AO2

Question 1

5x reasons it does provide a helpful method of moral decision making

Answer 1

1. primary precepts aren’t particularly controversial, they are goods that are valued by all societies, both present and past.
2. PPs leads NML to predominantly be an absolutist ethical theory (universal and unchanging), meaning there is a clarity to its judgements.
3. unlike other absolutist approaches to ethics, there’s some flexibility in terms of the application of SP that may take situation into account. (not all interpretations of NML have always been flexible, eg catholic)
4. NML leads to a belief in certain rights that exist regardless of context, like the value of life, right to education, and living in peace are seen as part of the natural order of the world.
5. NML affirms the importance of reason; humans are made in God’s image and possess the rational capacity to work out right and wrong by observation of the world.

Question 2

6x reasons it does not provide a helpful method of moral decision making

Answer 2

1. linked to first reason it’s helpful, it can be argued that basic goods vary far more across societies than realised. when these are taken to the level of SPs it becomes obvious that there are different attitudes to the value of life, which gods should be worshiped and how many people can be involved in marriages.
2. as an absolutist theory, NML can appear too legalistic and fixed on obeyed rules, particularly when there are very obvious negative consequences. e.g. the spread of HIV / Aids in Africa as a result of catholic teaching opposing contraception. (yet this could be argued as to do with how the theory is interpreted rather than anything to do with the theory itself).
3. NML commits the naturalistic fallacy of observing what happens in the world and assuming this is what must happen, it attempts to define moral values in non moral terms.
4. there’s a tension between clarity of PPs and flexibility of SPs. the catechism doesn’t recognise this difficulty in its claim that the NL is ‘universal in its approach’ and the ‘application of the NL varies greatly’.
5. there’s no proof that following telos is right, existentialists dispute whether humans have any purpose except ones freely chosen themselves. if God doesn’t exist it seems difficult to argue for objective human purpose. Or, what if Aquinas makes a mistake in assuming all humans have the same telos.
6. appears to be a clash of rules. not having children to add to a rapidly growing population is living in a peaceful and ordered society, but goes against reproduction.

Question 3

3x reasons we can judge something as right/ wrong based on whether it achieves its telos

Answer 3

1. if Aquinas is right that there is an essential human nature, then there really is a good for all humans that they should strive towards.
2. while Aquinas supports telos with reason, divine command theory (argues right and wrong based on revealed commands of God) makes a similar point via revelation; bible reveals the ‘plans and purposes that God had for human beings’.
3. without an inherent purpose, morality becomes subjective. telos gives us a built-in standard, every nature has a goal, and actions can be assessed based on how well they align with that goal. e.g. sexuality has the telos of procreation. sexual acts that block this purpose (e.g., contraception) are considered wrong because they intentionally frustrate the natural end. in contrast, actions that align with natural purposes are morally right because they help us fulfill what we are meant to be.

Question 4

4x reasons we cannot judge something as right/ wrong based on whether it achieves its telos

Answer 4

1. Aquinas may be making the mistake of assuming all human beings have the same purposes; it may be possible that each of us have different purposes (as brahmins believe). Aquinas seems to allow this in his recognition that priests who are called to celibacy are exempt from the PP of reproduction.
2. existentialists dispute whether humans have any purpose except the ones they freely choose for themselves. if God doesn’t exist, it seems difficult to argue for the objective human purpose.
3. the scientific theory of evolution seems to suggest that purpose is not a feature of the world, but is rather something that humans project on to the natural world.
4. the idea of telos entails that some things are natural and others are unnatural.

Question 5

4x reasons human nature does have an orientation towards the good

Answer 5

1. stoicism and religious thinkers are able to appeal to the order present in creation- Paley’s arguments in design are examples of this type of approach.
2. Aquinas is right that we do want to live well and we naturally aim for goodness/ happiness. where we miss this, it’s because we are unclear on what goodness is or differ about how to achieve it, but our aim is nevertheless the same.
3. Aquinas’ ideas on NML give a dignity to human beings and places faith in their ability to reason.
4. Aquinas’ claim is merely that human nature contains an orientation towards the good, it doesn’t involve a commitment to humans actually doing more good than evil, nor to incredibly evil acts or cultures occurring infrequently. Aquinas acknowledges that there are many reasons we might fail to do good despite having an orientation towards it. These include original sin, mistakes in conscientia, lacking virtue and a corrupt culture. So, the fact that there is a core set of moral views found cross-culturally shows his theory is correct.

