9/19/2017 Natural Law - OCR Religious Studies Philosophy and Ethics A level

Theory in detail
Everything has a purpose

Ethics is the struggle to determine what is right or wrong, or good and bad. Some ethical theories are hedonis c they say that pleasure
(and the absence of pain) are the only ul mately good ends towards which to aim. Some Chris an ethicists argue that following Gods will
as revealed through prayer, scriptures and prophecy is the ul mate good.

The theory of Natural Law was put forward by Aristotle but championed by Thomas Aquinas (1225-74). Natural Law has elements of both
of these approaches. Man desires happiness, but for Aquinas this means fullling our purpose as humans. He said, in Summa Theologica,
"whatever man desires, he desires it under the aspect of good." Fullling our purpose is the only good for humans.

We will see that Aquinas rst asks what our human nature is, and then looks at the rules that can be derived from this.

The purpose of humans - the Primary Precepts

There is a single guiding principle that sums up our nature:

"good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided." All otherprecepts of the natural law are based upon this.

Aquinas looks at what is 'good' for humans, saying that humans share part of their nature with all natural things, part with animals, and
part of our human nature is par cular to us. Aquinas said:

inasmuch as every substance seeks the preserva on of its own being... whatever is a means of preserving human life , and of
warding o its obstacles, belongs to the natural law
those things are said to belong to the natural law, "which nature has taught to all animals" [Pandect. Just. I, t. i], such as sexual
intercourse, educa on of ospring and so forth
man has a natural inclina on to know the truth about God, and to live in society

Although textbooks talk of ve Primary Precepts, and some resources on this site reect this, Bernard Hoose revealed, over lunch at an
Ethics conference, his frustra on with this tendency. He felt there were only three, as can be seen above. Read Summa Theologicayourself,
and you may feel that Aquinas is not giving an exhaus ve list, but simply some examples of "self evident principles" perceived by reason.

A mnemonic for these might be PREGS:

Protect and preserve human life

Reproduce and Educate your ospring
know God and live in Society

Teleology and Deontology

In 1930, CD Broad contrasted teleology and deontology in an a empt to categorise ethical theories. By teleology, he meant theories where
"the rightness or wrongness of an ac on is always determined by its tendency to produce consequences which are intrinsically good or
bad". According to Broad, deontological theories hold that "such and such a kind of ac on would always be right (or wrong) in such and
such circumstances, no ma er what its consequences might be". In essence, teleology is concerned with good and bad, deontology with
right and wrong.

This dis nc on, and these deni ons, are seen by many ethicists as unhelpful, but they are on most syllabuses. Broad admi ed that "most
theories are actually mixed", and we can see this in Natural Law.

In dening the Primary Precepts, Aquinas was sta ng 'self-evident principles' that are universal and absolute - they are part of our very
nature as humans. This sounds deontological. However, looking at Aristotle's no on of telos as excellence, we see that the Primary
Precepts are not concerned with ac ons themselves, but with our telos or purpose. As such, the Primary Precepts are actually teleological.
For Aquinas, man's nal purpose (telos) is happiness with God (bea tudo), something for which we all have an innate desire. The Primary
Precepts are our natural inclina ons that guide us towards this nal purpose.

From the general principles, prac cal reason enables us to derive secondary precepts. These are rules that govern our specic ac ons. The
secondary precepts are what makes Natural Law appear deontological. They concern rules for our ac ons, for example "Goods entrusted to
another should be restored to their owner". If I am looking a er your money, I should not give it away to a charity, even if doing so would
bring about some good. It would be the wrong sort of ac on. I have a duty to return to you what I was entrusted with.

However, this is not always an absolute duty, and this causes confusion in understanding Natural Law Using the above example, Aquinas
says:

it is right and true for all to actaccording to reason : and from this principle it follows as a proper conclusion,
that goods entrusted to another should be restored to their owner. Now this is true for the majority of cases: but it may
http://www.rsrevision.com/Alevel/ethics/natural_law/index.htm 1/3
9/19/2017 Natural Law - OCR Religious Studies Philosophy and Ethics A level
happen in a par cular case that it would be injurious, and therefore unreasonable, to restore goods held in trust; for
instance, if they are claimed for the purpose of gh ng against one's country.

This doesn't mean that we do not have a duty to return goods entrusted to us, but that there may be conic ng du es that prevent us from
doing so.

