- Preservation of Life
- Reproduction
- Educate and Nurture the Young
- Living in a society
- Worshipping God
These are classed as always true they are the intrinsic principles that are instilled into everyone, which gives the theory its absolutist view point. Natural law, being absolutist means that it you can have a very simple approach to ethical decision making. It takes the view that there are common rules that apply to all people in all communities and there for is easy to follow as a rule is a rule and should not be broken. This is very strong strength of natural law and gives a good approach to ethics.
Most people are seen to have the same basic aims of preserving life, continuing the species, educating and building society, meaning that a majority could agree with it. This is a simple strength but in my opinion a strong one.
Natural Law also allows for human interpretation of the five primary precepts. These are known as the secondary precepts. For instance and adaptation of each might be:
- Preservation of Life - Do not commit suicide
- Reproduction - Contraception is wrong
- Educate and Nurture the Young - Education should be free
- Living in a society - Encourage community activities
- Worshipping God - Compulsory Church
This gives a much more liberal approach than the primary precepts meaning that rules can be decided and thought of by the people. The secondary precepts can be very flexible. This is a great strength of natural law as it gives a more relativist side to the theory.
Natural law can also allow for the reason of an action to be considered meaning that it is not completely an absolutist approach and can have a more teleological view point in some circumstances. This is down to the Doctrine of Double effect. It is part of natural law wherein if the intention of an action is to follow the precepts but however in this process breaks another, this would be seen as a just decision. Take a condom that is worn with the principle of stopping the spreading of a sexual transmitted disease, wearing this keeps to the precept of the preservation of life but however in the process of this stops reproduction. This would be seen to be justified by a follower of natural law. However, if the condom was worn with the intention of stopping reproduction then this would not be justified.
To what extent could a believer in Natural Law justify embryo research? [10]
Embryo research is defined as ‘the scientific study of an animal in the early stages of development’. There are some different types of embryo research, such as stem cell research, cloning and research on the foetal tissue. The issue of embryo research is a very controversial one. There are some very serious moral and ethical arguments for and against the issue of embryo research.
Take stem cell research for example the stem cells are cells which are hard to find in any great abundance in a fully grown human body. However in an embryo most of the cells are stem cells. Stem cells have the ability to differentiate into any type of cell, they offer something in the development of medical treatments for a wide range of conditions. Treatments that have been proposed include treatment for physical trauma, degenerative conditions, and genetic diseases. Yet further treatments using stem cells could potentially be developed thanks to their ability to repair extensive tissue damage.
A believer of natural law may argue that embryo research is justified. If they were to look at the primary precepts, the first of these is preservation of life. The first way that you could apply this is that the health benefits associated with the power of stem cells surely follow the primary precept of preserving life as this is medical break through that has the potential to save thousands if not millions of lives if developed to its full potential.
However taking the opposite opinion on the primary precept of ‘preservation of life’ it could be argued that embryo research is not justified as the embryos do in theory die after use and this does go against this precept. This boils down to point at which something is considered to be a human life and for most Catholics this is the moment of contraception meaning that it would not be justified.
However a way of combating this is to use the Doctrine of Double effect explained earlier. As the intention of the research is to eventually save lives from disease then the fact that the embryo death being a ‘by product’ would give further justification for embryo research.
However as there is nothing that specifically relates to embryo research in natural law, because it was thought of and established before even the concept of embryo research was even thought of it is up to human interpretation whether it is right or wrong. With justification for and against it I think it will greatly depend on the individual as to what they believe but I think that they, if wanted, could justify embryo research to great lengths and I believe that the justification for embryo research is far greater that justification against it, even with a natural law view point in mind.