Question 6

4x reasons human nature does not have an orientation towards the good

Answer 6

1. an objection to the orientation of creation towards the good is to reject the teleological view of the universe that comes from the assumption of God. modern evolutionary views suggest that the universe and life on Earth are the result of random chance and do not have ant orientation or goal in mind. Dawkins famously suggests that evolution is a ‘blind watchmaker’.
2. this idea that humans have an orientation towards the good raises issues for some theologians. Augustine argues humans are fallen and affected by original sin. this extends to our ability to make good moral decisions and act upon them. our will is divided. Aquinas recognises this point to some extent but places more emphasis on the image of God, which gives us ‘ratio’ or ability to reason.
3. there is some suggestion that although it’s commendable that Aquinas gives such priority to reason, he is being overly optimistic about what reason can achieve.
4. Aquinas’ view of real and apparent goods could be seen as a little naive. it seems some humans knowingly commit evil actions, and it is mistaken to suggest they are merely pursuing apparent goods. a glance at the days news suggests not all humans have a natural inclination towards good.

Question 7

4x reasons there is a tier of natural law between human and divine

Answer 7

1. Aquinas teaches that Natural Law is our share in the Eternal Law—the rational plan of God. since we cannot fully comprehend the Eternal Law (which exists only in the divine mind), Natural Law serves as a bridge, allowing humans to access God’s order through reason. without an access, how can we follow God?
2. Natural Law is accessible to all people through reason, regardless of religious belief. In contrast, Divine Law (like Scripture) must be revealed. This makes Natural Law a middle tier, allowing all rational beings to know and do good even without revelation.
3. NML is predominantly an absolutist ethical theory (universal and unchanging), meaning there is a clarity to its judgements.
4. Human laws derive their legitimacy from their accordance with Natural Law. if human laws contradict Natural Law, they are unjust and lack moral force.

Question 8

3x reasons there isn’t a tier of natural law between human and divine

Answer 8

1.the “tiers” are conceptual distinctions, not ontological layers. Aquinas distinguishes laws for clarity, not to create a rigid ladder. Eternal Law encompasses everything, and both Natural and Divine Law flow from it. so, categorizing laws as “tiers” is a modern interpretive device, not something Aquinas would endorse as a structural reality.
2. human law and divine are not that different, one is reason and one is revelation but both are sourced from God and rooted in his eternal plan.
3. human law is natural in practice, it seems unnecessary to have natural as a tier in itself.

Question 9

3x reasons primary precepts are ethical

Answer 9

1. primary precepts aren’t particularly controversial, they are goods that are valued by all societies, both present and past. they cultivate virtue and moral maturity, not just rule-following.
2. PPs leads NML to predominantly be an absolutist ethical theory, meaning there is a clarity to its judgements. they help judge right from wrong based on unchanging principles, not emotions or social trends.
3. NML leads to a belief in certain rights that exist regardless of context, like the value of life, right to education, and living in peace are seen as part of the natural order of the world. because they are rooted in human nature, they reflect universal ethical truths.

Question 10

3x reasons primary precepts are not ethical

Answer 10

1. as an absolutist theory, NMLs PPs can appear too legalistic and fixed on obeyed rules, particularly when there are very obvious negative consequences. e.g. the spread of HIV / Aids in Africa as a result of catholic teaching opposing contraception. (yet this could be argued as to do with how the theory is interpreted rather than anything to do with the theory itself).
2. linked to first reason it’s good, it can be argued that basic goods vary far more across societies than realised, and also seems outdated (purpose of sex being reproduction). it becomes obvious that there are different attitudes to the value of life, which gods should be worshiped, homosexuality, and how many people can be involved in marriages.
3. appears to be a clash of rules. not having children to add to a rapidly growing population is living in a peaceful and ordered society, but goes against reproduction.

