‘Humans are inclined towards good’. Evaluate this statement.
Introduction
Define: Natural law- A deontological theory based on behaviour that accords with given laws or
moral rules that exist independently of human societies and systems.
Importance: Shows that our human nature is designed to be good.
Scholars: Aquinas, Hobbes, Moore, Barth
Conclusion: Humans are not inclined towards good.
Paragraph 1
Point: Humans are not inclined towards good otherwise we would not need the four tiers of law.
Argument: Aquinas- Four laws- ‘a certain rule and measure of acts whereby man is induced to act or
is restrained from acting’- Why do we need to be restrained if we are inclined towards good? Human
Law: The laws of nations- everyday rules that govern our lives. Why do we need human law to be
established if humans are inclined towards good?
Sometimes these laws are flawed and cannot be considered ‘good’ but are still followed e.g. Nazi
leaders on trial for war crimes argued that they were just obeying the law. This was rejected
because the supposed ‘inclination towards good’ that they have within them should have made
them realise what they were doing was wrong.
Karl Barth thought that Natural law relied too much on reason. Since human reason is imperfect, it
does not provide a strong basis for moral decision-making.
Counterargument: Natural law may appear to be exclusively about following rules but this fails to
recognise the role of reason in moral decision- making that Aquinas is concerned about. Natural law
is ‘law-like’ because of its rationality.
Paragraph 2
Point: Humans are inclined towards good because natural law is derived from humans natural
inclination to do good.
Argument: Aquinas thought that in all human beings, ‘there is first of all an inclination to good’
because ‘every substance seeks the preservation of its own being’. Therefore, ‘whatever is a means
of preserving human life, and of warding off its obstacles, belongs to the natural law.’ He therefore
made preservation of life the first of five primary precepts, things that are good and absolute and
describe human flourishing. Primary precepts: To worship God, To live in an ordered society, To
reproduce, To learn, To defend the innocent life.
Counterargument: If the primary precepts are derived from what Aquinas believes are principles
that already apart of human nature, applied through reason, then why are the secondary precepts
brought about to simplify the application of the primary precepts. Surely they should be able to do
good through their own reason without additional guidance.
, Since natural law tries to derive a moral conclusion from a factual premise (the naturalistic fallacy), it
is incoherent. G.E. Moore argues that Natural law depends on what is the definition of good. Good is
unanalysable and unnatural so cannot be defined by any reference to nature.
Paragraph 3
Point: Humans are inclined towards good.
Argument: Aquinas has a positive view of human nature. He thinks that there is a natural response
to do good. The moral laws arise out of this natural response and support the view of a created
world where life flourishes. Though society is diverse, perhaps there are enough common features
among all people for natural law to make sense.
Counterargument: Thomas Hobbes- Human nature is dangerous and murderous. ‘Men from their
very birth, and naturally scramble for everything they covet, and would have the entire world, if they
could, to fear and obey them’.
Introduction
Define: Natural law- A deontological theory based on behaviour that accords with given laws or
moral rules that exist independently of human societies and systems.
Importance: Shows that our human nature is designed to be good.
Scholars: Aquinas, Hobbes, Moore, Barth
Conclusion: Humans are not inclined towards good.
Paragraph 1
Point: Humans are not inclined towards good otherwise we would not need the four tiers of law.
Argument: Aquinas- Four laws- ‘a certain rule and measure of acts whereby man is induced to act or
is restrained from acting’- Why do we need to be restrained if we are inclined towards good? Human
Law: The laws of nations- everyday rules that govern our lives. Why do we need human law to be
established if humans are inclined towards good?
Sometimes these laws are flawed and cannot be considered ‘good’ but are still followed e.g. Nazi
leaders on trial for war crimes argued that they were just obeying the law. This was rejected
because the supposed ‘inclination towards good’ that they have within them should have made
them realise what they were doing was wrong.
Karl Barth thought that Natural law relied too much on reason. Since human reason is imperfect, it
does not provide a strong basis for moral decision-making.
Counterargument: Natural law may appear to be exclusively about following rules but this fails to
recognise the role of reason in moral decision- making that Aquinas is concerned about. Natural law
is ‘law-like’ because of its rationality.
Paragraph 2
Point: Humans are inclined towards good because natural law is derived from humans natural
inclination to do good.
Argument: Aquinas thought that in all human beings, ‘there is first of all an inclination to good’
because ‘every substance seeks the preservation of its own being’. Therefore, ‘whatever is a means
of preserving human life, and of warding off its obstacles, belongs to the natural law.’ He therefore
made preservation of life the first of five primary precepts, things that are good and absolute and
describe human flourishing. Primary precepts: To worship God, To live in an ordered society, To
reproduce, To learn, To defend the innocent life.
Counterargument: If the primary precepts are derived from what Aquinas believes are principles
that already apart of human nature, applied through reason, then why are the secondary precepts
brought about to simplify the application of the primary precepts. Surely they should be able to do
good through their own reason without additional guidance.
, Since natural law tries to derive a moral conclusion from a factual premise (the naturalistic fallacy), it
is incoherent. G.E. Moore argues that Natural law depends on what is the definition of good. Good is
unanalysable and unnatural so cannot be defined by any reference to nature.
Paragraph 3
Point: Humans are inclined towards good.
Argument: Aquinas has a positive view of human nature. He thinks that there is a natural response
to do good. The moral laws arise out of this natural response and support the view of a created
world where life flourishes. Though society is diverse, perhaps there are enough common features
among all people for natural law to make sense.
Counterargument: Thomas Hobbes- Human nature is dangerous and murderous. ‘Men from their
very birth, and naturally scramble for everything they covet, and would have the entire world, if they
could, to fear and obey them’.
