Natural law flashcards.

How does Natural Law link human morality to the idea of purpose within the universe?

-Natural Law says the universe isn’t random - it has a built-in purpose, set by God.

-Since humans are part of this natural order, we also have a purpose that’s the same for everyone.

-Acting morally means choosing actions that move us closer to that purpose.

-People often link this idea back to Aristotle, who believed everything has an end goal built into its nature.

Why does Aristotle think all 4 causes are needed to fully explain the nature of something?

-Aristotle said everything can be fully explained using 4 causes.

-Material cause – what something is made of.

-Formal cause – its shape, structure, or essence.

-Efficient cause – who or what brought it into existence.

-Final cause – its purpose or end goal.

-Using all 4 gives the most complete explanation of a thing, like a bridge: its materials, its form, the builders + its purpose.

-These causes are easiest to see in man-made objects, but Aristotle believed they apply to everything.

What is Aristotle’s concept of telos + how does it relate to human reason + moral action?

-Aristotle believed everything has a purpose or telos, though it’s easier to see in non-living objects (like bridges) than in living things.

-He argued natural things act towards a goal. For humans, this goal is to live as rational beings, using reason to guide moral behaviour.

-Acting morally allows humans to fulfil their telos, which is tied to their unique capacity for reason.

According to Aristotle, how is eudaimonia achieved + why is it different from mere pleasure?

-Aristotle believed the ultimate telos of human life is eudaimonia (happiness), which comes from living well + fulfilling one’s potential, not from mere pleasure.

-True happiness is achieved through rational, reasoned choices + moral behaviour.

-This idea laid the foundations for Natural Law theory.

What are Aquinas’ 4 types of law + how do they guide humans toward their ultimate purpose?

-Aquinas, building on Aristotle, argued humans aim for perfection + union with God. Morality guides us toward this goal. He identified 4 types of law that help us achieve it:

-Eternal Law - God’s universal principles, only partially known to humans.

-Divine Law - revealed through the Bible + Jesus (e.g., Ten Commandments, Golden Rule).

-Natural Law - understood by human reason, reflecting God’s eternal law.

-Human Law - societal laws derived from Natural Law.

What is synderesis + how does it help humans use reason to follow Natural Law + avoid apparent goods?

-Aquinas believed humans are naturally inclined to pursue the highest good + through reason we can discover Natural Law precepts.

-The main inclination (synderesis) is to do good + avoid evil.

-However, humans sometimes pursue apparent goods - things they think are good but aren’t truly so.

-Reason helps us create rules to guide actions toward true good + away from evil.

What are Aquinas’ 5 primary precepts + how do they help humans achieve eudaimonia?

-Aquinas identified 5 primary precepts that guide human behaviour toward our ultimate purpose:

-Worship God

-Orderly society

-Reproduce

-Learn

-Defend innocent life

-These precepts are universal + form the foundation for secondary precepts to help achieve eudaimonia (true happiness).

What are secondary precepts in Aquinas’ Natural Law + how do they apply the primary precepts to everyday moral decisions?

-Secondary precepts are specific rules derived through reason from Aquinas’ primary precepts. They tell us how to act to achieve our ultimate purpose.

-Orderly society= “Do not murder,”

-Defend innocent life= “Do not kill,”

-Worship God: “No other gods but me,”

-Reproduce= “Do not abort”

-These precepts help translate universal principles into practical moral guidance.

What is the Principle of Double Effect + how does it determine whether an action with negative consequences is morally acceptable?

-The Principle of Double Effect distinguishes between the intention behind an act + the act itself.

-Aquinas argued an action can be morally acceptable even if it has bad consequences, provided the bad effects aren’t intended. E.g. killing an attacker in self-defence is justified if the intention is protection, not killing.

-This principle is central to applying Natural Law to complex moral dilemmas, ensuring morality is judged based on intentions, not merely outcomes.

What are the 4 conditions that must be satisfied for an action to be morally permissible?

-We don’t intend the evil effects + try to avoid them.

-The immediate effect of the act is good.

-The evil isn’t the means to achieve the good effect.

-The good effect is at least as important as the evil effect (proportionality).

The doctrine of double effect can be used to justify an action such as killing someone in self-defence.

-Aquinas applies the Principle of Double Effect to self-defence, arguing killing an attacker is morally acceptable if the intention is to save one’s own life. The act itself is justified because preserving life is natural + the harm caused is a side effect, not the intended outcome.

-Aquinas’ doctrine of double effect requires proportionality: in self-defence, it’s morally acceptable to use only the necessary force to protect oneself. Excessive force makes the act unlawful, while moderate force maintains moral permissibility.

-Joseph Mangan supports Aquinas’ proportionality principle, arguing killing in self-defence is morally acceptable only if there’s a sufficiently serious reason, such as protecting oneself or others from imminent harm.

-Aquinas argues moderate self-defence, even if it unintentionally results in the death of an attacker, isn’t a mortal sin. Protecting one’s own life takes precedence over avoiding harm to the aggressor, as long as the force used is reasonable.

The doctrine of double effect cannot be used to justify an action such as killing someone in self-defence.

-Augustine argued killing in self-defence is only permissible for soldiers or those in public office. He cautioned rules like the principle of double effect could be misused to justify any action someone personally thinks is necessary.

