Strengths and weaknesses of NL Is there such a thing as natural goods? Evaluating N.L. Strengths and weaknesses of NL Is there such a thing as natural goods? We will look at Finnis separately, evaluating him and comparing him to Aquinas.

Criticisms of N.L. Simplistic view of common human nature Too conventional view human nature contradictory (casuistry, double effect, legalistic) Can require religious belief (beatitude, eternal law, sin - Aquinas) Impractical (original sin, unholistic, complex)

NL.’s View of Human Nature Look at the counter-arguments. Does NL manage to defend itself or not? N.L. relates to essential properties of human nature, that keep us “human”. It is not against any human intervention eg prosthetic limbs, GM crops. It is against forced sterilisation, significant animal-human gene hybrids. N.L.is NOT saying human nature is fixed – because it emphasizes humans as rational and free– we are most fully human when we freely develop ourselves according to our nature. Evolution takes millions of years: “homo sapiens” have been around a very long time already, so we can say that we have a “nature”. Also, even with big evolutionary changes, primary precepts would still apply.    Given Purpose – even if our telos is from evolution, or from God, following this is the best way to flourish. For humans, it is being rational and imago dei for beatitude with God. This gives meaning and sense to life, so we should follow N.L. Too simplistic ! 1. Humans do not have a single ‘fixed’ human nature that is always and everywhere the same (Aristotelian/ Stoic view) eg heterosexual. Evolution suggests our human nature has evolved, and possibly is still evolving – not fixed.  People can “break out of the mould” –they may be the innovators of our race. 2. The idea of having a “telos” to aim towards, is mistaken -  evolution has shaped us by natural selection, and maybe science can change us still more in the future. Why should we respect nature as if it was something essential to us?

How do you think NL can defend itself against these charges? Secondary precepts allow for cultural differences, as you work them out in your own particular cultural and social situation. N.L. is as flexible as our understanding of human nature develops – eg now slavery considered against NL as we now think every person has right to freedom as part of who they are. Secondary precepts are always up for discussion: no need to be out-dated. Human laws do reflect some N.L. precepts, and Aquinas accepted that laws can change over time. Too conventional ! Who decides what is natural ? Is it just by convention? Monogamy does not have to be the only way to care for offspring (polygamy?) Cultural relativism (Nielsen) Our “nature” is a product of culture and society - state makes laws that instruct us how to behave eg slavery was not considered to be against our nature/ NL until modern idea of rights of individuals developed.  Out-dated - Natural Law enforces traditional views that are out of touch with 21st century society. This leads to homophobia, and other kinds of prejudice

“Aquinas’ system of NL ethics is not longer relevant. Do you agree Make an essay plan of what you would say.

Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of NL. (30mks) Match up the headings with the criticisms and defences of NL. Match up the criticisms with the defences, for each section. Make your own list of the most damaging criticisms, from the different sections. Is-Ought problem Can describing how something is, tell us that is what it should be? Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of NL. (30mks) N.L. is a religious approach to ethics. Discuss this claim. Aquinas’ view of human nature is out of date. Discuss. Casuistry does not work in practice. Discuss. N.L. doesn’t work in practice. Discuss this claim.

The idea of natural goods ? From Aristotle’s teleology From Aquinas (real/ apparent, 1o/ 2o, beatitudo) Other views: Nielsen Vardy Craig Catholic church on voluntarism Make notes on the other viewpoints. Conclude what you think: Are there such things as natural goods? Does it make a difference that there should be objective natural goods, for us to pursue?

“Natural goods cannot exist, otherwise everybody would be good” “Natural goods cannot exist, otherwise everybody would be good”. Assess this claim. (15)