focuses on internal over external rules). DDE proposes it’s wrong to do a bad act for good consequences but it can be permissible to do a good act despite knowing of bad consequences (self defence).
an act is morally acceptable and is in line with DDE if it fulfills 4 principles: act must be good, act must come about before consequence, good intention, for serious reasons.
he illustrates this with the example of self defence. If you intend the good effect, you are not held responsible for the secondary bad effect. yet, individual must ‘repel force with moderation’, use appropriate force. the response must be proportional.
(‘Nothing hinders one act from having two effects, only one of which is intended… Accordingly the act of self defence may have two effects: one the saving of one’s life; the other, the slaying of the aggressor.. therefore this act, since one’s intention is to save one’s life, is not unlawful’).
case study: Richard Osborn-brooks who unintentionally killed intruder with a screwdriver bought by the intruder, after a struggle. (in the home of his dementia riddled wife). charges were dropped but he now lives under police protection.
explain the application of double effect
- abortion- if a woman’s life is at risk if pregnancy continues, an operation to save her life is permitted in spite of the consequences to foetus. the action (operation) has the intention of saving mother’s life (intended good effect) and the secondary effect is ending the life of the foetus (unintended bad effect).
- euthanasia- dr attempting to treat patient gives a large dose of painkillers (action) which relieves pain (good intention) but runs the risk of causing death of patient (bad effect). if patient dies Dr hasn’t done anything wrong.
what is proportionalism
evaluate it
ethical theory between teleological and deontological ‘there are certain moral rules’ and that ‘it can never be right to go against these rules unless there is proportionate reason which would justify it.’ (based on context). believes no action is intrinsically bad.
to think using proportionalism: consider intention, proportion value and disvalue of act, then see whether or not disvalue overrides intention and value.
evaluation: + other successful theories such as JWT have stemmed from it + based on common sense + used in any situation + been around a long time, so is robust - catholic church rejects, pope john Paul II ‘some actions are intrinsically evil’ - calculating dis/ value is teleological, but we can’t predict the future, so this is moral guess work.
explain natural law and ‘the good’
NL thinkers, Aquinas, believe the whole of creation is ordered by God and is orientated towards the good. this claim is based on the Greek background to NL.
- Stoicism- the orientation of creation: stoic philosophers viewed the world as an ordered place, God created it and left within it the ‘logos’ or divine reason. the divine spark is within each of us, so the reasonable response of humans toward the ordered universe is to live an ordered life of virtuous actions (right actions= those we are able to rightly reason). NL has been suggested as ‘right reason in accordance with nature’, applying even if govs changed them, and in any location.
- Aquinas- the orientation of human beings: takes OoC insights and Aristotle’s view the universe is drawn towards prime mover and fuses them with Christian thought. people are created in the image of God, with the ability to reason. the synderesis principle suggests we are directed to persue good and avoid evil, so the ability to achieve good is within each of us if we reason correctly. this leads Aquinas to follow Socrates in the suggestion no one ever deliberately does a wrong action. they make a reasoning error in perusing an apparent good (mistaken for RG) rather than a real good (actions which are actually good and consistent with the moral principles of NL). (e.g. pleasure is an apparent good, you may make mistakes in an attempt to gain this).
