Natural Moral Law Philosophy and Religion Department Wellington College

Introducing Natural Moral Law It is an absolutist and deontological approach to ethics, prescribing fixed moral rules and real duties. The theory can be traced back to ancient ideas of natural morality: the view that humans have an inherent sense of right and wrong. Aristotle: “the natural is that which everywhere is equally valid”. The Stoic philosophers emphasised the importance of rationality in the working of the world. Cicero: “True law is right reason in agreement with nature”. However, it is best known as a Christian system of ethics. The Bible hints at such ideas; St Paul argues that some morals are known from nature (Romans 1).

Thomas Aquinas: purpose and reason In Summa Theologica, Aquinas argues that natural law resides within the purpose of nature, created by God. It is the destiny of humans to achieve union with God, and Natural Moral Law helps them to achieve this. Aquinas argues that a very basic law is evident in nature and known through reason: “good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided. All other precepts of the law of nature are based on this.”

Reason and Revelation God’s law is perceived in two ways. Firstly, through revelation (the Bible) the word of God is given. This stands in harmony with the second way of knowing: what can be discerned through the proper use of human reason. Natural Moral Law is a rational system of ethics, but is supposed to find agreement with what is revealed in Scripture. For Aquinas, a moral error is equivalent to an error in reason. If one is being truly rational, one will always discern what is right. Immoral lives are irrational and contradict the teaching of the Bible: “to disparage the dictate of reason is equivalent to condemning the command of God.”

Real and Apparent Goods Aquinas assumes that human nature is essentially good. However, if humans all naturally seek what is good, then why do they sometimes choose what is bad? He solves this problem by drawing a distinction between ‘real’ and ‘apparent’ goods: what is actually good and what only seems good. A moral error involves choosing an apparent good, mistakenly supposing that it is really good. If I eat ten hamburgers, I may think it’s good because I’ll enjoy it. However, it is not a real good, because rational reflection will show that it will make me fat and depressed. The same would be true for stealing cars, adultery, etc. They might seem good, but they’re not.

Interior and Exterior Acts As with other deontological theories, intentions are important in Natural Moral Law (compare Kant). Aquinas described the action itself as the ‘exterior act’ and the intention as the ‘interior act’, so that both are part of the ethical action. Accordingly, actions are only truly moral if they are good in both interior and exterior terms. The ultimate interior motivation for ethics should be giving glory to God. So, I should not give money to charity just to make people like me. I should do it to serve God.

The Primary Precepts Aquinas goes on to develop the Five Primary Precepts of ethics in his Natural Moral Law. Ultimately, these are derived from his general assumption that humans are naturally motivated to do good and avoid evil. 1)Firstly, the most basic and natural good is to seek self- preservation. This is necessary for all other moral goods. 2)Secondly, once the human has survived, the next obvious natural good is reproduction. 3)Thirdly, once more humans are being born, there is an obligation to nurture them through education. 4)Fourthly, given that humans are able to learn, they must then learn to live together and live in society. 5)Fifth and finally, since society is established, humans should turn to their ultimate source and give worship to God.

Secondary Precepts From out of the very general commands of the primary precepts, Aquinas then allows that secondary precepts will emerge – more specific rulings or applications. For example, suicide might be considered wrong because it breaks the first precept of self-preservation. Another example: the modern Roman Catholic Church has prohibited contraception on the grounds that it breaks the precept of reproduction. Natural Moral Law is still in use in the world today.

Strengths of Natural Moral Law Certainty: Being an absolutist system, it is a source of clear values and moral certainty. Universalism: Its focus on reason allows it to transcend the differences between cultures and focus upon common moral ideas shared by many. Purpose: Its emphasis upon the purpose of humanity gives people structure and meaning in their lives.

Weaknesses of Natural Moral Law No agreed moral law: a relativist objection. The world is full of different moralities, not clear and common ethics. No such thing as essential human nature: so argues the philosopher Kai Neilson. Science gives no justification for the view that humans have the same natural inclinations. Legalistic morality: the unbending absolutism of NML means that it is not understanding of individual circumstances.

Critical Perspectives on Natural Law: James Rachels “The Theory of Natural Law has gone out of fashion because the view of the world on which it rests is out of keeping with modern science. The world as described by Galileo, Newton, and Darwin has no place for ‘facts’ about right and wrong.” The modern moral philosopher James Rachels has passed critical judgement on Natural Moral Law in his Elements of Moral Philosophy. Rachels begins by observing that Natural Law is based upon “a certain view of what the world is like” – a view which involves rational order and purpose. If that world-view is challenged, then Natural Law is challenged. He observes that Christians (unlike Aristotle) have been willing to claim that nature even reflects what God has intended. For Rachels, Natural Law runs into two key problems. The first of these is Hume’s “is-ought gap” the view that what is the case and what ought to be the case are logically entirely distinct. Natural Law mixes these two things together by saying that morals are present in nature. The second problem is the seemingly dated nature of Natural Law’s outlook (see across); it claims that the natural world reflects values, but this does not seem to be granted by modern science.

Evaluation Questions Is it really so far fetched to believe in universal moral values? What about the modern idea of universal rights? Can science really show that the idea of Natural Law is dated? Does moral relativism have a better track record on ethics in our world? Is Aquinas’ emphasis upon revelation and experience (as well as reason) a better form of absolutism than Kant’s coldly rational deontology? Or, is Kant’s rationalism more persuasive? Could the idea of ‘natural’ morality survive if we did not believe in God? Is it possible to update this ancient theory, or get it to change with the times?