To what extent does natural law provide a helpful method of moral
decision-making?
Natural Law theory is an absolutist, deontological and teleological theory of
ethics which states that there is a natural order to the world which should be
followed, this theory was first fabricated in Aquinas’ book Summa Theologica.
Aquinas combined Aristotelian thought with Christian views found in the Bible
and the teaching of the Catholic Church Aquinas’ adoption and adaptation of
Aristotle’s theory of natural law together with his understanding of human telos
being achieved by flourishing eudaimonia within the community created the
basis of how humans think in terms of morality today. The Strongest line of
argument is that Natural law does provide a helpful method of moral decision
making as it provides a strong approach to moral decision-making based on
whether certain acts in themselves are good, bad, right or wrong, which
subsequently assists mankind on the creation of human laws within society.
One strength to my argument is that Natural law has given structure for human
law which is something society would not be able to function without. Aquinas
believed Natural law was part of a hierarchical system of laws including Eternal
law, Divine law, Natural law and Human law. Each of these laws is dependent on
one another except eternal law which is only fully known by God. Without
Natural law society might never have come up with the human laws as Natural
Law includes the idea of synderesis, without which humans would have zero idea
of what is right and wrong. Synderesis can be supported by the fact that almost
all societies throughout the centuries have had a natural law and order to them
despite different cultures, languages, religions and race. It can also be supported
by the fact that humans have always had autonomy.
However it could be argued that Natural Law is unhelpful method of moral
decision-making as it is too absolutist and is unable to provide solution in
complex situations as it lacks perception of intentions vs outcomes. This
challenge lacks merit as it ignores the idea of the doctrine of double effect which
states that is an intention is good and in accordance with the primary precepts
then the wrong action can be justified. Futhurmore without its absolutism
humans would not be able to come up with laws to keep society in order.
One strength to my argument is that due to Natural law being deontological, it
treats everyone the same with no prejudice against culture, its consistency
makes it easy to follow and has subsequently filtered itself into a secular society.
Natural law is a good approach to ethical decision making because it is an
absolute theory, so it is clear cut and actions are either seen as right or wrong.
This is good because it means that moral decisions can be made quickly and
there can be no disagreement about whether an action is right and wrong, so
avoids complication. As well as being fair and equal for everyone in all situations,
so there is no discrimination. One potential challenge to my argument is that
Natural Law is only helpful to those who believe in Christianity because the
fundamental principles of Natural Law require belief in God. This argues against
the idea that Natural Law is universal as many of the primary precepts are
derived from the bible such as “thou shalt not kill”, therefore Natural law is
decision-making?
Natural Law theory is an absolutist, deontological and teleological theory of
ethics which states that there is a natural order to the world which should be
followed, this theory was first fabricated in Aquinas’ book Summa Theologica.
Aquinas combined Aristotelian thought with Christian views found in the Bible
and the teaching of the Catholic Church Aquinas’ adoption and adaptation of
Aristotle’s theory of natural law together with his understanding of human telos
being achieved by flourishing eudaimonia within the community created the
basis of how humans think in terms of morality today. The Strongest line of
argument is that Natural law does provide a helpful method of moral decision
making as it provides a strong approach to moral decision-making based on
whether certain acts in themselves are good, bad, right or wrong, which
subsequently assists mankind on the creation of human laws within society.
One strength to my argument is that Natural law has given structure for human
law which is something society would not be able to function without. Aquinas
believed Natural law was part of a hierarchical system of laws including Eternal
law, Divine law, Natural law and Human law. Each of these laws is dependent on
one another except eternal law which is only fully known by God. Without
Natural law society might never have come up with the human laws as Natural
Law includes the idea of synderesis, without which humans would have zero idea
of what is right and wrong. Synderesis can be supported by the fact that almost
all societies throughout the centuries have had a natural law and order to them
despite different cultures, languages, religions and race. It can also be supported
by the fact that humans have always had autonomy.
However it could be argued that Natural Law is unhelpful method of moral
decision-making as it is too absolutist and is unable to provide solution in
complex situations as it lacks perception of intentions vs outcomes. This
challenge lacks merit as it ignores the idea of the doctrine of double effect which
states that is an intention is good and in accordance with the primary precepts
then the wrong action can be justified. Futhurmore without its absolutism
humans would not be able to come up with laws to keep society in order.
One strength to my argument is that due to Natural law being deontological, it
treats everyone the same with no prejudice against culture, its consistency
makes it easy to follow and has subsequently filtered itself into a secular society.
Natural law is a good approach to ethical decision making because it is an
absolute theory, so it is clear cut and actions are either seen as right or wrong.
This is good because it means that moral decisions can be made quickly and
there can be no disagreement about whether an action is right and wrong, so
avoids complication. As well as being fair and equal for everyone in all situations,
so there is no discrimination. One potential challenge to my argument is that
Natural Law is only helpful to those who believe in Christianity because the
fundamental principles of Natural Law require belief in God. This argues against
the idea that Natural Law is universal as many of the primary precepts are
derived from the bible such as “thou shalt not kill”, therefore Natural law is
