Aquinas presented the idea of efficient and final causes; the efficient cause being what gets something done and the final cause being the end product, for example, an efficient cause could be sexual intercourse and the final cause would be a baby. Aquinas believed that humans could use their reasoning to work out what the final causes of there existence were, and by acting in accordance with them would be a good action whilst seeking to frustrate them would be considered a bad action.
Aquinas sought to work out what these final causes were along with the purpose of human life, and broke down the purpose of human existence into five final causes known as the primary precepts. These are recognised as to reproduce, to live in society, to worship God, the educate children and to protect life. Anything that was considered to frustrate these final purposes was deemed morally wrong. Aquinas believed that people must follow Natural Law to fulfil God’s will and glorify him, and that human nature was created so that one could look at nature and work out what is right and wrong. This belief opposes the Protestant viewpoint where emphasis is put on scripture and revelation.
Aquinas thought that human nature is essentially good and are generally drawn to what is good and right, however, he accepted that it was possible for humans to be mislead into following an ‘apparent good’ rather than a real good. An example of this way of thinking would be if one were to have an extra-marital affair, which would be considered an apparent good owing to the fact that it is both pleasurable and may even fulfil the final cause of reproduction, however, fundamentally it is wrong.
It was believed by Aquinas that natural law exists to assist humans to act in such a way that they may reach their eternal destiny with God, and covers both the outward external view of actions and the internal motivation for doing so. Aquinas emphasised the concept of Natural Law evaluating both what one does and why one does it and encouraged the idea of exterior and interior acts. For Aquinas, both the intention and act are important, and to act in a good way for the wrong reason is to perform a good exterior act but a bad interior act. For example, helping a blind person to cross a road in order to impress someone would be considered morally wrong as Aquinas felt that a good action should be done out of charity and not for the sake of admiration by others. Aquinas appreciated the fact that good intentions didn’t always result in good actions, however, the only end that was valued by Aquinas was God.
Whether or not actions lead toward God depends upon if the action fits a human’s purpose. Acts that accord with Aquinas’ primary precepts are intrinsically good and acts that frustrate the natural order are intrinsically wrong. Aquinas presented the concept of ‘secondary precepts’, which were designed to help humans concerning things we should and shouldn’t do because they uphold or fail to maintain the original primary precepts. His secondary precepts were deduced from the primary precepts and they are recognised as being to not murder, to not abort the unborn, to defend the defenceless and to not commit suicide.
b) Natural Moral Law’s strengths lie in its absolutist deontological view of morality as its principles are universally understandable and therefore ease the process of making moral decisions and determining what is right and wrong. Natural Law provides justification for certain ideas that are recognisable in modern times, such as human rights and equality, and provides a complete system of moral living in accordance with what it is to be human. Though absolutist, Natural Law has certain flexibility in its secondary precepts and allows it to be applied to a wider spectrum of circumstances.
Natural Law’s absolutist stance states that certain actions, such as the abuse of the innocent, will always be wrong and therefore is immune to modern flexible morality or cultural relativism. This means that Natural Law upholds values such as human rights, for example, it is never right to torture someone to get information. The problem with this deontological viewpoint however, is that sometimes one needs to consider the consequences of an action. If, for example, the torturing someone resulted in the prevention of a disaster such as September 11th 2001, one could argue that it was necessary to torture that one person to save the lives of thousands of others. Natural Law leaves no room for thinking about consequences and therefore is undermined as an ethical theory.
Its basis on reason prevents cultural and religious discrimination and can be used by both those who believe in God and those living without a moral system. However, although Natural Law can exist without religion and secular thinkers can relate to Natural Law in a somewhat limited sense, it is so closely aligned to religion that the theory makes little sense without belief in God. The theory also relies on the belief that God created the universe and the moral law within nature. Therefore, Aquinas’ assumption that all men seek to worship God may seem unnatural to many and the idea of a God-given moral code within nature is meaningless to those who do not believe in God as a creator.
Natural Law holds that there is an objective morality that humans can all aim for and that good and bad is not merely relative. Taking this into consideration, Natural Law is a potentially insensitive and authoritarian moral system where general principles are applied to specific situations regardless of particular circumstances. For example, if reproduction is one of the final causes, how can we explain those who are homosexual or infertile? Furthermore, if one considers the possibility that homosexuality may derive from genetic traits, and therefore be a part of someone’s nature, the final cause of reproduction has no basis. If this were the case, it could be said that sexual intercourse has as its purpose recreation and not reproduction. Vardy and Grosch have also challenged Aquinas’ final cause of reproduction in ‘The Puzzle of Ethics’ with this argument, stating the possibility that the function of genitalia is pleasure and not reproduction.
Aquinas suggests that human reason is a shared tool for moral understanding since we all have this, all humans can be moral and can understand morality. It is this concept of a common human nature that has been disputed by several academics, including Kai Nelson, who has claimed that Natural Law obscures the basic moral differences between cultures. With his example of Eskimos who kill babies and family members who they think will not survive the winter, Nelson has shown that common human nature is unlikely. Furthermore, Aquinas’ understanding of human purpose is limited, as although he states one of the final causes for humans to be reproduction, he himself was a celibate priest. The theory as a whole is focused upon humanity working towards the goal of glorifying God with little room for individual purposes in a relationship with God, and so therefore is narrow and restrictive in suggesting that we have particular functions to fulfil.
Whilst Natural Law upholds the idea that some things, such as the preservation of human life, have intrinsic value, one could also observe that Aquinas’ thinking is typical of its time. His belief that every individual has a purpose and function that is God-given and unchangeable could be considered outdated. Alongside this argument, although Natural Law is supposedly a Christian ethic, Jesus opposed the legalistic morality of his time, the Pharisees.
Although the weaknesses of Natural Moral Law outweigh the strengths, given the above criticisms, it is worth noting that natural law may not be as rigid as it first appears. Aquinas accepted that while the primary precepts were unalterable, the secondary precepts were subject to change owing to particular circumstances.
