Scholars To Scatter Flashcards
(14 cards)
Aquinas – Natural Law Ethics
Argument:
God created human nature with a telos that orients us toward moral good.
Point:
We know moral law through reason (synderesis), which helps us identify primary precepts like preserving life, reproduction, education, etc.
Example:
Euthanasia goes against preserving life; therefore, it’s wrong.
Challenge/Support:
Modern science suggests no telos exists. Morality may come from evolution and social practicality instead.
Francis Bacon & Sean Carroll – Science Rejects Telos
Argument:
Scientific explanation has no need for ‘purpose’ or telos.
Point: Science understands the universe through material and efficient causes, not final causes.
Example:
An acorn grows into an oak because of DNA, not because it has a ‘goal’.
Challenge/Support:
Polkinghorne argues science explains “what,” but only purpose can explain “why.” Tegmark and Russell argue the “why” might not even exist.
Evolutionary Biology – Morality Explained Naturally
Argument:
Evolution, not divine purpose, explains our moral instincts.
Point:
Empathy and cooperation evolved because they were advantageous in a herd species.
Example:
Caring for others increases survival and reproductive success.
Challenge/Support:
Aquinas would argue evolution describes behaviour, but not why it’s morally good. Still, evolution is a simpler explanation (Ockham’s Razor).
J.S. Mill – Natural Law Is Outdated
Argument:
Natural law reflects outdated medieval socio-economic conditions.
Point:
Its rules were appropriate for Aquinas’ time but no longer make sense today.
Example:
Opposition to homosexuality once aligned with survival needs (e.g., high infant mortality), but that’s no longer the case.
Challenge/Support:
Aquinas would say precepts come from God and can’t be outdated; popular opinion is irrelevant to their truth.
Fletcher – Moral Relativism Across Cultures
Argument:
If natural law were universal, moral agreement would be greater.
Point:
Cultural disagreement shows moral knowledge likely comes from social norms.
Example:
Some cultures permit euthanasia; others don’t.
Challenge/Support:
Aquinas would say moral error comes from original sin. But Freud and Skinner support Fletcher with psychological explanations of moral conditioning.
Freud & Skinner – Morality is Conditioned
Argument:
Morality stems from psychological conditioning, not divine telos.
Point:
Human conscience develops through upbringing and societal influence.
Example:
Children learn not to kill because of conditioning, not divine reason.
Challenge/Support:
Aquinas claims synderesis is built in. But Freud’s theory explains differences in morality more plausibly without invoking God.
Karl Barth – Natural Law is Dangerous
Argument:
Natural law puts too much trust in corrupted human reason.
Point:
We cannot reason our way to knowledge of God or morality.
Example:
Nazi ideology stemmed partly from misuse of reason, showing its dangers.
Challenge/Support:
Aquinas would respond that he never claims to know God’s full nature—only the limited natural law within us. Reason isn’t perfect, but with grace it works.
Ockham’s Razor – Reject Telos
Argument:
Simpler explanations are better unless there’s a reason otherwise.
Point:
Scientific accounts of morality and nature are simpler and more effective than Aquinas’ theory.
Example:
Evolution explains human nature without needing God or telos.
Challenge/Support:
Aquinas offers a deeper metaphysical account, but it’s less parsimonious. So, we are justified in rejecting it.
Dawkins & Russell – Purpose is a Projection
Argument:
Purpose doesn’t exist outside of the human mind.
Point:
Asking “why” something exists doesn’t mean a reason exists.
Example:
The universe may simply be a brute fact.
Challenge/Support:
Polkinghorne believes purpose is essential to explain the “why.” Dawkins replies: not every question must have an answer.
John Paul II – Defends Traditional Natural Law
Argument:
Natural law must be followed regardless of consequence.
Point:
Our telos is to follow God’s moral law, not to flourish or be happy.
Example:
Martyrs chose death over sin – showing obedience is more important than life.
Challenge/Support:
Critics say this ignores real-world suffering. Fletcher’s baby example shows how rigid ethics can cause greater harm.
Polkinghorne – Purpose Is Still Necessary
Argument:
Science doesn’t explain everything – especially meaning.
Point:
Science explains the universe’s structure, but not why it exists or what it’s for.
Example:
A moral universe implies a mind or purpose behind it.
Challenge/Support:
Tegmark and Russell argue science might one day answer this. If not, the universe may have no ‘why’ at all.
Max Tegmark – Future Science Might Explain ‘Why’
Argument:
Purpose is a placeholder for what science doesn’t yet understand.
Point:
Science could eventually explain why the universe exists, without invoking God.
Example:
Advances in cosmology may remove the need for a designer.
Challenge/Support:
Polkinghorne disagrees, but Tegmark’s view aligns with scientific optimism and simplifies our metaphysics.
Hoose – Proportionalism Improves Natural Law
Argument:
Strict adherence to natural law ignores the real world.
Point:
In a fallen world, following precepts can cause more harm than good.
Example:
Killing might be justified if it prevents worse suffering (ontic evil).
Challenge/Support:
JP2 rejects this – our telos is obedience to God, not pragmatic flourishing.
McCormick – Support for Proportionalism
Argument:
The moral value of an action depends on the balance of good and evil it brings.
Point:
Acts like killing aren’t always intrinsically wrong – context matters.
Example:
Killing to save a group of people might be morally justified.
Challenge/Support:
JP2 claims this ignores divine intention. But real moral life includes tragic dilemmas that proportionalism addresses better.
