Natural Law Flashcards
(33 cards)
1
Q
give an outline/definition of natural law:
A
- natural law is the moral law of God which has been built into human nature, and this is discoverable through the use of reason
- ST PAUL says it’s the “laws written on our hearts”
- everyone has a sense of good and evil, and we simply need to use our reason to explore and understand human nature
- this theory was put forward by ARISTOTLE, but championed by THOMAS AQUINAS
- it’s a deontological theory, looking at the intent behind an action and the nature of the act itself, not it’s outcomes
- man desired happiness, but for AQUINAS this means fulfilling our purpose, our “telos”
- in SUMMA THEOLOGICA, he said “whatever man desires, he desires it under the aspect of good”
- the catholic church still bases much of its teachings on this theory
2
Q
what is “telos”?
A
- a “telos” is an end, purpose or goal
- natural law is based on ARISTOTLE’S idea that everything has a purpose, revealed in it’s design, and that the fulfilment of the telos is the supreme good to be sought
3
Q
what does NL say about morality?
A
- NL doesn’t argue that morality should be based on reason alone, but that human reason (given by God) was a starting point for morality
- therefore, morality should be known primarily through reason reflecting on human nature
4
Q
what did ARISTOTLE believe about our purpose in life?
A
- he believed our purpose in life was to seek happiness, the ideal life (known as EUDAIMONIA)
- we can do this by flourishing as a human being and living a virtuous life: and to know how to do this, we must use our reason
5
Q
what is ARISTOTLE’S efficient cause?
A
- the means to an end, what we do to achieve something
- for example, if we want a seed to grow we plant it in soil and water it
6
Q
what is ARISTOTLE’S final cause?
A
- the end in itself, the “telos”
- this is what should happen if we do the right things
- for example, a seed will grow if we plant it in soil and nurture it
- with humans, it’s the accomplishment of the end product that equates to “good”
7
Q
what did ARISTOTLE say about reason?
A
- he says that the “inner principle” of human nature is reason
- the human ability to reason is the driving force of human development and action: it’s what separates us from animals
8
Q
explain “goodness as fulfilment of purpose”:
A
everything has some final meaning and purpose, and this is what determines its “good”
9
Q
what did AQUINAS think was the purpose/goal of human life?
A
- as AQUINAS believed in God, he disagreed that the goal of human life was ARISTOTLE’S eudaimonia,
as he believed this wasn’t attainable in this life - humans were made in the image of God, so we must strive to develop this image to reach perfection
- this perfect happiness isn’t possible in this life, but happiness begins now and continues in the next life
- we attain this perfection by living a moral life: this is how we fulfil our purpose
- by reaching moral perfection, we will attain union with God
“our ultimate end is unrelated good, namely God, who alone can fill our will to the brim because of infinite goodness”
10
Q
how did AQUINAS believe we could know how to live a moral life and so be united with God?
A
- we use our reason excellently to reflect on what we see in human nature (God’s creation), and this will give us a moral code to live by: this is natural law
- God’s law is evident in nature, especially human nature
11
Q
what are the 4 tiers of law?
A
- eternal law
- divine law
- natural law
- moral law
12
Q
what is eternal law?
A
- eternal law is the principles by which God made and controls the universe and which are only fully known to God
- humans can occasionally glimpse reflections of it: we have a partial understanding of aspects of the natural world through scientific knowledge
13
Q
what is divine law?
A
- divine law is the law of God revealed in the Bible, particularly in the 10 commandments and the sermon on the mount
- the Bible is the word of God
- it partially reflects ETERNAL law but it can only be seen by those who believe in God
14
Q
what are the 5 primary precepts?
A
- Preservation of life
- Reproduction
- live in an Ordered society
- Worship God
- Learn - educate the young
15
Q
what is the synderesis rule?
A
“do good avoid evil”
16
Q
what are the secondary precepts?
A
- these derive from the primary precepts and direct our actions
- pp’s are always right, but sp’s are dependent on our own judgements of what to do, so are open to faulty reasoning
- they require experience, the use of reason and the exercise of wisdom
17
Q
what is an apparent good?
