Natural law (old).

Define telos.

-Purpose, the idea that everything has a purpose or aim.

Define eudaimonia.

-Flourishing & living well. The ultimate end all actions should lead towards.

What 2 things did Aristotle believe in?

-Universe & everything in it has a telos from his theory of the 4 causes.

-The telos of humans is eduaimonia.

-Eduaimonia requires a life with not only pleasure, but participation in society & develop academically as philosophers.

What do stoics believe in?

-The world is an ordered place arranged by nature or God in the best way.

-A divine spark within us enables us to reason & understand the universe.

-Human happiness & a good life comes from the acception of the natural order of things & live by nature's rules.

-Rationalistic views.

-We should accept what the universe sends our way without complaining.

What is Aquinas’ natural law?

-Telos= Humans have a purpose or end.

-Reason= The world is ordered & rational, we have the capacity given by God to understand it.

-Nature= We have a human nature & it’s important to do what fits with our nature.

What are Aquinas' four tiers of law?

-Eternal Law.

-Divine Law.

-Natural Law.

-Human Law.

What is Eternal Law?

-Law known in the mind of God - his knowledge of right & wrong.

-These are moral truths we at a human level are unable to fathom.

-However God has given the ability to reason to work out some of its application to human life.

What is Divine Law?

-Law revealed by God through the commands & teachings through revelation.

-10 commandments & moral teachings of Jesus.

-These laws revealed by God are reasonable & we could work them out.

What is Natural Law?

-Moral thinking that we’re all able to do whether or not we had the divine revelation.

-All humans have the capacity to consider & work out the moral rules necessary for achieving our telos.

-Involves a rational reflection on our human nature & consider how we might ‘do good & avoid evil’.

What is Human Law?

-Customs & practices of a society.

-Devised by governments & societies.

-Ideally should be based on what we reason from Natural Law.

-Aquinas argues laws are only just if they are based on Divine & Natural Law.

-To break a human law that wasn’t based on Divine or Natural law would be illegal but not immoral.

Define Synderesis.

-Inner principle directing a person towards good & avoid evil.

What are primary precepts?

-Helps us identify our God-Given purposes in life.

-By fulfilling these precepts we’re fulfilling our telos.

What are the 5 primary precepts?

-W= Worship God.

-O= Order in society.

-R=Reproduce.

-L= Learn.

-D= Defend the innocent.

What are secondary precepts?

-General statements about what’s good for humans.

-Specific rules that can be deduced from primary precepts.

-For Aquinas secondary precepts are possible applications rather than hard & fast rules.

Define a real good.

-Something that is good according to natural law & helps the person achieve their telos.

Define an apparent good.

-A mistake that doesn't help the person achieve their God-given purpose.

What are the strengths of Natural Law?

-NL offers clarity & firm moral principles unlike other theories which can be seen as absolutist.

-The primary precepts are mostly agreed on as desirable goods in human life.

-NL isn’t as rigid & absolutist as it might appear. The secondary precepts are intended to be reasoned within the context of a society & thus theres some flexibility based on time & place.

-NL values life & values rights. It holds that life is intrinsically valuable regardless of its usefulness.

What are the weaknesses of Natural Law?

-The focus on ‘law’ & working out rules which are at the heart of this system is overly legalistic. It means in some circumstances humanity & respect for ppl are lost.

-NL may be seen to be a little outdated. Society has moved on & more legalistic interpretations particularly around homosexuality & contraception, both of which prevent reproduction, seem out of step with the modern world.

-Aquinas’ view of real & apparent goods could be seen as naive. Some humans knowingly commit evil actions & suggesting they are merely pursuing apparent goods is mistaken. A glance at day’s news suggests not all humans have a natural inclination towards the good.

What are issues with the idea of telos?

-NL may be wrong to assume theres a universal telos for human beings.

-The idea that telos is natural. If natural means in accordance with our nature then a gay person might be right to claim homosexuality is natural to them & that heterosexuality is unnatural. Yet if individuals had different telos then theres no reason to suppose there’s just one way of life that is natural.

-NL commits the naturalistic fallacy. It’s guilty of observing what commonly happens in nature & then arguing this is what must happen. This would be like observing the shape of human teeth & concluding they’re well-designed for eating meat. Then claiming it’s morally wrong to just eat vegetables.

-The biggest issue with telos is that there may not be a telos or purpose at all. Jean Paul Sartre argue theres no ultimate purpose to human life. Unlike objects which have a maker who plans their purpose before they are made, we exist first & then we’re free to choose whatever purposes we see fit, if at all. For Sartre, if Atheism is true then there can be no ultimate purpose.