Secondary Precepts

Secondary Precepts are rules derived from Primary Precepts using prac cal reason. In some cases, they refer to an ac on that is unnatural,
and is therefore always wrong. Certain ac ons were seen by Aquinas to be contrary to human nature. Reason would then give us absolute
secondary precepts that would always hold. For example, Aquinas felt that masturba on went against the natural end (telos) of sex, which
is procrea on. This means that 'Do not masturbate' is an absolute secondary precept. However, in modern infer lity treatment,
masturba on might be used to assist procrea on through ar cial insemina on by a husband. On this issue, Natural Law theorists disagree
about whether masturba on is unnatural, and therefore disagree about the secondary precept 'Do not masturbate'.

Aquinas gives examples (in Summa Theologica) as illustra ons of those ac ons that are wrong in and of themselves because they contradict
the primary precepts of natural law:

the
lying
fornica ng
commi ng adultery
killing the innocent

These are all examples of deonotological, absolu st secondary precepts derived from the self-evident, universal teleological Primary
Precepts. Other examples include the Ten Commandments.

Some secondary precepts are deontological (concerning ac ons rather than ends, and related to our specic du es), but not absolu st. An
example is given above.

Ecient and Final Causes

This is Aristotles dis nc on between what gets things done (ecient cause) and the end product (nal cause). With humans, it is the
accomplishment of the end product that equates to good. An example is sexuality an ecient cause of sex is enjoyment: because
humans enjoy sex, the species has survived through procrea on. However, the nal cause of sex (the thing God designed it for) is
procrea on. Therefore sex is only good if procrea on is possible.

Put another way, the ecient cause is a statement of fact or a descrip on. If we ask why people have sex, we might talk about a rac on,
psychological needs etc. The nal cause is a ma er of intent what was Gods purpose behind sex? The nal cause assumes a ra onal
mind behind crea on, and as such moves from descrip ve ethics (saying what is there) to norma ve ethics (statements about what should
or should not be the case).

Another example did the soldier shoot well? The ecient cause deals with the set of events around the shoo ng did he aim well, was
the shot eec ve, did the target die? These are descrip ve points, and clearly dont tell us about the morality of the shoo ng. When we
look into this area was it right to kill? - we are evalua ng his intent, and are asking about the nal cause. We can then look at whether
that cause is consistent with Gods design for human beings. We may decide that killing innocent people goes against Gods design for us,
so it is always wrong to kill innocent people.

Real and Apparent Goods

Aquinas argued that the self should be maintained. As a result, Natural Law supports certain virtues (prudence, jus ce, for tude and
temperance) that allow the self to full its purpose. Similarly there are many vices (the seven deadly sins) that must be avoided as they
prevent the individual from being what God intended them to be.

Following a real good will result in the preserva on or improvement of self, ge ng nearer to the ideal human nature that God had
planned. There are many apparent goods that may be pleasurable (e.g. drugs) but ul mately lead us to fall short of our poten al. Reason
is used to determine the real goods.

God

Aquinas believed in life a er death, which leads to a dierent understanding of Gods plan for humans. Natural Law can be upheld by
atheists, but there seems no good reason for keeping to Natural Law without God. Aquinas holds that the one goal of human life should
be the vision of God which is promised in the next life. This is why humans were made, and should be at the centre of Natural Law
thinking.

Casuistry and Double Eect

http://www.rsrevision.com/Alevel/ethics/natural_law/index.htm 2/3
9/19/2017 Natural Law - OCR Religious Studies Philosophy and Ethics A level

Casuistry, from the La n for 'case', refers to the process of applying principles to individual cases. In the Roman Catholic Church, this means
applying the universal principles of Natural Law to specic situa ons. This is done in a logical way, as some principles have logical
consequences. For example, if it is in principle wrong to kill innocent human beings, it follows that bombing civilian targets (such as
Dresden in WW2) is wrong. However, if it is accepted that killing in self defence is okay, we could jus fy an air a ack on Afghanistan on
these grounds. Innocent people might die, but that is not the aim of the ac on, so the doctrine of double eect comes in to play.

Double eect refers to situa ons where there is an intended outcome and another signicant but uninten onal outcome. According to
Natural Law, it is our inten ons that are important, not the consequences of our ac ons. Double eect would not allow you to perform an
ac on where an unintended outcome had devesta ng eects. The unintended eect has to be PROPORTIONATE. What this actually means,
cri cs say, is that Natural Law becomes like U litarianism.

http://www.rsrevision.com/Alevel/ethics/natural_law/index.htm 3/3