Critically examine what is meant by natural moral law Essay

The doctrine of earthy fairness has its deepest al-Qaidas from Grecian philosopher Aristotle besides stays the strongest dictation in the writings of Thomas doubting Thomas (1225-1274). The rudimentary good basis of Ro while Catholicism withal stems from his writings base around the premise that theology created completely things estimable. This includes earthly concern, the highest aspect of his pityingity of whom he made in his receive imageThen God say let us make man in our own image, in our likeness, let them (man and women) rule over the fish in the ocean the birds in the air, over movestock, over all earth, and over all the creatures that go away along the ground.One of the major aspects of natural integrity is the construct that eerything and incessantlyy bingle is made with a predetermined usance. And the starting point of all advocates of natural law is to work out this purpose akin to human sprightliness. future(a) whizzs rationale, doubting Thoma s claims, leads us to a realisation of our purpose- land is utilize to find out Gods intention and the purpose of human live onence and this provide enable one to arrive at the tenets of natural law.Focusing fore around on the word natural, it is synonymous with drive. Contrary to what one whitethorn assume natural does non mean our natural predispositions or inclinations plainly rather mans mightiness to originator. In fact natural law is founded upon mans ability to rationality. doubting Thomas considered that natural law was the honorable code which humans ar naturally inclined towards. In his work Aquinas established cardinal beau judgmentls that should govern our incorrupt principles it is comprised of precepts of the eternal law that govern the behaviour of beings possessing spring and free volition. The first precept of the natural law, concord to Aquinas, is the nighwhat inane imperative to be effectual and avoid evil. Here it is worth noting that Aqu inas holds a natural law theory of respectable motive what is penny-pinching and evil, according to Aquinas, is derived from the rational record of human beings. Good and evil argon thitherfrom both objective and universalHe argued that mans first priority fit(p) down by natural law was self preservation and that on the basis of this first axiom man puts forward the suppositionl that life is to be concernd. Thus man has an empathic desire to respect and preserve life beyond his own. If man gives in to non-rational desires or app arnt goods as Aquinas so calls them then one becomes imprisoned. gibe to Aquinas if we win our rationale it would lead to a perfect moral state which lives up, not only to one of the bibles most salient features, just a principle which Christ himself promulgates in his teachings,Love your neighbour as yourself.It upholds what one washstand identify as natural virtues- prudence, temperance, and justice.Procreation is the second ideal of which Aquin as quotes so strongly as a moral code. This way of mentation corresponds hale with the teachings of St Paul. It is not unless energise to make children but the only ethical side that goes with it. For instance it is not promiscuity that they denote but monogamy. They believe that it is the only successful way of procreation of the species. Otherwise on that point would be a generations of dysfunctional relationships. It leads to an ordered society. St Paul exhorts the Corinthians,Each man should founder his own wife and each woman her own economize. The husband should fulfil his marital duty to his wife and likewise the wife to her husband. The wifes body does not belong to her alone but likewise to her husband. In the same way the husbands body does not only belong to him but to his wife.(Corinthians ch6 v 2-4)Lastly the signifi merchantmance of credit in God has considerable significance in his writings. Unlike some philosophers that sh atomic number 18 similar ideas to Aquinas, he did not consider that human genius was totally corrupted. He suggested that the ultimate function of tenability leads us to contest the origination of a creator i.e. God. To find completeness one must discover to ones reason where one go out find a spiritual join with God. This willing naturally project all things moral.Having identified the three of import functions that Aquinas establishes within natural law it would be of importance to go on to identify other key aspects. Firstly I would be inclined to recognize what Aquinas referred to as apparent goods. Apparent good is a term given to an action, which on the face of it appears to be a good action but actually isnt. Reason en alightens man of the distinction between good and evil. Man is subject to temptation because of our ancestral tale Adam and Eve. From this we as a human race can be seduced by ungodly desires (apparent goods). An apparent good can pervert reason. For instance, one may feel good taki ng drugs and drinking heavily but really it is self soul-destroying and perverted from reason, which tells us that it is not good to take drugs or drink heavily.Reason links in well here good intentions stem from good will and good will is the product of mans