Evaluating Natural Law

STRENGTHS OF NATURAL LAW:

1. Absolute and Deontological
Enables people to establish a structured and official base in which to structure both their moral decision making and, on a larger scale, communities. In a relativistic era suffering from lack of definitive stability this absolutist approach may be attractive.

2. Universatility
Aquinas's view of PRACTICAL REASON and the idea that humans all maintain a common nature and morality allows natural law to be universally accepted. It is true that all cultures maintain the same basic principles i.e. continuation of the species and therefore promotes a sense of equality also.

3. A REASON to be moral
Natural law provides a concrete reason to BE moral and a firm basis from which to refuse to step over moral boundaries - i.e. to fulfill our destiny of a fellowship with God. It is furthermore a way of life rather than a set of guidelines and gives step by step advice on what it is to be human.

4. Based on Human Nature
Gerard J. Hughes suggests in his book "Christian Ethics: An introduction" (1998) that Natural Law is intimately in tune with human nature and by focusing on following conscience and practical reason allows a margin for error as long as intentions were to follow good.

WEAKNESSES OF NATURAL LAW:

1. Is there a common Human Nature?
Some have challenged Aquinas' belief in a fundamental principle that encompasses all human beings and that which contributes to our human nature. Kai Nielson states

"Concept of human nature is a rather vague cultural concept, not a scientific one."

Arguably this human nature is not as self-evident as Aquinas believed. For example different culture's idea of morality are in direct opposition - - Eskimos for example kill off those who they believe will not survive the winter, whilst maintaining supposedly good intentions this is a fundamental violation of the continuation of the species precept.
- Homosexuals & Bisexuals are still human but their sexuality does not lead to reproduction and therefore Aquinas condemns this. Stating they have no purpose. = ARGUABLY NO COMMON HUMAN NATURE OR AT LEAST ONE MORE COMPLEX THAN AQUINAS ANTICIPATED

2. Is Natural Law Holistic?
In his work "The Puzzle of Ethics" (1994) Paul Vardy challenged the way Aquinas insistently links general principles to lesser purpose. For example does sex ALWAYS have to end in reproduction? Are other sex acts immoral? Indeed the pleasure of love-making may actually benefit a couple's relationship making reproduction in the future more likely. As Aquinas condemns such acts he is UNHOLISTIC as he only sees the bigger picture not the details. For example, science has shown the reproductive parts to be adapted for pleasure as well as reproduction. Aquinas is merely SIMPLISTIC.

3. Do Natural Law & Religion mix?
Whilst Natural Law claims to be a Christian ethic Jesus indeed opposed a LEGALISTIC approach to ethics in the New Testament as Joseph Fletcher argues with his interpretation of Jesus' ethics "Situation Ethics". As christianity is based on the teachings of Jesus and NL supposedly based on christianity such contradictions decrease its viability as a theory.
- John Finnis' Natural Law Theory may however provide a more accessible approach as although from a Catholic perspective the 7 Basic Goods may be accepted by even Atheists. However one of the "goods" of life is proposed to be reproduction, and many people are left infertile for their entire lives - are they therefore leading a less moral life?

4. Is Natural Law as rigid as it seems?
Aquinas observed as although the primary precepts remained UNCHANGEABLE the secondary precepts would need some flexibility for certain circumstances. Such flexibility however undermined the ABSOLUTISM of the theory that has proved to be a strength. Without the absolute guidelines to establish what is good/bad N.L may arguably invite the possibility of SITUATIONISM.

St. Thomas Aquinas's Natural Law

Aquinas developed a fuller account of NATURAL LAW in the 13th Century. His ethical theory is ABSOLUTIST & DEONTOLOGICAL - thus focused on the ethicality of actions not just their end. In his work Summa Theologia (1273) he described natural law as a moral code existing within the PURPOSE of nature, created by God.

"Law is nothing else that an ordination of reason for the common good".

Aristotle - Aquinas:
Aquinas took much of Aristotle's musings and adapted them to form the idea of the Eternal Law of God. This law exists to ASSIST humans to direct their actions in a way that they may reach their ETERNAL DESTINY WITH GOD. This divinely inspired law covers both the OUTWARD view of actions and the INTERNAL motivation.

"Man needs to be directed to his supernatural end in a higher way".

- Law that directs towards good and avoids evil is therefore a development of Aristotle's PRACTICAL REASON: Moral life lives according to reason & immoral life lives at odds with reason. Reason determines that the ultimate purpose & destiny of human life is FELLOWSHIP WITH GOD. Humans naturally tend towards this destiny and shoul therefore live according to their design.