-It would seem that the idea of telos is linked to the idea of a creator God. If there’s no God, there can be no telos.

What are the arguments for natural law being a helpful method of decision making?


-A belief in natural law doesn't require a belief in God, as the laws are obvious to reason with & can be worked out.

-Within every sane person there is an inclination to do good & avoid evil.

-5 Primary Precepts apart of NL are things which will help society & flourish & help us live in harmony, reach our telos & a state of eudaimonia. The Secondary Precepts help adapt the Primary Precepts to certain situations, while still following NL- allowing flexibility in Aquinas’ theory.

-Gives rules that arent swayed by emotion, humans always try & do the right thing, ignoring emotions that may interrupt moral decision making.

-Treats ppl as mature ppl who are able to be rational & reflect on moral problems.

-Aristotle & Aquinas would argue that NL uses practical reason; it is a common-sense approach. This means that NL is an ethical approach that is available to all human beings. This reason is God-given & should be used.

-NL is an objective moral law which means it gives us rules that are true independent of our own thoughts & desires. This means that our decisions will not be swayed by emotion. It is a theory based on the use of reason. Aquinas believes God has given us the ability to reason to support decision making.

-Aquinas' use of secondary precepts means that NL ethics are flexible bc they are the practical working out of universal primary precepts. For example, 'Do not steal' may go against the primary precept of 'living in an orderly manner' but if it were to feed a starving child then it would be accepted as it 'preserves innocent life'.

-NL is based on synderesis which is the basic principle of 'doing good & avoiding evil'. Humans do tend to agree that there is some form of NL. Things that we would all consider to be good, bad, right & wrong. There seems to be a universal recognition of morality. Every sane & rational person would recognise & agree that certain things are good & others bad.

-Aquinas' primary principles make NL clear & easy to apply. For example, it seems quite clear that abortion is wrong bc it doesn't preserve innocent life & prevents reproduction to continue the species. The primary precepts offer a clear set of guidelines which can be used to make reasonable rules which lead to moral decision making.

-Aquinas' principle of double effect provides flexibility based on 'good reasoning'. As long as we act with the right intention & make all efforts to do good & avoid evil then certain actions are acceptable such as killing in self-defence.

What are the arguments against natural law being a helpful method of decision making?


-Despite how Aquinas says everyone has the same NL within them, not everyone has the same fixed nature bc what is morally right for someone, may be diff for everyone else. Look at slavery, everyones NL within them led them to believe it was morally okay as it had been corrupted by societal norms.

-Despite how NL is unchanging, our human interpretation of NL is often flawed, showing humans lack the capacity to fully understand/use a complex theory.

-NL theory is outdated, not everyone follows the Primary Precepts as not everyone wants to reproduce which is what Aquinas said every human has the inclination to do.

-G.E Moore puts forward the naturalistic fallacy. He accuses NL of being far too simplistic - humans don't have a single 'fixed' human nature which means that we don't have an agreement on what is right & wrong. Goodness isn't a natural property.

-If NL is universal & based on an unchanging moral law then why have we made so many mistakes through the centuries? For example, slavery & apartheid were considered right by reason of NL & we now look upon these acts as completely immoral. How has our reason been so wrong?

-Kai Nielson argues against Aquinas' idea that there is a fixed human nature & NL. Human nature seems to change which leads to the debate over what is & what is not natural. It was once accepted that homosexuality wasn't natural but this idea has now been challenged. Can human nature then be an effective way of making moral decisions?

-NL seems out of date & not consistent with 21st century society. A law that is based on divine laws can enforce traditional views which means that attitudes to homosexuality are out of touch which modern attitudes. Teleological approaches to ethics provide a more liberal approach to ethics as they assess the rightness or wrongness of an action on its outcome.

-NL isn't as flexible as teleological ethics - Joseph Fletcher would argue that SE is a far better approach as it is relative to the situation. Jeremy Bentham would argue that utilitarianism seems stronger as it isn't absolute & allows ethical decisions to be made on what is best in the circumstances & what the best outcome will be.

-Karl Barth has criticized NL on the basis that is relies too much on human reason. In a similar approach to Augustine, Barth argues that humans are too ‘‘corrupted’’ to be able to apply reason morally. Barth would argue that humans should use divine revelation as a clearer source of ethics.

Define the Doctrine of Double effect.

-An action with both a good and a bad effect is morally permissible if the good effect is intended & the bad effect isn't.