A
an apparent good is something we think is good, but isn’t - meaning we have reasoned incorrectly
> e.g. someone commits adultery because they believe it is good as they do it out of love, but this is an error of reason
18
Q
how do we do real good?
A
we can do real good by using our reason excellently to reflect on human nature
19
Q
what is the interior act?
A
the interior act is the intention behind the act
20
Q
what is the exterior act?
A
the exterior act is the act itself
21
Q
give an example of interior/exterior acts:
A
giving to a charity to look good: the interior act is wrong, and the exterior act is good - but overall, it isn’t morally good
22
Q
what is the doctrine of double effect?
A
- the doctrine of double effect says that it is always wrong to do a bad act intentionally in order to bring about good consequences, but it is sometimes necessary to do a good act despite knowing it will bring about an unintended bad consequence
- however, these consequences must only be unintended side effects
- according to NL, it’s our intentions that are important, not the unintended consequence of our actions
23
Q
what are the 4 conditions required in the principle of double effect?
A
- the act must not be evil in itself
- the evil and good that come from the act must be at least equal, and preferably the good must outweigh the evil
- the intention of the agent must be good
- a proportionately serious reason must be present to justify allowing the indirect bad effect
24
Q
give arguments to suggest that natural law provides a helpful method of moral decision making:
hints:
- guidelines
- absolutist
- reason
- final
- christians
- goods
A
- it gives clear guidelines for living and an absolute answer when tackling moral dilemmas, e.g. abortion
- absolutist rules make decision making easier than with a subjective, relativist approach
- allows us to use our human reason to work out a universal set of rules: human reason is a faculty common to all humans, no matter the faith, so it allows us to have a moral understanding of what’s evident in human nature
- aims to help humans reach final cause (human flourishing in this life and union with God in the next)
- for Christians, helps to make moral decisions about issues not in the Bible (IVF)
- recognises the importance of the interior act
- ideas on real/apparent goods explain why we make mistakes (inaccurate reasoning), so NL helps us to reason accurately (we act with the intention of fulfilling our purpose)
- DofDE allows actions to be carried out based on a good motive
25
give arguments to suggest that NL doesn't provide a helpful method of moral decision making:
hints:
- legalistic
- evident
- no guidance
- homosexuals
- new developments
- more purposes
- naturalistic fallacy
- too legalistic+inflexible, many want morality to be more person-centred rather than focusing on the act
- do we all share a common human nature?
- is there a common natural law that's self evident? many argue the different moral standards across cultures challenges this idea
- although AQUINAS said the 2nd precepts can change in certain cases, he doesn't give guidance about what is changeable, so it can therefore be accused if being impossibly too subjective (VARDY+GROSCH suggest it becomes a type of proportional situationism)
- unfair to homosexuals
- out of date, doesn't take into account new developments (fertility treatment), these developments can be seen as an example of man using reason excellently
- moral rules about sex too narrow+strict: human inclination is to reproduce, but human sexuality has more than 1 purpose
- rules don't truly reflect human nature (AQUINAS is accused of viewing humans as a fragmented collection of parts rather than a psycho-physical whole (e.g. sex can be for pleasure)
- naturalistic fallacy: you cannot make an ought from an is. The idea we can extract moral rules from generalisations about human nature is too optimistic, so this calls into question the absoluteness and rightness of the primary precepts
26
support the view that human nature has an orientation towards the good:
- we aren't slaves to our passions and usually strive to control them so hurt is avoided and good is achieved (syneresis rule)
- rules are welcomed+respected by most humans as a means of helping us to achieve happiness, which is what we pursue naturally in life
- even DAWKINS suggests we have evolved with a natural genetic tendency to be altruistic, he calls this a "lust to be nice"
- we seem to share a common morality that crosses boundaries, e.g. to protect life
27
argue against the view that human nature has an orientation towards the good:
hints:
- rosy
- pollution
- pleasure
- optimistic
- mistaken
- fall
- corrupted
- such a view is too rosy: philosopher THOMAS HOBBES, who lived through the English civil war and saw many be murdered, saw human nature as dangerous: and to survive, perhaps human nature needs to be limited, as if it was allowed to do what comes naturally, it would be destructive
- our development is leading to damage in the natural world, e.g. pollution: this damage is having dire effects on poorer countries, so how can this be seen as an orientation towards the good?