Question 11

4x reasons primary and secondary precepts are good

Answer 11

1. primary precepts aren’t particularly controversial, they are goods that are valued by all societies, both present and past.
2. PPs leads NML to predominantly be an absolutist ethical theory, meaning there is a clarity to its judgements.
3. unlike other absolutist approaches to ethics, there’s some flexibility in terms of the application of SP that may take situation into account. (not all interpretations of NML have always been flexible, eg catholic).
4. NML leads to a belief in certain rights that exist regardless of context, like the value of life, right to education, and living in peace are seen as part of the natural order of the world.

Question 12

3x reasons PPs and SPs aren’t good

Answer 12

1. linked to first reason it’s good, it can be argued that basic goods vary far more across societies than realised. when these are taken to the level of SPs it becomes obvious that there are different attitudes to the value of life, which gods should be worshiped and how many people can be involved in marriages.
2. as an absolutist theory, NMLs PPs can appear too legalistic and fixed on obeyed rules, particularly when there are very obvious negative consequences. e.g. the spread of HIV / Aids in Africa as a result of catholic teaching opposing contraception. (yet this could be argued as to do with how the theory is interpreted rather than anything to do with the theory itself).
3. there’s a tension between clarity of PPs and flexibility of SPs. the catechism doesn’t recognise this difficulty in its claim that the NL is ‘universal in its approach’ and the ‘application of the NL varies greatly’.
4. appears to be a clash of rules in PPs. not having children to add to a rapidly growing population is living in a peaceful and ordered society, but goes against reproduction.

Question 13

3x reasons there is a moral law of God within human nature that is discoverable by reason

Answer 13

1. Aquinas teaches that Natural Law is our share in the Eternal Law—the rational plan of God. since we cannot fully comprehend the Eternal Law (which exists only in the divine mind), Natural Law serves as a bridge, allowing humans to access God’s order through reason. without an access, how can we follow God?
2. Aquinas is right that we do want to live well and we naturally aim for goodness/ happiness. where we miss this, it’s because we are unclear on what goodness is or differ about how to achieve it, but our aim is nevertheless the same. this is observable, and aligns with God’s revealed morals.
3. Aquinas holds that all rational beings can access Natural Law, even those without religious belief. this universality confirms that reason alone is sufficient to discover the moral law God implanted in human nature.

Question 14

3x reasons there isn’t a moral law of God within human nature that is discoverable by reason

Answer 14

1. though Aquinas believes Natural Law is accessible to reason, he also recognizes that original sin and personal vice can distort our ability to know or apply it correctly. this calls into question whether moral law is truly discoverable in practice, even if it’s theoretically present. Barth recognised dangerous overreliance on human reason. reason is corrupted by original sin, making it unreliable.
2. Aquinas claims the primary precepts of Natural Law are universal, but acknowledges that secondary precepts can be misapplied. if Natural Law is truly discoverable by reason, we would expect widespread agreement on moral norms.
   yet history shows deep moral disagreement (e.g., on slavery, abortion, warfare), even among rational people.
3. Aquinas argues that Divine Law is necessary because Natural Law is not sufficient for salvation or for governing interior acts. if we need Divine Law (Scripture, Revelation) to know certain moral truths, then reason alone is not enough to access the full moral law of God.

Question 15

3x reasons the universe is designed with a telos

Answer 15

1. Aquinas argues that non-rational beings act toward an end or purpose. since they cannot direct themselves, they must be directed by something with intelligence, God. the natural world operates according to consistent laws (e.g., gravity, biology, physics), suggesting that everything in nature is oriented toward specific ends. e.g. acorns grow into oak trees. this purposiveness implies intention.
2. purpose is nonetheless an important part of human life. Polkinghorne argues that science can explain the ‘what’ but not the ‘why’. science investigates what is true of the universe. Polkinghorne claims we do need the concept of purpose, to explain why the universe exists in the way it does. science can’t explain that.
3. without an inherent telos in nature, moral claims lose their foundation—there would be no “ought” in how humans should behave. but if everything has a purpose, then moral norms are rooted in the objective order of creation. the existence of telos gives weight to moral obligations and duties.

