TO WHAT EXTENT IS NATURAL LAW A HELPFUL METHOD FOR DECISION MAKING?

INTRO

Thomas Aquinas - 11th Century Summa Theologica
Natural law is an absolutist theory - asserts the basic principles of morals/objective/accessible to reason on human nature.
Asserts a natural order within the world that is given by a supreme being.
Proposes primary/secondary decisions to guide moral action.
Only to a select religious group

P1 HUMAN NATURE/TELOS POINT/ANALYSIS

Based on the idea that there’s a natural order to the world - first developed by Aristotle. In Summa Theologica, Everything was made to reflect the imago dei - purpose is to reflect his perfection as much as possible, reflected fully in heaven. Humans apart of this created order - how we’re meant to behave. Given a ‘natural’ good, behave in accordance with divine law.

P1 HUMAN NATURE/TELOS STRENGTHS

Purpose to reality, follow order = satisfied/fulfilled even if we cannot reach eudamonia yet. Biological fact that certain behaviours cause an organism to flourish
Jeremiah 29:13 - “Plans/purposes that God has made for humans.”

P1 HUMAN NATURE/TELOS WEAKNESS

Physicist Sean Carroll says telos isn’t built into the architecture of the universe, presupposes a good designer who has the best interest for creations at heart. Epicurean hypothesis - no intelligent survivor, plausible theory.

P1 HUMAN NATURE/TELOS EVALUATION

Although there is a clear orientation towards good,
NL upholds a need for faith and religion incorporated within the decision - awful amount off reasoning upon this: not accessible for all, Dawkin’s analogy/what is the color of jealousy? Inductive argument
Thus the fact that all we need to do is behave naturally as we are given God-given reason (ratio) to make moral decisions which still are not inherently reliable for the athiest

P2 PRIMARY PRECEPTS

Observing human beings, Aquinas concluded that there were primary precepts we follow.
All that we must do is behave naturally - majority want to learn/reproduce/preserve life
NL a useful tool for those of different origins to discuss what is right. Seems intrinsic within our nature.
Seen across different religions ie. Buddhism/Hinduism/Judaism.
Bad = ‘whatever is contrary to the order of reason to the nature of human beings.’
Bad = falling short of what God has intended

P2 PRIMARY PRECEPTS STRENGTH

Purpose to reality, follow order = satisfied/fulfilled even if we cannot reach eudamonia yet. Biological fact that certain behaviours cause an organism to flourish- Jeremiah 29:13 - “Plans/purposes that God has made for humans.”

P2 PRIMARY PRECEPT WEAKNESS

It presupposes the human nature. Human beings /are/ varied: ie. a homosexual, attraction to the same sex seems natural even if it doesn’t include reproduction. Heterosexual people do not want to reproduce - yet it is still a primary precept.
Preserve life isn’t always wanted - Diane Pretty died 2002 rom respiratory issues after trying to gain the right to die

P2 PRIMARY PRECEPT EVALUATION

Although Aquinas tries to defend failures/misdemeanours of falling short of God’s plan/conscientia
Arguably, can be a result of social conditioning as Freud claims
ALSO… primary precepts might have resulted from a biologically evolved more sense, not one from God.
Fletcher - there is not an innate God-given ability of reason to discover natural law - NOT GOOD FOR DECISION MAKING

P3 LEGALISTIC

Despite adherence to the moral code, can be argued to be too legalistic
Catholic Church maintains secondary precepts which are seen as law, so catholics should never get divorce/use contraception etc.
Law as lex - unquestioningly obeyed.
Although it’s meant to be more proportional ie. synderisis, some circumstances it is necessary to break a primary precept to bring about a greater good. - use our own reason, ratio and conscientia and doctrine of double effect

P3 LEGALISTIC STRENGTH

NL intended to be proportional - wrong but necessary. Ie, Catholic Church condemns the use of contraceptives but do agree that health workers do need to distribute them in a country with AIDS.
Upholds sanctity of human life, designed by God for a purpose (reflect imago dei)
Each person therefore special, embryo, disabled

P3 LEGALISTIC WEAKNESS + COUNTER ARGUMENT

Belief in the ‘lex’ interpretation of sanctity of human life can cause individual suffering.
Utilitarian Peter Singer points out forcing a woman who has been raped to keep the baby may cause too much emotional damage - strict adherence to primary precepts makes this necessary
Aquinas dispute do good + avoid evil, wisdom and ratio to decide best-case scenario

P3 LEGALISTIC EVALUATION

Hoose’s proportionalism - acceptable to go against them if you have a proportionate reason for doing so → more good than bad
Although John Paul II argues avoiding breaking precepts should be avoided as it strays us away from God’s image (imago dei)
But in a post-lapsarian world this fits in with moral decision making, Aquinas self defence: in defence which may result in death us bit a crime
Intention is to preserve life, death is foreseen but unintended - doctrine of double effect

CONCLUSION

Increasingly secular society - (2021: consensus 37% atheist) ethical theory which strictly adheres to Christianity loses its moral value.
BUT… it is possible to follow the natural law through its own moralistic outlook (Romans 2:14-15)
Barth argues our ratio is too weak in a post-lapsarian world, If we had this built in ratio, how did people justify the systematic genocide of 6.6 million Jews? Idea of telos is unscientific - Francis Bacon says causation is valid, not formal and final causation
Still, upholds personal autonomy and allows flexibility in the form of the Doctrine of Double Effect - only applicable to certain faiths.