The natural law ethics theory is based on the idea that there is a natural moral law, discernible through human reason, that forbids violating the natural order. It suggests humans have an inherent capacity, through reason and conscience, to recognize good and evil. Natural law theory sees moral law originating from God's intention to establish order through rules made known to humans. It views certain behaviors as intrinsically wrong because they violate our nature or purpose. Critics argue this view is anthropocentric and that "is" does not necessarily imply "ought."
The natural law ethics theory is based on the idea that there is a natural moral law, discernible through human reason, that forbids violating the natural order. It suggests humans have an inherent capacity, through reason and conscience, to recognize good and evil. Natural law theory sees moral law originating from God's intention to establish order through rules made known to humans. It views certain behaviors as intrinsically wrong because they violate our nature or purpose. Critics argue this view is anthropocentric and that "is" does not necessarily imply "ought."
The natural law ethics theory is based on the idea that there is a natural moral law, discernible through human reason, that forbids violating the natural order. It suggests humans have an inherent capacity, through reason and conscience, to recognize good and evil. Natural law theory sees moral law originating from God's intention to establish order through rules made known to humans. It views certain behaviors as intrinsically wrong because they violate our nature or purpose. Critics argue this view is anthropocentric and that "is" does not necessarily imply "ought."
The natural law ethics theory is based on the idea that there is a natural moral law, discernible through human reason, that forbids violating the natural order. It suggests humans have an inherent capacity, through reason and conscience, to recognize good and evil. Natural law theory sees moral law originating from God's intention to establish order through rules made known to humans. It views certain behaviors as intrinsically wrong because they violate our nature or purpose. Critics argue this view is anthropocentric and that "is" does not necessarily imply "ought."
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as doc, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 3
Finals 2: The Natural Law Ethics Theory (Divine Law)
Introduction
Timbreza (2007) claims, that “there exists a natural moral law which is manifested by the natural light of human reason, demanding the preservation of the natural order and forbidding its violation.” Furthermore, St. Thomas Aquinas, as cited by Timbreza (2007) explains that the source of moral law is reason itself. Reason directs individuals toward the good as the goal of our action. In the same context, Aquinas concludes that the good is discoverable within the human nature and in its operation. Reason recognizes the basic principle of “Do good, avoid evil.” The idea is synthesized in what he calls “SYNDERESIS or the capacity of each individual to desire what is good.”
The natural law ethics suggests that it is inherent in the human individual the capacity to recognize what is good and what is evil. Individuals are given this capacity through the light of human reason and as St. Thomas Aquinas suggests,” it is the voice of right reason which he also calls “the voice of conscience.”
Learning Outcomes
1. Articulate the basis of the natural law;
2. Discuss what is meant by, “To desire what is good;” and 3. Identify experiences in which reason or conscience have been their basis.
Activating Prior Knowledge
Share it! (15 minute) You identify your experiences and decisions made in which the sole basis for doing them would be reason or one’s conscience.
Presentation of Contents
The natural law is deeply rooted in Christian law theory and theology. This idea is also rooted in the divine law. The origin of natural law at its very basis is God’s intention to put order in the world through the moral law which was made known to man. This moral law is the natural law. Illustration:
Divine Law
Laws of Nature -----------------------Moral Law --------------------------------------Natural Law
Example: Law of gravity, etc. - Expressed in (Fair and square) human law - Expressed as Church law (Ex. Canon law)
Points of Consideration:
1. The natural law is a body of unchanging moral principles regarded as a basis for all human conduct.
2. An observable law relating to natural phenomena. The natural law is a theory that says that there is a set of rules inherent in human behaviour and human reasoning that govern human conduct.
3. The natural law is divine law revealed.
Guide for Understanding the Natural Law How do we understand natural law? To understand it, we have to look into two elements: the purpose and the essence.
First, to be able to understand the natural law, one must look at the purpose, “Para saan ito?” You are created for what? Example, something is wrong because it is not used for its natural purpose and vice-versa. Like the male organ is for the female organ and they are used for reproduction. In the same manner referring to marriage, it is meant to be consummated and ratified (solemnized). There is no marriage when one is missing. Honoring the purpose of things is fundamental. Immediately something is out of track when the purpose of a thing is not respected. For instance, being a student, your main purpose is coming to school to study. Having put aside this main purpose will jeopardize results. A student may fail in the subjects if not given appropriate attention. Those students who excel are those who had constantly given themselves to their main task which is studying. Or, a driver who continuously does texting while driving may meet a vehicular accident and may not reach the destination. Thus, the rightness of one’s action according to natural law depends on whether its purpose is respected for which it is being performed. An action is wrong when it does not express the purpose for which it is meant for. How do you determine your purpose? The law seems to be a part of you. Reason tells you that you are doing the right thing or its opposite. In an example, it says that it is natural that you don’t have sex with a dog. Nobody told you about that.
To understand the natural law, one ought to know the essence of a “thing.” What is this about? (Ano ba ito?) I am a person (my essence), then, you should not kill me. Knowing what the thing is or its nature, guides one to deal with it appropriately and not otherwise. The problem starts when one has a distorted idea about the essence or nature of things. When that happens, inappropriate dealings follow. But if I know the right value of a thing, I would deal with it appropriately. Again, the question is how does one know the essence of things? Reason will help one to recognize the value of a thing and Natural Law tells us that it is in the nature of human beings to know it.
Criticisms on the Natural Law
1. Rachels (2003) claims that the idea that everything in nature has a purpose is stunningly anthropocentric since everything, as it were, is arranged for the sake of people whose well-being is the point of the whole arrangement. By saying this, Rachels seems to imply, without saying it directly, that it is too neat to believe. He said: “Humans are a remarkably vain species.”
2. Citing David Hume, Rachels argues that in the discussion of the laws of nature, there is a confusion of “is” and “ought.” He tries to point out that they are different notions and that there can be no conclusion that can be derived or that follows from the other. That is, if for instance, man was made beneficent, it does not follow that he ought to be.
3. Relative to the question of moral knowledge, Rachels suggests that because human are following the laws of reason and since God, the author of the natural order has made us rational beings, it means that the religious believer has no special access to moral truth. The holy and the profane have equal access to moral knowledge.
Reflection
Do you always follow the voice of reason or the voice of conscience when doing something? How did you feel having done it? Were there resolutions in your life that you made based on the dictates of your conscience?