Question 16

3x reasons the universe isn’t designed with a telos

Answer 16

1. there’s no scientific evidence for purpose/telos – science can explain everything in the universe, or is at least progressing towards explaining everything, without needing the concept of ‘purpose/telos’. the modern scientific view is that the universe is just composed of atoms and energy in fields of force. There is no space in our scientific understanding of the universe for anything like purpose or telos to exist. Aristotle said an acorn must have the telos of growing into an oak tree. but we now understand thanks to modern science that this can be explained purely through material and efficient causation – the DNA of acorn.
2. Dawkins makes a point that just because it’s possible to ask the question ‘why’, that doesn’t mean there actually is a why.
3. J S Mill says the concept of telos was only relevant in an ancient more barbaric time.
   in Aquinas’ time, having sex outside marriage was often a death sentence because sex led to children, and single mothers struggled to survive. there was a great need for reproduction, because so many children died (explaining ordered society and reproduction). but todays society is different, meaning such telos are outdated. in Aquinas’ time, his reasoning made sense – but that was because of the dire situation society was in.

Question 17

5x reasons the doctrine of the double effect is ethically valid/ good way of justifying moral decisions (can justify killing in self defence)

Answer 17

1. allows some flexibility in an otherwise rigid moral decision making procedure, allowing consideration for clear and basic ethics. an action that produces good and bad effects is permitted provided the intention is the good one.
2. it is a recognition of the complexity of real life situations, acknowledging good actions may have accompanying lesser bad actions. some absolutists such as Kant have no answer for situations where duties clash or competing goods cannot both be achieved. double effect allows sufficient consequential thinking into NML to solve some of the cases.
3. DDE carefully distinguishes between what an agent intends and what is only foreseen as a side effect. this respects the intuition that causing harm intentionally is morally worse than harm that is unintended but unavoidable. it preserves the principle that one should not directly will evil, even if it leads to some good.
4. in cases of suicide to protect others or self defense, you may not be preserving a life directly but you are indirectly.
5. proportionalism (also links to one of 4 considerations).

Question 18

4x reasons the doctrine of the double effect is not ethically valid/ good way of justifying moral decisions (cannot justify killing in self defence)

Answer 18

1. the idea that a bad effect is permitted if its unintended and secondary is difficult to judge. its almost impossible to genuinely judge the intention of a person. it may appear that someone was acting in self defence and that their attacker’s death was an accident, but only they will ever know. in the example of a DR, there’s no difference between the external actions of the one who wishes to relieve pain and the one who wants to kill.
2. it’s difficult to know how far to press the idea of the double effect and which areas it may cover. the use of contraception with the intention of saving a life where HIV is spreading has proved a controversial area in the RC church. there may be other areas where double effect could be applied in order to save life or assist reproduction that may result in a slippery slope.
3. DDE permits actions that cause serious harm or death if that harm is unintended but foreseen. critics argue this undermines the principle of not causing harm, potentially sanctioning morally questionable acts by relying on technicalities about intention. this can lead to morally dangerous loopholes in ethical decision-making.
4. DDE sneaks in a teleological view, which allows for some bad actions, despite Aquinas’ theory being deontological. gains negatives of both types of theory.

Question 18

3x reasons if human nature is sinful, that NML can work

Answer 18

1. PPs leads NML to predominantly be an absolutist ethical theory (universal and unchanging), meaning there is a clarity to its judgements. even with sin, there are set moral guidelines.
2. reason remains intact despite sin. although sin clouds/ weakens reason, it does not completely destroy the human capacity to know Natural Law. Aquinas holds that reason is still capable of discerning basic moral principles, even if imperfectly. therefore, NML is still accessible to guide moral behavior.
3. NML serves as a standard to recognise sin. the existence of sin presupposes a moral standard that it violates. NML acts as the benchmark for recognizing what is sinful or wrong. without NML, we would lack a coherent way to identify sin or moral failure.

