The idea that there is a natural law of morality, just as there is a law of gravity and thee are laws of motion, can be found in many different cultures. It would be an over-simplification to suggest that there is one single moral concept of Natural Law. For example, in Hinduism, there is believed to be a ‘natural law’ called dharma, which governs the rules for different kinds of people to follow in order to gain merit. Dharma is an eternal, unchanging part of the universe, and it sets the standards for the right ways to behave. This ‘natural law’ gives a code of conduct for wives, for example. Even the gods are subject to dharma.
Within Christianity there has been a great deal of support for the view that there is a Natural Law of morality. The Christian understanding of this concept is based very largely upon the work of Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth century. Aquinas was a Dominican priest who lived from 1224-1274. He was an important Christian philosopher and theologian who developed a fuller account of natural law. His ethical theory is absolutist and deontological, which, means that it is focused on the actions. In his work, Summa Theologica, Aquinas described natural law as a moral code of existing within the purpose of nature, created by God. “Law is nothing else than an ordination of reason for the common good promulgated by the one who is in the charge if the community.” (II.i.Q.90 art. 4) He wished to who the compatibility of Christian Theology with classical philosophy, and tried to reconcile Aristotle’s thinking with Christianity. He attempted to show that God revealed himself through nature as well as through Scripture. An example of this, divine intervention, is when God gave his only son, Jesus. Like Aristotle, Aquinas thought that discerning something’s natural purpose was they key to knowing how to act in relation to it. Reason is the God given tool that enables people to discern natural purposes, so through working things out logically, we can understand what God wants.
Aquinas derived particular rules from more general principles, this is called casuistry. Aquinas’ natural law is made up of the five ‘primary precepts’ and numerous ‘secondary precepts’. The primary precepts are, worship God, live in society, educate children, continue the species through reproduction and self-preservation and preservation of the innocent. Other secondary precepts that could be deduced from, for example, the last primary precept mentioned (self-preservation and the preservation of the innocent) are; do not murder, do not abort unborn, defend the defenceless and do not commit suicide. Aquinas maintained that there was a basic law, or precept, within which all the other natural laws played a part, “do good and avoid evil”. This natural law exists to assist humans to direct the actions in such a way that they may reach their external destiny with God. Natural law evaluates both what I do and why I do it and affects all aspects of human behaviour, because “…man needs to be directed to his supernatural end in a higher way” (II.i.Q.91 art.4).
It’s not hard to recognise that men and women are meant to compliment each other. Aquinas believed that it was also a natural instinct of people to do whatever makes humanity flourish, and to avoid what is harmful. In terms of meta-ethics, Aquinas could be described as an ethical naturalist as he believed that it was possible to look at the observable facts of the world around us and see what we ought to do as a result. Aquinas believed that the whole idea of law works at four different levels, known as ‘The Four Laws of Aquinas’. These are; the Eternal Law, which is the mind of God, which orders the Universe and decides its purposes. Secondly, the Divine Law, which is the law given to people from God, through the Bible and the teaching of the Church, for example, the Ten Commandments. Our inborn sense of right and wrong, discovered through the conscience is called the Natural Law and finally, the Human Law, which are the rules made by human societies on order for them to work successfully, for example, stealing is forbidden. These makeup to reflect the Eternal, Divine and Natural Law.
Each level of law depends, according to Aquinas, on the levels above it, which are superior. There is, therefore, nothing on which the Eternal law depends on, as it is part of the nature of God and self-sufficient. Divine law, revealed in the Bible and through the Church depends on the Eternal law (which is superior). Natural law depends on Eternal and Divine law, which means that people should not attempt to work out how to behave solely on the basis of what is natural, but also need to educate their consciences and makes reference to holy scripture and Church teachings. Human law, at the lowest level, should be based on the other law, and if there is a contradiction between Human law and the other levels, the other, more superior levels, or laws take priority. This means that it would be right for people to break the law of the land, if their consciences told them to do so or if the Bible or the Church gave different teaching.
However, there are many underlying assumptions in order for the “Four Laws” of Aquinas to be effective. These are, God made the world and has a purpose for people, which has been revealed to them not only through the bible but through nature (ethical naturalism). Morally right actions must be considered as those that conform to God’s will and fulfilling ‘potentiality’ or purpose is the essence of goodness, is what people want to do. For example, an educated man who worships God is more “good” than an ignorant pagan (non-believer), since the former more fully fulfils his purpose or his potential.