Primary & Secondary Precepts:
For Aquinas man's first precept is SELF-PRESERVATION and he therefore established a set of primary precepts to ensure this goal - may be remembered via the following acronym:

W- orship God (Eternal destiny of fellowship with God)
O- rdered Society
R- eproduction (Continuation of the Species)
L- earning (Education of Children)
D- efend Innocent (Preservation of Human Life)

These precepts are the "good" that all actions should direct towards and remain unchanging "Natural Law is the same for all men". Acts that accord with these precepts are good and vice versa.

SECONDARY PRECEPTS - rulings to allow us to direct our actions towards PRIMARY precepts. For example according to Natural Law, ABORTION is wrong as it does not DEFEND the innocent and actively destroys human life - going againt the fundamental precept of "Self preservation".

- The idea of primary & secondary precepts owes much to Aristotle's thinking on SUBORDINATE and ULTIMATE ends.

Casuistry:
Aristotle & Aquinas believed moral decision are made in the situation and it is only in that situation one can really determine what is good. Such decision requires conscience and indeed arguably PRACTICAL REASON is then facilitated. Ethical thinking should then be follwed as such:

1. The Issue - Should I abort?
2. Practical Reason - Abortion = Killing?
3. Principles - Primary Precept; defending of innocent

= Abortion is WRONG

This kind of thinking = CASUISTRY = application of ethics to TYPES of cases but not INDIVIDUAL cases.

Real & Apparent Goods:
Aquinas believed that human nature was essentially good as natural law is within everyone and humans naturally seek good and avoid evil.

"No evil can be desirable, either by natural appetite or by conscience will".

- Human actions that are not in the pursuit of perfection can be xplained as the pursuit of an APPARENT GOOD which is something illfitting of human ideals. Eg. "A fornicator seeks a pleasure which involves him in immoral guilts" = An adulterer is acting in the pursuit of an APPARENT GOOD namely pleasure not a REAL good. He is therefore ating in a way that prevents God's intentions from occuring and is using error of reason in which to do so.

- Temptation is the hook that leads us to APPARENT GOODS.

Exterior & Interior Acts:
For Aquinas both intention and act is important. For example;
If one ACTS in a GOOD way but for the WRONG INTENTION = Good Exterior Act & Bad Interior Act.

Eg. Helping an old lady cross the road to impress someone, not out of charity.

- The only end that Aquinas values is God and he believes that all actions are intrinsically good or bad because when humans actin in accordance with their ULTIMATE PURPOSE (i.e. fellowship with God) God is glorified. In this way Natural Law proves to be wholly DEONTOLOGICAl as the MEANS are just as important as the END.

Roots of Natural Law

Roots of Natural Law can be found in the Ancient Greek & Roman world, examples of such are;

1. "Antigone" written in the 5th Century BC, is a play describing a sister breaking the laws of Creon, ruler of Thebes, in order to bury her brother according to the immortal laws of God (nature), which required the dead to be buried.

2. The Stoics, 3rd Century BC, emphasised the importance of "logos" or the rationality that governs the world and sees human nature as part of one natural order. Considered Natural Law a law of RIGHT REASON.

3. Roman Lawyer CICERO formulated the classic description of natural law, "True law is right reason in agreement with nature".

4. Aristotle (pictured above) also around in the 3rd Century BC is pivotal in the development of natural law becaue of his ideas of an action being good if it achieves a GOOD END & the idea of PRACTICAL REASON.

- The idea that if an action achieved good it is good (some may say extrinsically) may be described as somewhat teleological as the end seems to justify the means. However as Aristotle found, there is more than one END to an action...

...eg. The use of sleeping pills aim to allow the user to benefit from good sleep. This sleep is SUBORDINATE to the overall good end of health.

Aristotle therefore concludes that all actions must aim towards an ULTIMATE GOOD that is not subordinate to any other.

- What is the ultimate good? Aristotle claims that it is difficult to establish a definite judgement as all ethics roots from "true but obscure judgements". He assumes therefore that within humans there are NATURAL TENDENCIES that guide us towards a moral life. Ethics has a natural basis rather than arbitrary and we therefore use REASON.

This natural reason known as Practical Reason relies on humans being emotionally balanced.

Emotional balance relies on; REPRODUCTION, FEELING, SENSING, THINKING, CHOOSING etc. It is these which give human virtue and allow us to be differentiated from animals. By living a life consisting of such natural activities, practical reason aids us.

