2F - Finnis’ Natural Law and Hoose’s Proportionalism: application of the theory

What are the two instances that the spec requires you to apply Finnis' Natural Law and Hoose's Proportionalism to?

▪ Immigration
▪ Capital punishment

[Finnis] What is the issue with applying Finnis' Natural Law to immigration and capital punishment?

▪ Some basic goods and requirements support and some oppose (some even do both)
▪ Mixed messages ∵ does not give specific ethical guidance

What are the two instances that the spec requires you to apply Finnis' Natural Law and Hoose's Proportionalism to?

▪ Immigration
▪ Capital punishment

[Finnis] What is the issue with applying Finnis' Natural Law to immigration and capital punishment?

▪ Some basic goods and requirements support and some oppose (some even do both)
▪ Mixed messages ∵ does not give specific ethical guidance

[Finnis, Immigration] List, and elaborate upon, the basic goods that support immigration.

▪ Life: Might be saving people from dying e.g. Syria

▪ Knowledge: Could bring knowledge of other countries/cultures

▪ Friendship: Should extend the hand of friendship to all

▪ Aesthetic experience: Wider variety of cultural aesthetic influences e.g. poetry

▪ Religion: Different avenues to answer the ultimate questions

[Finnis, Immigration] List, and elaborate upon, the basic goods that do not support immigration.

▪ Life: The strain on the NHS might endanger others

▪ Friendship: This basic good seems to limit sociability to our friends, not people we do not know

▪ Aesthetic experience: Could erode a cultural identity through forms such as art and poetry

▪ Religion: Could being extremists from other religions

[Finnis, Immigration] List, and elaborate upon, the requirements of practical reason that support immigration.

▪ Life as a whole: Long-term benefit to society - contribute to the workforce

▪ Equality: Basic goods apply equally ∴ should not neglect immigrants

▪ Effort to improve: Being kind by allowing immigration allows you to flourish

▪ Common good: The world = a community; must help others to flourish

[Finnis, Immigration] List, and elaborate upon, the requirements of practical reason that do not support immigration.

▪ Don't harm basic goods: If we allow immigration, we are harming every basic good that doesn't support it

▪ Common good: Possible breakdown in local services due to influx

[Finnis, Immigration] Give a conclusion to the application of Finnis' Natural Law to immigration.

▪ Finnis believes it is our moral (and legal) obligation to follow the law ∵ it creates the best conditions to achieve the common good
- If laws of society reject immigration (e.g Trump administration), we should follow this

▪ Finnis argued that controlled immigration = good ∵ benefits to community outweigh problems (helps people within the community to pursue basic goods)
- But, mass immigration would have the opposite effect ∵ of disruption and breakdown of services

▪ Even the originator of the ethic cannot provide a clear answer

[Finnis, Capital Punishment] List, and elaborate upon, the basic goods that support capital punishment.

▪ Life: So that they cannot murder anyone else (if the criminal was a murderer) and prevent them from pursuing the basic goods

▪ Friendship: If a killer threatened my friend

[Finnis, Capital Punishment] List, and elaborate upon, the basic goods that do not support capital punishment.

▪ Life: Life = important - capital punishment takes that human right away

▪ Friendship: My friend might be a killer

▪ Practical reasonableness: Statistics show that capital punishment does not act as a deterrent ∴ reason suggests that it is wrong

▪ Religion: Most religions teach that it is wrong to kill

[Finnis, Capital Punishment] List, and elaborate upon, the requirements of practical reason that support capital punishment.

▪ Not obsessive: Serial killers = obsessed with killing

▪ Common good: Individuals cannot flourish if they are dead

[Finnis, Capital Punishment] List, and elaborate upon, the requirements of practical reason that do not support capital punishment.

▪ Life as a whole: The criminal may be sorry in the long-run

▪ Prioritise: Prioritise 'life'

▪ Equality: All people have the right to life

▪ Not obsessive: Should not feel the obsessive need for revenge (Jimmy Mizen's parents do not feel that need)

▪ Be good: Goes against basic good of 'life'

▪ Don't harm: Breaking basic good of 'life'

[Finnis, Capital Punishment] Give a conclusion to the application of Finnis' Natural Law to capital punishment.

▪ If a law supports it, accept the law
- But, different outcome in UK & USA
- What about corrupt regimes? Anti-Semitism = legal in Nazi G.)