reason. If we listen to our reason it exemplifies that good outcomes cannot be the gilding light to moralityif we concentrate on good outcomes it may lead to the peruse of apparent goods. An example could be a bomb thats about(predicate) to explode. Does one torture the terrorist captured to save the lives of a unscathed community or stand by the premise of the rule not to torture? overrefinement the terrorist is an example of an apparent good or a secondary ideal (a primary ideal being the three ideals established at the first gear of essay).It promises an immediate benefit, but the act itself is degrading an immoral. Natural law would consecrate that torture is irrational and goes against the first ideal to preserve the lives of others. One can start to picture the difficulties with natural law- does one let a whole community die for the exception of the torture of one man? Mans purpose is not meet apparent goods The ironic concept is, is that natural law claims if one haps one reason and purpose at all times then it will achieve a morally just domain This is because if purpose isnt reversed then at that place is no fortuity of apparent goods. Examples could include abortion, euthanasia or purge homosexuality () Which all go against one of the three ideals.Previously mentioned was that of the word purpose. resolve to Aquinas was the assumption that everyone has a divinely devised purpose in life. fit to Aquinas reason can illustrate this but only doctrine assures man of his choices. God did not make man like robots to merely choose the right thing but if he listens to his reason, in that respect will be an unavoidable t give noticeency towards goodness.All beings tend towards the actual isation of the potentialities of their geniussSimply, if we follow what reason dictates we will, strive to fulfil are particular gifts. St Paul in his letters to the Romans stated also that we open particular gifts and that we should follow them. He uses the idea of prophesising if ones gift if prophesising then let him use it in correspondence to ones confidence. If ones gift is to teach then teach.and so one.The bother is of scat what happens when one thinks their eschatology is that of an apparent good? They might consider that their personal goals are that of power or like the suicide bombers think that their eschatology is to end their live ion aid of attacking the enemy. Obviously here we have a perversion of ones eschatology. Natural law claims that reason illustrates to us their limitations. Apparent goods are destructive to one and others and disgrace or degrade man. So the question arises that wherefore do so some of us follow an apparent good? Aquinas would arg ue that it is in opens weak nature that it is far easier to follow what one desires and stay puts pleasure out of, and once tempted, one is stuck in the intoxication.2) poll and evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of natural law as a definitive ethical theory.The premise of natural law states that morality is ground on reason alone, but surely if we look around us it is actually base on our emotions? David Hume (1713-1776) was a philosopher that disagreed with the notion that morality is establish on reason alone. As we have seen, Aquinas believed that natural law was synonymous with mans reason Hume powerfully argued that if this is so then why do people have such(prenominal) a diverse perception of what is right and wrong, good and bounteous? Surely if morality is reason based then we would all have the same ideas of what is good and bad?If, as Aquinas believed, morality is based on reason then why is it that in a moral predicament we actually act on our emotions? For insta nce if one is in a crash and one has an option to save ones child or a doctor that is about to crack a cure for cancer, which is one likely to choose? I would say that 99% of mothers and fathers would go against what reason dictates and save the life of their child.I would also question the fact that if morality derives from reason then it should comprise of a delimit of a prori rules that should be completely universalised. Why is it then that we devise these rule and find excuses to fracture them or even feel it is moral to secern them? For instance, if we have a rule or a secondary ideal as Aquinas would put it, that is do not steal should it be applied even when it depends hell of a lot more moral to break it.If there is an axe murderer who is going to use his weapon to kill someone, to break the rule does not steal to get his weapon seems totally incoherent. According to natural law however, the rule do not steal should be universalised and therefore never broken. Aquinas did come up with an idea of proportionalism. Proportanalism states that when there is a proportionate reason to break a rule i.e. to get the weapon off an axe murderer then it is ok to do so. I feel as though this is a complete hold out. In effect he is coming up with a set of rules that have to be universalised and they are based on reason, and then comes up with a set of excuses or exceptions when it doesnt workNatural law assumes that we have a uniform human nature,god made man in his own image Genesis 127. Basically, this