- It is this idea that nature provides the tools for moral judgemeent that allowed St Thomas Aquinas to further develop NATURAL LAW into something still used today by the Roman Catholic Church.

Situation Ethics - Joseph Fletcher

In his book Situation Ethics 1963 Fletcher began with a quote from Bishop Robinson "There is no ethical system that can claim to be Christian" and also Rudolph Bultmann who argued that Jesus' sole ethics was to "Love thy neighbour". Fletcher therefore sought to combine Christianity and Ethics with his theory of SITUATION ETHICS, using Jesus' main teaching of Agape Love as a backbone.

Fletcher saw that there were 3 main ways of making moral decisions:
1. Legalistic - Based on prefabricated moral rules and regulations such as in Christianity, which uses religious teaching from the bible and the 10 commandments as strict rules in which to live by. Fletcher saw this method as inflexible as there is seemingly no margin for exceptionally circumstances. E.g. Killing in self-defence. He felt that living life by a rule-book was wrong as the laws surpassed the beliefs.

2. Antinomian - The reverse of legalistic ethics, literally meaning "against law". All moral decisions are spontaneous and unique to that immediate situation. Fletcher, although favouring the relativistic nature portrayed in such ethics, felt that those who made decisions without principles as a guidance live an "anarchic" existence.

2. Situational - A situationist enters into a situation with all of their beliefs and principles as the foundation of their ultimate decision. Best course of action depends on how it best suits their beliefs, however such principles direct and do not DICTATE. Combines both LEGALISTIC + ANTINOMIAN as whilst rejecting absolute nature of laws, uses the laws of our own principles as guidance. Fletcher therefore uses this approach in his theory Situation Ethics with 6 prefabricated principles (NOT LAWS).

6 principles:
1. "Only love is intrinsically good" - actions are EXTRINSICALLY good depending on their consequence but they can never be INTRINSICALLY good.

2. "Ruling norm of Christian decision is love" - Jesus replaced the Jewish Holy Book (Torah) with his principle of agape love and displayed how the commandments are not absolute but mere PRINCIPLES. Love over Law.

3. "Love and justice are the same for justice is love distributed" -the two cannot be seperated as justice is love at work.

4. "Love wills the good neighbour" - Idea of agape love, the primary teaching of Jesus and in keeping with the commandment "love they neighbour".

5. "Only the end justifies the mean" - TELEOLOGICAL THEORY

6. "Love's decisions are made situationally" - Jesus reacted against rule-base morality and therefore fletcher maintained the view that something can not be absolutely wrong or right.

Clearly Fletcher differs from traditional Christian ethics as although he uses Jesus as the crux of his theory the relativism is out of context with the strong rule base od traditional teachings. Particularly that of Roman Catholics and Natural Law. SITUATION ETHICS rejects NATURAL LAW as it stated whether something is intrinsically good or bad and dictates this while situationist believe only love is intrinsic and also rebel againt rules.

Furthermore whilst S.E is TELEOLOGICAL N.L is DEONTOLOGICAL.

To what extent do you agree with the view that "The Big Bang Theory disproves the Biblical account of creation in Genesis"?

The “Big Bang Theory” has been constructed over many years with the discoveries and theories of many scientists. It states that the universe was created from one point, a “primeval atom” or “singularity” in the words of Lemaitre and Stephen Hawking, the force of which poured out every element and component that makes up the universe as we know it. The evidence for this comes from the fact that the universe has been demonstrated to be still expanding today. This was discovered by Hubble when he noticed that the electromagnetic radiation emitted from the stars was red on the spectrum meaning that they are being stretched – “Red Shift” – and therefore the universe must be expanding.

There are three different elements to the Big Bang Theory, one states that as the universe keeps expanding there is too little matter for gravity to take affect, and therefore an open universe is created whereby it keeps expanding for infinity. The second defines that there is sufficient matter to sustain an equal universe where expansion will eventually conclude and stabilize. Finally, the third, which is our present state as modern evidence would dictate, is whereby eventually there is so much matter that the progress reverses itself and comes back to the single point, a “closed” universe. This theory is called “The Big Crunch”, meaning the universe would ultimately last forever but would pass through different phases of existence, i.e. expanding then contracting.

The issue of the theory disproving the account of creation in Genesis is wholly up to how an individual interprets the bible. For fundamentalists and “Creationists” whom read the account literally, the science behind the theory does disprove the account as for example, there are discoveries of rocks and fossils dating back millions and millions of years, completely overriding the Creationist view that the world is only fifteen thousand years old. Science can also date waves of radiation back to the first milliseconds of existence, billions of years ago, again undermining the literal belief. For many people however, Genesis and the creation story can be described as allegorical and offers an explanation with a margin of self-imagination. For example, the statement “God made the world in seven days” may not literally mean seven days, rather a period of time open to questioning.