▪ In 2016, imprisoned criminals cost £1.8 billion (£17,000-61,000 per prisoner)
- Is this not against the common good?

[Hoose] What is one way that proportionalists consider a situation?

▪ To split up all the reasons why breaking the deontological moral rule is theologically justified and why it is not (the value and the disvalue)

▪ Value = all reasons why an evil act can be justified

▪ Disvalue = opposite

[Hoose, Immigration] What did Pope Francis say in 2017 about immigration?

▪ "every stranger who knocks at our door is an opportunity for an encounter with Jesus Christ, who identifies with the welcomed and rejected strangers of every age"

[Hoose, Immigration] What is the default position of proportionalists regarding immigration?

▪ To accept immigration ∵ accept the theological, deontological, moral rule regarding immigration - i.e. to help

- However, due to the moral ambiguity that exists in the world, there are occasions when rejecting immigration may be justified as a 'right act'

[Hoose, Immigration] A country has to decide whether to accept potential immigrants from a war-torn country, but the receiving country is relatively poor.
What is the Christian teaching on morality in this situation?

▪ Catholic theology believes helping immigrants = a good act

[Hoose, Immigration] A country has to decide whether to accept potential immigrants from a war-torn country, but the receiving country is relatively poor.
What is the value (reason for allowing an evil act) in this situation?

▪ The intention of some immigrants may be to bring the war to the new country (breaking the primary precept of 'ordered society' in the case of Aquinas' Natural Law)

▪ This would allow for the potential consequence of violent deaths (breaking 6th Commandment 'Do not murder')

▪ Leader of country may stop immigrants ∵ of agape for their own people, who are already poor and cannot support influx

[Hoose, Immigration] A country has to decide whether to accept potential immigrants from a war-torn country, but the receiving country is relatively poor.
What is the disvalue (reason for not allowing an evil act) in this situation?

▪ Catholic theology would say that not helping the immigrants is a bad act

▪ Intention of helping = to uphold Natural Law precept of 'preservation of life'

▪ Higher chance of reproducing, rather than dying of poverty, famine, disease

▪ Agape: most loving thing to do = support them

[Hoose, Immigration] A country has to decide whether to accept potential immigrants from a war-torn country, but the receiving country is relatively poor.
Give a conclusion.

▪ Disvalue outweighs value ∴ not a proportionate reason to break the theological, moral rule of helping immigrants ∴ not a 'right' act

▪ ∴ if the country did not help, it is a 'bad act'

[Hoose, Capital Punishment] What did Pope Francis say in 2015 about capital punishment?

▪ "Today the death penalty is inadmissible, no matter how serious the crime committed." (although this has not always been the view of the church)

[Hoose, Capital Punishment] What is the default position for proportionalists regarding capital punishment?

▪ To follow Pope Francis' teaching ∵ it is a theological 'bad act'
- However, due to the moral ambiguity that exists in the world, there are occasions when a pre-moral evil could be considered a right act

[Hoose, Capital Punishment] A woman murdered 30 people for no other reason that it gave her pleasure; in prison she killed 3 more, including 2 innocent prison guards.
What is the Christian teaching on morality in this situation?

▪ Catholic theology believes Capital Punishment is a bad act

[Hoose, Capital Punishment] A woman murdered 30 people for no other reason that it gave her pleasure; in prison she killed 3 more, including 2 innocent prison guards.
What is the value (reason for allowing an evil act) in this situation?

▪ Intention of Capital Punishment is to stop the prisoner committing more murders, upholding primary precept of life + 6th Commandment of 'Do not murder'

▪ Consequence = some of the saved lives may reproduce ∴ supporting primary precept of reproduction

[Hoose, Capital Punishment] A woman murdered 30 people for no other reason that it gave her pleasure; in prison she killed 3 more, including 2 innocent prison guards.
What is the disvalue (reason for not allowing an evil act) in this situation?

▪ Breaking 'life' and 6th Commandment - maybe the executioner enjoys killing people ∴ satisfying his non-agape intention

[Hoose, Capital Punishment] A woman murdered 30 people for no other reason that it gave her pleasure; in prison she killed 3 more, including 2 innocent prison guards.
Give a conclusion.

▪ Value outweighs disvalue in this unique situation