As Natural Law is not just an expression of opinion, but a way of asserting that there is an absolute authoritative code of moral behaviour which applies to everyone, many people would consider it as an absolutist, rather than relative, approach to ethics. Therefore it is possible for one society to judge another, and for one set of standards to be morally superior than another. It can lead to a certainty that some things are always wrong. It also helps solve the Euthyphro dilemma as the Christian version of the theory of Natural Law is seen as a way of combining faith with no reason. Morality, according to this theory, is not just obedience to the arbitrary will of God, but uses the senses and respects human rationality to reason as well. Natural Law also supports the view of objective morality, which appeals to many people’s instinctive conviction that right and wrong depend on more than just personal opinion and social convention, it also underlines human equality. The same rules apply to everyone in the world, regardless of possessions such as, status, wealth and race.
Nevertheless, in spite of these favours, Natural has been heavily criticised. Many believe there is no discernable ‘purpose’ to the Universe. Many modern thinkers, including writers such as, Jean-Paul Sartre, Albert Camus and the philosopher, Bertrand Russell claim that the universe is ‘absurd’ or ‘gracious’ and does not have a reason, it is ‘brute fact’ and came about by chance and not because of any divine purpose. This belief rejects the initial premise of the whole Natural Law approach to ethics.
Even if humanity were created for a ‘purpose’, it is not self-evident what this purpose is; hence different cultural assumptions about what life is ‘for’. For example, homosexuality may be considered as ‘unnatural’ but modern science may disprove that. If we cannot agree upon a definition of what it is to be natural, then it becomes very difficult to appeal to nature in the making of moral decisions. Aristotle famously failed to see the wrongs of slavery or the subordinate position of women, his view of a person’s purpose, derived by reason, is very different from Aquinas’. Many questions have been raised from this law as Aquinas did not expand on this idea in a way that provided much help with practical problems, such as, is it really ‘wrong’ for infertile couples to have sex? Since we are carnivores, is it really ‘wrong’ to eat vegetables? The idea that humanity has a purpose is not without its problems, we might wonder whether there is one universal purpose for the whole of humanity and whether this therefore means that we should all adopt the same kinds of behaviour. Natural Law suggests that every human adult should marry and aim to have children. However this would mean that Mother Teresa was wrong to become a nun and devote her life to the poor when she could have been at home raising a family, and that Aquinas himself should have not been a priest but should have been a husband and a father instead. Aquinas recognised this difficulty and answered it by saying tat as long as humanity as a whole fulfilled its purpose, by producing the next generation, it was acceptable for some individuals to choose other ways of life but this leads to the idea that as long as the majority follow Natural Law, paves the way for injustice as some people are then able to consider themselves exempt from the rules they wish to impose on others in society.
The Bible doesn’t support the idea that everyone’s purpose is the same. Mary, the 12 disciples, the prophets and Israel were all chosen for special roles rather than one universal purpose. It could be argued that Thomas Aquinas was too optimistic in his view of human nature and human reason. There is plenty of evidence on the news everyday to suggest that not everyone is naturally inclined towards the good, and not everyone has the powers of reason which are vital for the correct application of Natural Law.
The great twentieth century theologian Karl Barth held the view that Aquinas did not give enough attention to the doctrine of the Fall, which is the traditional Christian idea that humanity has become tainted and imperfect because of the sin of Adam an Eve. Sin has made it impossible for people to have a reliable understand of God’s intentions for us. Barth argues that people should recognise and accept the revelation of God, which is the only source of truth, rather than depending on fallible human reason. The concept of Natural Law has been accused of being based on a mistake known as the ‘naturalistic fallacy’, outlined by G. E. Moore. Once of the main points of Moore’s argument, taken from the philosopher, David Hume, was that it is not logically possible to look at facts and arrive at a valued judgement, an ‘ought’ cannot be derived from an ‘is’. Therefore Natural Law, which is based on the idea that our observation of what people are like gives a clear indication of how people ought to behave. According to Aristotle and Aquinas, our experience of human nature makes the ways in which we ought to behave self-evident, but in Moore’s view this is a step of logic that cannot legitimately be made. It is not logically lawful to take the fact of our human nature, and derive from it the values that determine human conduct.
Gerald Hughes questions Natural Law asking about how humans know about God and our place in the world, and whether human reasoning can go wrong. Have Christians misinterpreted God’s revelation? Natural law seems to support reason as a basis and Hughes recognises that both the strengths and weaknesses of Natural Law lie in its very basis.
Natural Law has been profoundly influential in ethics, especially in the teaching of the Catholic Church. Many people today, continue to base their understanding of right and wrong around the concept of what ‘natural’ actually is. However, problems arise when people try to define what exactly ‘natural’ is and those who do not believe that the universe has any kind of purpose will not accept the principles of Natural Law at all. Although Natural Law may be able to provide room for objection upon different societies, and provide equality, the theory can be inconsistent and relies upon many assumptions, some of which people may not agree with, making the whole concept of Natural Law rather ineffective.
