“The strengths of natural law outweigh the weaknesses.” Discuss.
The ethical theory of natural law suggests that there exists an order to the universe and that
all thoughts are better when they act according to this order or their telos (God given
purpose). This purpose being eudaimonia (fulfilment of human flourishing) which can be
achieved by following the synderesis rule - to do good and avoid evil. In order for one to do
good, Aquinas presented 5 primary precepts (preservation of life, reproduction, education of
children, ordering of society, to worship God). It could be argued that the ethical theory has
multiple strengths which has led Bowie to argue that natural law “gives clear unambiguous
answers to moral questions in times of moral uncertainty”. That said, the strengths can be
perceived as flawed and thus it can be maintained that the weaknesses of natural law
outweigh its strengths to a great extent.
It could be argued that the strengths of natural law outweigh the weaknesses. The ethical
theory insists that there are universal moral truths which is a strength in itself as it gives
social advantages such as providing boundaries on behaviour and thus creating an
environment of order (one of the 5 primary precepts).
However, it could be maintained that universal conclusions are not always made. If they did,
there would be no conflict in the world. This is because we cannot universally agree on what
is ‘natural’. For example, in many religions, being gay is considered unnatural and therefore
immoral. But gay people defend themselves as they believe that they were born this way.
Therefore it is natural and morally acceptable to them.
In the same way that we cannot universally agree on what is ‘natural’, we cannot universally
agree on what is ‘good’. Thus, Nielsen logically argued that theories such as natural law,
which base their principles on what is ‘good’, are unreliable and unrealistic. Furthermore,
Hare’s non-cognitive theory, prescriptivism, successfully argues that ethical terms such as
‘good’ and ‘bad’ are subjective. This is a cohesive argument as ethical statements cannot be
factual statements that are true or false as they are emotions that we express as commands
as we want others to act in the same way. Similarly, Moore can be used to support both
Nielsen and Hare’s criticisms of natural law as he convincingly argued that ‘good’ is too
complex to define.
Similarly, if we apply these arguments to the synderesis rule ‘to do good and avoid evil’,
natural law appears to be flawed as, although this seems universally easy to follow, ‘good’
and ‘evil’ are subjective. Who’s definition of good and evil are we to follow when using
natural law in moral decision making? Aquinas would argue that ‘good’ acts are those which
are ‘natural’. However this means that Natural law is flawed as it commits the naturalistic
fallacy which Moore successfully pointed out. He argued that natural law is guilty of arguing
that if something is ‘natural’ it must be good. A supporting example of this would be
observing the natural shape of human teeth and concluding that because they are designed
for eating meat, it is now morally wrong to eat vegetables. Therefore we can infer that the
weaknesses outweigh the strengths to a great extent.
However, it could be argued that the strengths of natural law outweigh the weaknesses
because it is a deontological, absolutist and objective ethical theory. Thus, its rules are fixed
and do not change regardless of the situation or circumstance. This can be considered as a
strength because it makes the theory straightforward and easy to follow which is vital when
one needs to make quick moral decisions. One may also argue that absolutism is a key
strength of natural law as everyone is treated equally and thus no one receives unfair
judgement. That said, fixed rules do not work in every situation and some people require
more attention in certain circumstances. For example, if someone has been raped, Aquinas
would argue that having an abortion is wrong as it goes against the primary precepts of
reproduction and preservation of life, which is absurd. It could be argued that a teleological
approach would be better as it prevents something like this from occurring.
The ethical theory of natural law suggests that there exists an order to the universe and that
all thoughts are better when they act according to this order or their telos (God given
purpose). This purpose being eudaimonia (fulfilment of human flourishing) which can be
achieved by following the synderesis rule - to do good and avoid evil. In order for one to do
good, Aquinas presented 5 primary precepts (preservation of life, reproduction, education of
children, ordering of society, to worship God). It could be argued that the ethical theory has
multiple strengths which has led Bowie to argue that natural law “gives clear unambiguous
answers to moral questions in times of moral uncertainty”. That said, the strengths can be
perceived as flawed and thus it can be maintained that the weaknesses of natural law
outweigh its strengths to a great extent.
It could be argued that the strengths of natural law outweigh the weaknesses. The ethical
theory insists that there are universal moral truths which is a strength in itself as it gives
social advantages such as providing boundaries on behaviour and thus creating an
environment of order (one of the 5 primary precepts).
However, it could be maintained that universal conclusions are not always made. If they did,
there would be no conflict in the world. This is because we cannot universally agree on what
is ‘natural’. For example, in many religions, being gay is considered unnatural and therefore
immoral. But gay people defend themselves as they believe that they were born this way.
Therefore it is natural and morally acceptable to them.
In the same way that we cannot universally agree on what is ‘natural’, we cannot universally
agree on what is ‘good’. Thus, Nielsen logically argued that theories such as natural law,
which base their principles on what is ‘good’, are unreliable and unrealistic. Furthermore,
Hare’s non-cognitive theory, prescriptivism, successfully argues that ethical terms such as
‘good’ and ‘bad’ are subjective. This is a cohesive argument as ethical statements cannot be
factual statements that are true or false as they are emotions that we express as commands
as we want others to act in the same way. Similarly, Moore can be used to support both
Nielsen and Hare’s criticisms of natural law as he convincingly argued that ‘good’ is too
complex to define.
Similarly, if we apply these arguments to the synderesis rule ‘to do good and avoid evil’,
natural law appears to be flawed as, although this seems universally easy to follow, ‘good’
and ‘evil’ are subjective. Who’s definition of good and evil are we to follow when using
natural law in moral decision making? Aquinas would argue that ‘good’ acts are those which
are ‘natural’. However this means that Natural law is flawed as it commits the naturalistic
fallacy which Moore successfully pointed out. He argued that natural law is guilty of arguing
that if something is ‘natural’ it must be good. A supporting example of this would be
observing the natural shape of human teeth and concluding that because they are designed
for eating meat, it is now morally wrong to eat vegetables. Therefore we can infer that the
weaknesses outweigh the strengths to a great extent.
However, it could be argued that the strengths of natural law outweigh the weaknesses
because it is a deontological, absolutist and objective ethical theory. Thus, its rules are fixed
and do not change regardless of the situation or circumstance. This can be considered as a
strength because it makes the theory straightforward and easy to follow which is vital when
one needs to make quick moral decisions. One may also argue that absolutism is a key
strength of natural law as everyone is treated equally and thus no one receives unfair
judgement. That said, fixed rules do not work in every situation and some people require
more attention in certain circumstances. For example, if someone has been raped, Aquinas
would argue that having an abortion is wrong as it goes against the primary precepts of
reproduction and preservation of life, which is absurd. It could be argued that a teleological
approach would be better as it prevents something like this from occurring.