-We are morally responsible for all foreseeable consequences of our actions. Intending only the effect that suits us doesn’t remove this responsibility.

-For some moral theories, such as Kant’s, the morality of an action is determined by the act itself, not by the actor’s intention. Some acts are objectively right or wrong regardless of what the person intends.

-Pope Nicholas I rejected the use of the principle of double effect to justify killing in self-defence, stating taking another’s life to save your own is always a mortal sin.

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

-The universe + human nature is seen as having a telos + an orientation towards the good. This idea is supported logically through the concept of cause + effect, which we observe in the world. Thomas Aquinas argued we can trace causes from experience + rejected infinite regress, suggesting the universe must have a 1st cause, implying design + purpose.

-Humans are thought to have a purpose. Many argue everything that’s caused has a purpose. Aristotle’s concept of the 4 causes shows non-living things have a purpose + living things - like plants + animals - also serve a purpose in the natural cycle. If we accept non-human living things have a purpose, it’s reasonable to suggest humans do too.

-Human purpose is seen as achieving eudaimonia, or happiness. Human nature supports this, as people act morally + strive for happiness through virtuous actions, showing humans aim to fulfill their purpose in how they treat others.

-Humans generally agree natural law exists, as there’s a universal recognition of morality. Sane + rational people tend to agree on what’s good + what’s bad, suggesting an inherent understanding of right + wrong.

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

-Evolution + natural selection suggest human life + morality exist primarily for survival. Morality has developed to help humans live in groups + increase chances of survival, showing actions considered “moral” often serve the purpose of sustaining life rather than fulfilling a higher purpose.

-David Hume + Bertrand Russell argued the universe is a brute fact. There’s no supreme being or underlying purpose + human existence is the result of chance rather than design.

-Some argue the universe exists for itself, without cause or purpose. Nothing preceded it to cause it + nothing exists outside it to give it purpose. This suggests what humans perceive as cause may simply be coincidence.

-The question of whether humans have a telos asks if there’s a true final cause for human life or if we’re projecting purpose onto something that may not exist. It suggests humans might be seeking meaning when life is simply a cycle of being born, living + dying.

-Humans don’t always act morally, which challenges the idea of Natural Law as universal + unchanging. Historical examples like slavery + apartheid were once justified by reason but are now seen as completely immoral, showing human understanding of good + evil can change over time.

Natural law is a helpful way of making moral decisions.

-Aristotle + Aquinas argue Natural Law relies on practical reason, a common-sense ethical approach available to all humans. This reason is God-given + should guide moral decision-making.

-Natural Law is an objective moral law, providing rules that are true regardless of personal thoughts or desires. Decisions are guided by reason rather than emotion + Aquinas believes God has given humans the ability to reason to support moral decision-making.

-Aquinas’ concept of secondary precepts makes Natural Law flexible. Secondary precepts are practical applications of universal primary precepts. E.g. breaking the rule ‘Do not steal’ could be justified to feed a starving child because it upholds the primary precept of ‘preserving innocent life.’

-Natural Law is grounded in synderesis, the principle of ‘doing good + avoiding evil.’ Humans generally agree some form of Natural Law exists, as there’s a universal recognition of right + wrong. Sane + rational people tend to agree on what’s good + bad, supporting the idea of an inherent moral understanding.

-Aquinas’ primary precepts provide a clear framework for applying Natural Law. E.g. abortion is considered wrong because it violates the primary precepts of preserving innocent life + ensuring reproduction. Primary precepts offer straightforward guidelines for making moral decisions.

-Aquinas’ principle of double effect adds flexibility to Natural Law. Actions can be morally acceptable if the intention is good + all efforts are made to do good + avoid evil. E.g. killing in self-defense can be justified under this principle.

Natural law is an unhelpful way of making moral decisions.

-G. E. Moore criticizes Natural Law through the naturalistic fallacy, arguing it’s too simplistic. Humans don’t have a single fixed nature, so there’s no universal agreement on right + wrong. Goodness isn’t a natural property.

-The history of human actions, such as slavery + apartheid, challenges the idea Natural Law is universal + unchanging. If moral law is fixed + based on reason, it raises the question of why humans’ application of reason has led to such widespread immoral practices.

-Kai Nielson critiques Aquinas’ claim of a fixed human nature underlying Natural Law. Human nature appears to change over time, leading to debates over what’s “natural.” E.g. homosexuality was once considered unnatural but is now widely accepted. This raises questions about whether human nature can reliably guide moral decisions.

-Natural Law may seem outdated in 21st-century society. Laws based on divine principles can enforce traditional views, making them inconsistent with modern attitudes, such as views on homosexuality. Teleological approaches, in contrast, offer a more flexible + liberal ethical framework, judging actions by their outcomes rather than fixed rules.

-Natural Law is less flexible than teleological approaches. Joseph Fletcher’s situation ethics adapts to specific circumstances, while Jeremy Bentham’s utilitarianism focuses on outcomes + what’s best in each situation, allowing ethical decisions to be relative rather than absolute.

-Karl Barth criticizes Natural Law for relying too heavily on human reason. Like Augustine, he believes humans are too morally corrupted to apply reason effectively + should instead use divine revelation, such as the Bible, as a clearer guide for ethics.