- AQUINAS' idea we have a natural inclination towards the good can be challenged, as maybe it's just an urge towards self-preservation or pleasure
- AQUINAS was too optimistic (plenty of evidence to suggest not everyone is naturally inclined towards the good, and not everyone has the powers of reason necessary to correctly apply NL)
- AQUINAS believed when people act immorally this is because they mistakenly think they're doing the wrong thing: this isn't always the case as most of us have done something we knew to be wrong, but we did it anyway
- some critics within the church say AQUINAS didn't pay enough attention to the fall: sin has made it impossible for people to have a reliable understanding of God's intentions for us, so reason isn't enough as we need to rely on the Bible
- AQUINAS didn't consider the view that the human race was corrupted, instead he thought that human nature was a reasonable guide to what human nature should be, since it was created by God
28
support the view that a judgement about something being good/bad/right/wrong can be based on its success or failure in achieving its telos:
- ARISTOTLE'S idea that good is fulfilment of purpose is an attractive idea: if a good knife is one that cuts well, he suggests a good person is one that fulfils its purpose of happiness, achieved through living a moral life
29
argue against the view that a judgement about something being good/bad/right/wrong can be based on its success or failure in achieving its telos:
hints:
- tools
- outcomes
- majority
- sexual ethics
- Bible
- different purposes
- can we use the same thinking we use for a tool for a human? we are rational and autonomous, so different from tools
- moral decisions involve many things, and we usually act in moral situations in a way that intends to bring the best outcomes for the situation, not a long term desire to achieve our telos, so ideas about good and bad might be seen by the relativist as subjective and based on the situation
- utilitarian says something is good if it makes the majority happy
- telos is unhelpful with sexual ethics: certain acts are prohibited by catholic church as they cannot result in new life, so are seen to be against the telos of sex, so against the moral order
- idea of one common purpose applying to everyone isn't supported by the Bible, e.g. God tells Jeremiah his purpose is to be a prophet, yet Mary's purpose is to be the mother of God - showing that God can have different plans/purposes for different people
- NL suggests we have many different purposes to fulfil so this could create dilemmas (e.g. choosing between education and having children)
30
support the view that the universe as a whole is designed with a telos:
- NL suggests that everything that has been created has fixed, unchanging ends, and that the universe has been designed by God
- why did God create the earth? What is the future of the earth/universe for religious people? Is the earth moving towards the good by fulfilling its potential or is something preventing this from happening?
31
argue against the view that the universe as a whole is designed with a telos:
- does the world have intention+design behind it? many see nature as less ordered than NL suggests
- many believe scientific theories have no need for a creator God
- the idea that there is one ideal view of human nature/ nature as a whole existing within God's mind and being created by God is challenged by DARWINS+DAWKINS
- DARWIN'S ideas of natural selection+survival of the fittest give a full account of why there is design
> supported by DAWKINS, who suggests the idea of design doesn't lie within a deity's mind, but design in the world is continually evolving
32
support the idea that the doctrine of double effect can be used to justify an action:
- AQUINAS was concerned about human intentions: everyone knows their own motivation. It's impossible to judge from the outside, we may doubt a persons motives, but we cannot know them
- some actions are complex and produce several effects, some good/some bad: for AQUINAS, what matters is which effect is intended (self defence example)
- the double effect doctrine is seen as helpful by some for dealing with difficult decisions: it allows us to distinguish between intentions and actions that take place
33
argue against the idea that the doctrine of double effect can be used to justify an action:
- some see these distinctions as implausible: deontologists who focus on acts can't accept that an act to save a life involves taking a life, they say there can only be one intention
> this is seen as just bypassing the prohibition on killing
> this is seen as a weakness of NL as it involves the use of dubious judgement
- there is a difficulty in judging 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
