Describe and explain the distinctive features of 'natural law' and 'situation ethics'.

Authors Avatar

3/2/2005        Luke Bullen        MLW

Describe and explain the distinctive features of ‘natural law’ and ‘situation ethics’.

The theories of natural law and situation ethics are far from concrete, and the impact of the contemporary ‘new natural law,’ led by the American philosopher Germain Grisez, appears to be a great one. Yet despite modern modifications, the two concepts are essentially deep-routed within human thinking. However, they were formulated at opposite ends of the second millennium: St. Thomas Aquinas’ 13th century Summa Theologica developed Aristotle and Cicero’s ideas of ‘natural law’, and the explicit conclusions of ‘situation ethics’ were created by Joseph Fletcher in the early 1960s. Both deal with the human need to astutely with every day dilemmas. Natural law takes the view that the absolute principle of love should be a consideration of every decision made, whilst situation ethics discredits any absolute idea other than that of human happiness.

First Aristotle (384-322 BCE) and then Cicero (106-43 BCE) introduced the idea of a natural law “which everywhere is equally valid” (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics). Aristotle believed that “that which is natural is unchangeable, and has the same power everywhere.” Within these statements one notices the effect of the Ancient Stoics, who spoke of the idea of ‘Logos,’ from which the word ‘logic’ is derived. Logos was seen as a law of rationality that governed the world, and its influence can be seen within St Paul’s letter to the Romans, in which he spoke of a law “written in the hearts” of Gentiles. Cicero’s De Republica went further, talking of “reason in agreement with nature” that was “unchanging and everlasting” and was “not outside” the human psyche. These sentiments, and particularly the idea of an “author” of natural law who would act as “master and ruler,” were reintroduced by St Thomas Aquinas in the early 13th century. The “one master” aspect allowed Aquinas to introduce these, formerly heathen beliefs into Christian philosophy. He saw natural law as a system of ethics within the very purpose of nature, whose existence was governed by an eternal God. God’s authority is seen as all-important because the law is defined by divine reason. This divine reason can be perceived through revelation within the Bible, and through humans’ use of their own sense of it. Aquinas believed that following reason would lead to a moral life, whilst turning away from it  “is equivalent to condemning the command of God.” Aquinas believed that only non-natural desires could deter man from this divine decree, understanding that man’s destiny was to follow it and thus to live in companionship with God. Aquinas put forward several ‘primary precepts’ that he believed to be necessary in order to reach this state of companionship. Self-preservation underlines all of them: reproduction is key, as is the education of children. Aquinas further pressed the need to live within a society, and to fully contribute to it, whilst also worshipping God. Following these precepts is seen as a way as reaching the ‘end’ of God. For example, protected or homosexual intercourse is seen as morally wrong because it prevents the fulfilment of God’s first intention: reproduction.

Join now!

Aquinas rejected the idea of ‘original sin,’ preferring to believe that humans never intentionally pursuit evil; rather, evil is “sought indirectly, namely because it is the consequence of some good.” Any sin committed whilst not in the quest for moral perfection were seen as simply a ‘falling short’ within the human consciousness. To ‘sinners,’ the act they perpetrate is an apparent good, but can easily be avoided by looking beyond ‘unnatural’ desires and into one’s ‘natural’ conscience in order to find the right thing to do. Aquinas acknowledges that this can be a difficult task, and asserts that if people do ...

This is a preview of the whole essay