Science however can take us to the moment of “singularity” or creation, but not beyond and this is where the idea of God truly becomes open to discussion as science has no definite answer and the thought of an actual creator is not past intellectual logic. However, the perception of God and what he actually represents is variable. Stephen Hawking’s recent theory that gravity itself is enough to “light the blue touch paper” can in a way be perceived as God himself because who is to say that the fundamental physical laws which, arguably, could be the answer to the start of creation, are not in fact the creators of the universe and thus God?

Both science and the book of Genesis define that there was nothing, and then there was something, (for example in the bible it says, “In the beginning”). From this we can infer that whatever did spark existence was spontaneous and the only thing, i.e. nothing came before it. The idea of nothing is very hard to perceive intellectually and therefore the religious idea of God as an omniscient being is, although some would say allegorical, easier to grasp than scientifically stating that there was nothing because science relies on justifiable evidence and not beliefs, which in turn do not need to be reasonable nor provide confirmation. As God cannot be proved right or wrong, taking into account different perceptions of what he may actually be/represent, I feel that the Big Bang Theory can neither prove nor disprove the account of creation in Genesis as there are many similarities between them if the latter is read allegorically yet many obvious differences with literal interpretation.

Explain how religion and science can offer contrasting answers to the question "What happened at the beginning of time?"

The question "What happened at the beginning of time" is one that has been marvelled over thoughout history both religiously and scientifically and one that has caused much conflict. Both science and religion seek an understanding of the universe in its entirity, however whilst science relies on hard fact religion uses faith, hence why conflict is inevitable.

From a religious view the belief is that God was and is the creator of the universe and, although science can describe how everything happened, religion is needed to describe the meaning of our existence. Creationism is an umbrella term for many different views, the two main branches being Young and Old Earth Creationism. Whilst Old Earth creationists accept that the bible, in particular the story of creation in Genesis 1, may be allegorical in its description of the world being created in "6 days", Young Earth creationists take the bible to be completely literal, thus why they reject scientific evaluations of the Earth's actual age. If the bible is believed to be a wholly inerrant doctrine from God then it can not be faulted, hence why Young Earth creationism is so unyeilding in its acceptance of science. Genesis 1 and 2 offer different perceptions of God and his role within the universe. Gap creationists recognise this divide and believe that the universe was created, "The Earth was shapeless and void" and then there was a "gap" whereby God intervened and the Earth began to take shape. Gap creationism therefore also recognises the flexibility of the timeframe stated in the bible and like Old Earth creationism is more willing to accept science.

Whilst these versions of creationism vary they share one common factor; namely God, and that he made the universe and everything in it from nothing.

Science has, up until recently, always been parallel with religion and accepted God. Indeed in medieval times scholars and scientists were theologians first and foremost and therefore explored science with God at the forefront of their understanding. Today there still seems no reason to completely reject the idea that God "Lit the blue touch paper" as Stephen Hawking stated. Throughout history scientists have observed the sky. The works of Aristotle up to Galileo have developed the idea of a geocentric universe into a heliocentric, revolving around the sun. Newton developed a reflecting telescope that essentially enabled the birth of all modern scientific principles such as testing and experimenting. With Hubble and Gamow's discovery of red shift, cosmic waves can be traced back to their origin - the primeval atom -showing not only the Earth's true age but also that the universe is exapnding from one point. If then we can trace back to this point we are mere milliseconds away from determining the beginning of everything. Although Stephen Hawking is the most prominent scientist to collaborate these ideas, scientist from throughout history have aided the Big Bang Theory, the idea that everything may be traced back to one spot.

The remaining question is then, what initiated the Big Bang and, though arguably just the God of the Gaps theory, God remains a possible candidate.

Whilst the idea of God starting everything cannot as of yet be disproved the contrast between religion and science is the scientific belief that the universe and everything in it was created at the same moment in time and now mattwer what ahppened next, life on earth is a form of chance. This statement completely changes the view of the relationship humans have with God as believed by religious people. The idea of chance shows possibilites of other life forms, proving humans to not be unique and undermining the idea that God had a predetermined plan.

Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of Hume’s challenges to miracles and consider the religious response to them.