Question 19

3x reasons if human nature is sinful, that NML cannot work

Answer 19

1. Aquinas recognizes that original sin and personal vice can distort our ability to know or apply it correctly. this calls into question whether moral law is truly discoverable in practice, even if it’s theoretically present. Barth recognised dangerous overreliance on human reason. reason is corrupted by original sin, making it unreliable.
2. sinful human nature causes societies to create unjust laws and immoral customs that contradict Natural Law. this widespread moral disorder undermines the practical effectiveness of Natural Law as a social and ethical framework. therefore, NML may be ineffective in shaping real-world morality.
3. sin promotes selfishness and subjective preferences, leading to denial or distortion of objective moral laws. cultural and personal sinfulness can foster moral relativism, where NML is ignored or denied.
   this challenges the universality and authority of NML.

Question 20

3x strengths of Aquinas’ 4 tiers of law

Answer 20

1. comprehensive framework covering all moral orders. Aquinas’ model integrates cosmic order (Eternal Law), divine revelation (Divine Law), human nature (Natural Law), and social governance (Human Law) in a unified system. this helps explain how different laws relate and work together.
2. bridges divine authority and human reason. the framework shows how reason (Natural Law) participates in God’s eternal order, making moral law accessible to all rational beings. it balances faith and reason, appealing to both religious and philosophical perspectives.
3. allows for moral absolutes and flexibility.
   Eternal and Divine Laws provide absolute moral truths, while Natural and Human Laws allow for contextual application and adaptation to circumstances. this supports moral consistency without rigidity.

Question 21

3x weaknesses of Aquinas’ 4 tiers of law

Answer 21

1. assumes a theistic framework. Aquinas’ system depends heavily on belief in God and Divine Law. for non-theists or secular societies, the concept of Eternal and Divine Law may lack persuasive force or relevance.
2. potentially overly idealistic about human reason. the framework assumes human reason can reliably discern Natural Law, but human reason is often flawed or influenced by bias and culture. this can limit the practical application of the model.
3. limited guidance on resolving conflicts between laws. the theory provides limited tools for resolving situations where human laws appear to conflict with Natural or Divine Law in complex modern contexts. ( e.g. slavery and civil disobedience and whether it’s morally justified to disobey unjust laws). this weakens its usefulness for contemporary ethical dilemmas.

Question 22

3x reasons Aquinas’ religious development of Aristotle’s concept of telos is strong

Answer 22

1. integrates teleology with Christian theology. Aquinas enriches Aristotle’s telos by connecting it to the divine plan of creation. he argues that the ultimate purpose of all things is grounded in God’s eternal law and will, giving teleology a transcendent and moral dimension beyond Aristotle’s naturalistic view.
2. provides an objective moral framework.
   by rooting telos in God’s design, Aquinas offers an objective basis for moral goodness and evil, rather than relying solely on human or social conventions. this grounds ethics in the fulfillment of God-given purposes, making morality universal and binding.
3. explains human nature’s ultimate end.
   Aquinas extends Aristotle by identifying the ultimate human telos as union with God (beatific vision), not just earthly flourishing or happiness. this elevates human purpose from a purely natural goal to a supernatural destiny, enriching the meaning of life.

Question 23

x reasons Aquinas’ religious development of Aristotle’s concept of telos is poor

Answer 23

1. relies on theistic assumptions not universally accepted. Aquinas bases telos on the existence of God and a divine plan, which is not accepted by non-theists or some modern philosophers. this limits the applicability of his teleology to only those who share his religious beliefs.
2. introduces supernatural ends that are not accessible by reason alone. Aquinas adds the supernatural end of union with God as humanity’s ultimate telos, which cannot be fully grasped through natural reason. this undermines Aristotle’s more empirical and rational approach to purpose.
3. can be seen as overly teleological and deterministic. Aquinas’ view implies everything has a fixed divine purpose, which may conflict with modern understandings of free will, contingency, and evolutionary biology. this makes his teleology feel rigid and less compatible with scientific explanations.