LOA’s

Question 1

Can judgements about something being good, bad, right or wrong be based on its success or failure in achieving its telos?

Answer 1

While success in achieving telos might reflect goodness within the framework of Aquinas’ system, that framework is itself undermined by scientific and moral developments.

Final judgement: No, moral judgements cannot reliably be based on success or failure in achieving telos, because telos is an outdated, unnecessary and inconsistent concept in modern moral philosophy. Better explanations exist that don’t require purpose-based reasoning.

Question 2

Is the universe as a whole designed with a telos?

Answer 2

While Aquinas offers a rich theological framework in which the universe is suffused with divinely designed telos, this view struggles to stand under the scrutiny of modern science, cross-cultural sociology, and secular moral psychology.

Scientific methodology has no need for telos to explain phenomena, and moral diversity suggests human ethics are shaped more by context than by a universal divine plan. Though Aquinas’ theory may still resonate within a faith-based worldview, its explanatory value collapses outside that context.

Therefore, the universe does not appear to be objectively or universally designed with telos — it is more plausible to view telos as a human construct, not a cosmic fact.

Question 3

Does human nature have an orientation towards the good?

Answer 3

Human nature is not inherently oriented towards the good. The idea of a God-given telos is better understood as a projection of Aquinas’ historical and religious context.

Evolutionary psychology, cultural diversity, and the success of scientific models offer stronger explanations of moral development. The orientation to the good is a mythological concept rather than an observable reality.

Question 4

Can the doctrine of double effect be used to justify an action, such as killing someone as an act of self defense

Answer 4

• The Doctrine of Double Effect provides a logically coherent method within Aquinas’ Natural Law for addressing complex moral dilemmas like self-defence.

•	However, its reliance on dubious distinctions (e.g. foreseen vs intended), outdated anthropological assumptions, and deontological rigidity limits its usefulness in contemporary ethical analysis.
•	Proportionalism offers a more realistic, compassionate, and context-sensitive application of moral reasoning—better suited to situations involving moral tragedy and ontic evil.

• Final judgement: Double Effect can be used to justify killing in self-defence within a Natural Law framework, but its philosophical credibility is significantly strengthened when modified by proportionalist reasoning.

Question 5

Does natural law provide a helpful method of moral decision making

Answer 5

Natural Law appears helpful in theory—structured, reason-based, and universal.

But when subjected to modern scientific, psychological, and theological scrutiny, it fails to stand as a reliable or relevant guide to moral decision making. Its appeal depends on accepting assumptions (divine purpose, rational telos) which no longer withstand critical analysis.

Thus, it may still have a role in religious moral formation, but not as a universal or practical ethical method today.