What are the arguments for the Doctrine of Double Effect justifying an action?

-Thomas Aquinas argues that an act such as killing someone in self-defence is acceptable: ‘‘Therefore, this act, since one’s intention is to save one’s own life, is not unlawful, seeing that is natural to everything to keep itself being’’.

-The doctrine of double effect also provides a guide. The 4th condition about proportionality means that taking a life in self-defence is acceptable unless a person uses more than necessary violence. ‘‘If a man in self-defence uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful’’.

-Philosopher Joseph Magnan agrees with Aquinas’ view of proportionality. Killing in self-defence is acceptable if there is a grave enough reason for permitting the evil affect. For example, if a person broke into your house with a gun & begain firing bullets towards you and ur family members then this would seemingly be a grave enough reason. Aquinas argues that the principle of double effect can be used in this circumstance & it wouldn’t be a mortal sin.

What are the arguments against the Doctrine of Double Effect justifying an action?

-St Augustine maintained that killing in self-defence was not permissible unless the person was a soldier. Augustine is saying that there is a danger in a rule like the double effect bc it may justify any action that we personally deem necessary.

-We are responsible for all the anticipated consequences of our actions. If we can foresee the 2 effects of our action we have to take the moral responsibility for both effects - we can’t get out of trouble by deciding to intend only the effect that suits us.

-The intention is irrelevant. Some people take the view that it’s sloppy mentality to decide the rightness or wrongness of an act by looking at the intention. Immanuel Kant argues that some acts are objectively right or wrong & that the intention of the person who does them is irrelevant.

-The 9th Century Pope Nicholas I said that ‘‘no man may lawfully take another’s life in self-defence in order to save his own life’’. This would be classed as a mortal sin. The principle of double effect shouldn’t be used as a justification for ending a person’s life.

The universe as a whole is designed with a telos & human nature has an orientation towards the good.

-Yes it appears logical - the idea of cause, effect & purpose seems a logical argument. This is bc we experience the concept of cause & effect in the world. Thomas Aquinas said we can, from experience, trace our own cause. He also rejects the concept of infinite regress which means that the world must also have a cause.

-Humans agree we have a purpose - many argue that everything that is caused has a purpose. For example, the work of Aristotle & the 4 causes clearly shows that non-living things have a purpose. We can also apply purpose to living things too e.g. plants & animals provide sustenance in the natural cycle. If we accept that these living things have a purpose then we cannot accept that humans also have a purpose.

-Our purpose is Eudaimonia - human nature does tend to agree that happiness (eudaimonia) is the desired end for humans. The fact that we act normally & try to achieve happiness through virtous acts gives evidence that humans try to fulfill their purpose in life in how they act to other people.

-Natural law - humans do tend to agree that there is some form of natural law. Things that we would all consider to be good, bad, right & wrong. There seems to be a universal recognition of morality. Every sane & rational person would recognise & agree that certain things are good & others bad.

The universe as a whole isn’t designed with a telos & human nature does not have an orientation towards the good.

-Evolution & natural selection - the overwhelming evidence for evolution & natural selection provides clear evidence that morality & human life has no other purpose than survival. Humans will do all they can to continue their existence & morality is something that has developed in order to prolong our existence e.g. we act morally as we live in groups as we survive better with the support of others.

-David Hume & Bertrand Russell - the universe is a ‘brute’ fact. There is no supreme being behind it, it doesn’t have a purpose & our existence is purely a chance event.

-Coincidence - ‘‘the universe exists for itself, without cause or purpose. Nothing existed before it that could’ve been its cause. Nothing exists outside it that could be the source of its purpose’’. If we accept this quote then we can also accept that cause is something that humans apply to certain events when in fact they could simply be coincidence.

-Is there really a telos for everything or are we just looking for something that isn’t there? Are humans desperately hoping to find a purpose when in fact we should just accept that we are born, we live & we die?

-Humans don’t always do good & avoid evil - Natural Law is universal & based on an unchanging moral law then why have we made so many mistakes through the centuries? For example, slavery & apartheid were considered right by reason of Natural Law & we now look upon these acts as completely immoral.

Summarise Natural Law.

-There is an order to the universe & all things are better when they act according to this order or purpose.

-Although NL doesn't have to be seen as a religious theory, its key thinker Thomas Aquinas proposes a Christian theory of NL which has become its most famous version.

-Aquinas' version has been interpreted by Catholic Christians through the centures to be an absolute & deontological ethic although it can be argued theres some flexibility in Aquinas' own version.