conjures up the conceit that if we humans were all created in the same way then realistically we should all therefore be able to identify what our purposes are. Our sexual organs are formed for procreation, therefrom, homosexuality becomes unnatural. The question is who is Aquinas to delegate what is resolute? One could go as far to say does man as a whole have a purpose? Philosophers such as Neitche or Sartre that would greatly disagree with Aquinas and hu man nature.Their ideas are governed by existentialism, which entails that there is no fixed human nature that man has no purpose, life has no broader meaning. The only reality is the chooses that we make indeed, these choices are extemporaneous and individual. They do not delve into the concept any of these choices are rules that should be universalised. If one looks at society today it really has been influenced by such proposal, and we are unsympathetic to the idea that we have a fixed human nature and fixed purposes. Because there is this idea of no human nature there can consequently be nothing unnatural, so ineluctably homosexuality and such like is not a problem.Aquinas is compelled with the idea that we are made from a purposeful creating benevolent creator. He presupposes that faith in such being will lead to utter moral peace and satisfaction, and will lead to a perfect moral society. The problem is, is that in contemporary society the popular assumption is that there is no god or it is questioning such conceptions.We are broadly agnostic. many peoples lives run without orientation to god or religion, thus emasculating the natural law theory. Essentially what is being said is do we hire god to feel moral or spiritually whole. Can we be moral without religion? According to many, indeed we can. Aquinas postulated that we can exist morally without god but would lack the assertion of his moral choices devoted to doubt and temptation. Whether morality requires god is inconclusive from a reason based argument.There is a predicament also with Aquinass idea of purpose. For instance he postulates that that the main function of genital organs are for procreation and therefore denounces homosexuality, masturbation or even the enjoyment of sex However, in observation bodily organs generally have many a function. Mouths are not just for eating but also for kissing, talkingthey are limitless. So why does he adopt a denunciation to the sex between homosexuals? I t seems contradictory and inconsistent. Thus, I would say that he is imposing his desires and claiming that these are the basis of morality or these are what reason dictates to us. His views on purpose are limited and could be completely unlike to what he considers- all in all why does he say what our purposes is.When looking at the strengths of the natural law approach one finds that they seem to be born from the limitations of the weaknesses. Firstly there might actually be human nature despite existentialist beliefs to the contrary. For instance, we are all modify with horror at murder or child abuse. Of course there are always exceptions to the general rule such as suicide bombers who kill themselves and others but what one stating is that human nature is an open question. nearly humanists may believe in human nature like Dawkins or Russell who say we all want to belong to a herd. It suggests that we have something in common we interact with others.Aquinas said that spiritual completeness is only synonymous in union with god. Although a cock-a-hoop percentage of the population are secular, I would say that it is true that most of us still dont like to think of the end as being nothingness. There is a desire to believe in something beyond bodily death. The existence of so many religions seem to render this point. It could be looked upon like this are we, as Sartre says condemned to be free, or does existence really have an underlying purpose and meaning? Like I mentioned earlier, we now live in a secular age. However we cant over seem to get away from god or gods. We basically invent gods like science and medicine. Surely this seems to indicate that our existence requires some foundation beyond our own means?In regards to apparent goods Aquinas claims that they are self destructive despite the miracle cures of modern society. The questions arises that will society ever create an earthly paradise where all pleasures are catered for. Will we ever make t he paradise that temps us away from reasoning or will we find that its not enough. It would be that if paradise can never be created then it reinforces the idea of apparent goodsIn conclusion I would be inclined not to follow natural law. Although it raises many rich and appraisable points (after all it does strive for whats moral) I feel as though it is far too orthodox and strict for my liking. It seems to have too a lot of Aquinass desires and seems irrelevant for todays society. As a definitive ethical theory I suggest that it doesnt uphold what I would determine or expect a definitive ethical theory to be. I feel it has too many gaps that have un significative answers, the fact that it hasnt made me feel as though I can relate to it as a moral theory says it all.