David Hume was a philosopher at the very core of the Scottish Enlightenment in the 18th century. His views challenged the belief that religion and the existence of God are the answers to anything science can not explain, i.e. God of the Gaps. In particular he dissected the idea that miracles are the result of God’s intervention stating that a miracle is “A transgression of a law of nature by a particular volition of the Deity or by the interposition of some invisible agent”. In simpler terms, Hume is defining a miracle as something that breaks a natural law because of the intervention of an exterior influence, not necessarily God.

Hume created three main arguments that challenged the existence of miracles. The first focuses on the opinion that there has never been “…in all history any miracle attested by a sufficient number of men of such unquestioned good- sense, education and earning” to be relied upon to give a valid account. In biblical terms this seems to be a fair point, for example Jesus raises Lazarus from the dead after four days in front of a crowd of people in Bethany; whilst this can not be proved or disproved the people within that crowd would have been farmers or fishermen, uneducated and illiterate and Hume’s point is that this is how miracles are accounted for in the majority of the bible, in front of a large but seemingly unreliable witness. Thus, Hume wondered why miracles never seemed to occur in the presence of well-educated men such as himself. If even the most highly respected and educated men of the time had been ignorant only a hundred years before the revolution of science does it not then seem logical to state that humble peasants thousands of years ago can not be a reliable source? However, religion does not require logic and it can be argued that intelligence does not determine reliability. It is true that in most cases in the bible miracles were performed in front of a crowd and therefore the quantity should overrule the quality of the source. The resurrection of Jesus is the foundation of Christianity, a religion that millions of people believe, regardless of their intelligence or status. How then can Hume state that the witnesses are “insufficient”, whilst it is true that Christians were not actually present at the resurrection of Jesus the fact remains that millions have the faith to believe in them and who is to say that the “invisible agent” is not God?

“The passion of surprise and wonder, arising from miracles, being an agreeable emotion, gives a sensible tendency towards the belief of those events from which it is derived”. This quote presents the idea that if people believe in miracles then whenever a wondrous thing happens they will automatically refer to it as a miracle because they want to believe it is. If a woman who has been told she can never have a baby then conceives, many would view this as a miracle, getting caught up in the emotion but forgetting the factors that may have caused it; there is an element of human error involved as well as the biological aspect that is completely unpredictable. Thus, while highly unlikely there is always still a chance. However, Hume’s statement is hypocritical as you could say that he is being unsympathetic towards miracles and by not believing in them is being biased himself. An example that disproves Hume’s idea is that of St Paul who converted to Christianity after Jesus performed a miracle. Surely this is a credible source as this miracle convinced him enough to become possibly the most prominent follower of Jesus.

Hume also believes that, much like the witnesses, the countries in which these miracles supposedly occur are “abound among ignorant and barbarous nations”. It is true that miracles tend to happen in rural areas of far humbler surroundings than the city of Edinburgh at the time. However what is to say that God intervened there as those people were in more need of a miracle than those who are privileged? The context of the time is important also in this case as Hume worked during the enlightenment, the name itself gives away the analogy that everything beforehand had been thwarted by darkness and ignorance. Within this Hume shows his own ignorance in that, compared to himself and the educated environment he is used to of course every other nation is going to be far more ignorant, the majority of people I his time were still workers and did not have the opportunities he did. Religion for many gave them something to live for and how does Hume have the right to question it? After all billions of people believe in miracles whilst few shared his view and thus he seemed the ignorant minority at the time.

His final challenge is in that of opposing religions and how that although miracles are present in all religions neither one can accept a miracle from another as it would disprove their own. “Every miracle, therefore, pretended to have been wrought in any of these religions…as its direct scope to establish the particular system to which it is attributed, so it has the same forces…to overthrow every other system. In destroying a rival system, it likewise destroys the credit of those miracles, on which that system was established”. Whilst Hume thought that as not all of these religions can be right they must all be wrong there is surely more evidence to prove miracles as each religion seems to have examples, for example Jews believe Moses led them across the Red Sea because they were the chosen ones, and so regardless of the faith miracles seem to exist.

Whilst many of Hume’s arguments are close-minded to anything other than the educated world he lives in I believe his most valid point is that of wanting miracles to be true and thus fabricating them from positive and unpredicted events. This idea can be applied to any religion and poses the question over whether miracles really are the intervention of God or just what we perceive them to be. There seems no reason however to not incorporate both Hume’s ideas and religion as there is no proof that one who prays for a miracle and then receives it has not witnessed the intervention of God as much as a person who does not believe in miracles and then is saved from death quite inexplicably has not played a part in a miracle of pure luck/chance.