Chapter 6 - Natural Law (Textbook)

Learning Objectives Answered

M4.5: Understand the problem of moral knowledge as identified by David Hume.

M4.6: Learn about historically significant attempts to identify "human nature" and the problems for each

1. Human nature as animal nature

   • Explanation: Humans are animals by nature, and so to act according to our nature is to behave as other animals do.

   • Benefit: Explains why some actions are morally acceptable - like defending ourselves against attackers (animals fend off predators) and growing food to feed ourselves (animals need to eat).

   • Problem: Nonhuman animals are not moral agents, so they do not have the capacity to make moral decisions - human nature is partially derived from humans’ unique capacity to reason and make moral judgments.

2. Human nature as what is innate

   • Innate: Traits humans have from birth, as opposed to being learned from parents or society.

   • Problems:

     • It depends on what is innate - it could be selfishness or competition (Thomas Hobbes’ view) or cooperation or consideration (Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s view). If humans are innately negative, it would be right (according to natural law theory) to be selfish and immoral.

     • The origins of our nature/impulses are irrelevant to the morality of our actions. Robbery is an immoral action, regardless of whether the impulse to rob is innate or acquired.

3. Human nature is what all humans have in common

   • Problems:

     • You can always find counter-examples of what anyone thinks “all humans have in common” - (e.g., all adult humans have a sex drive = asexuals are unbothered by sexual impulses).

     • This raises questions as to how many or what % of humans need to possess a trait to make it qualify as “human nature”

     • Some traits/impulses are still immoral (e.g., unkindness), regardless of if most humans share that trait.

M4.7: Understand natural law theory, its strengths and its weaknesses

• Natural law theory: Philosophical theory that suggests human lives go well to the extent that they fulfill their nature. Things are bad if they are unnatural (contrary to human nature) and good if they are natural.

• Strengths of natural law theory:

  1. It explains how morality can be objective - there is an objective source of morality outside of people or societies (i.e., human nature), so actions that are conducive to human nature are moral, and actions that oppose it are immoral.

  2. It explains why morality is particularly suited for human beings - humans have unmatched & sophisticated reasoning abilities. Humans are moral agents - they can guide their behavior by their advanced moral reasoning, so they are then subject to moral responsibilities.

  3. It explains how their is a clear account for morality’s origins - human nature is only in humans, and morality dates to whenever humans exist. No humans = no human nature = no morality.

  4. It explains how to gain moral knowledge, one of ethics’ hardest problems - people simply have to (1) determine what is human nature and (2) determine what actions fulfill it

M4.8: Understand the relationship between natural law theory and religion

• Many natural law theorists are theists who claim that natural law (human nature) was given to us by God.

  • Examples include Thomas Aquinas and C.S. Lewis

• Human nature is what we are designed to do, rather than what we have or what we are - most natural law theorists have taken Aquinas’s lead on the topic.

• Models for natural law theory (what we are designed to do):

  1. Efficiency Model - natural purposes for human beings are the things that we are most efficient at/do better than anyone else (e.g., puzzle solving or essay writing).

     Problems: in this view, this would mean that we are acting immorally when we are inefficient at something we should be efficient in.

  2. Fitness Model - natural purposes for human beings are those that enhance our chances at survival or reproduction.

     Problems: Some actions are objectively immoral (e.g., rape), regardless of if they increase our fitness. Selfishness/cruelty can increase our fitness.

• The Argument from Humanity (common pro-life argument, connected to religion):

  1. It is always wrong to deliberately kill an innocent human being.

     • This premise begs the question if we give a scientific-only definition of human personhood (some pro-life advocates do this, like the Equal Rights Institute) - if a person didn’t believe that it was wrong to deliberately kill a fetus, this premise fails; it doesn’t provide an alternative reason to reject the pro-choice position.

  2. A fetus is an innocent human being.

  3. Therefore, it is always wrong to deliberately kill a fetus.