Aquinas based natural law on the assumption that we have the same nature which has three objective inclinations that we are bound to achieve: ‘Natural law is the same for all men …there is a single standard of truth and right for everyone…which is known by everyone.’. Each inclination has perfection and the perfection of these is good for man, bringing him to a closer communion with God: ‘No evil can be desirable, either by natural appetite or by conscious will. It is sought indirectly, namely because it is the consequence of some good’. These ‘inclinations’ are known as the ‘Primary Precepts’ of natural law. Aquinas believed that man is obliged to seek the fulfilment of these inclinations as this is what right reason dictates.
The first primary precept states that man should act in accordance with right reason in order to preserve his life. This precept isn’t only true for our mortal life, but also for all eternity. By using right reason humanity will accept the ‘natural’ or cardinal’ virtues stated by Aristotle: prudence, temperance, fortitude and justice. These ‘natural’ virtues are developed by the ‘revealed’ virtues of faith, hope and charity introduced by St. Paul (1 Corinthians 13:13). For Aquinas, the extent to which these virtues are followed by the individual, the greater will be one’s obedience to natural law and the closer therefore to God.
The second primary precept states that man shares the inclination with animals to procreate and nurture one’s offspring. When reason reflects upon this inclination, it leads to the precept that man is obliged to act in a manner that is in accordance with this procreative inclination – for procreation is for the good of man.
The third primary precept is that man possesses the inclination for rationality and when reason reflects upon this inclination, man is obliged to seek the truth and to live in a properly ordered society – for that is the good of this inclination.
The above primary precepts are considered to be general rules. In order to deal with differing situations and aspect s of life, Aquinas derived the ‘Secondary Precepts’ that from the primary precepts. The secondary precepts are concerned with detail, for example; in preserving the precept of maintaining life, the secondary precepts state that murder, abortion, euthanasia, suicide are wrong. Also from looking at the primary precept of procreation, one can derive secondary precepts: no contraception, no masturbation, no homosexual acts. In continuing with this theme, secondary precepts that can be drawn from the inclination of rationality are: civil law, criminal and traffic law as they all uphold an ordered society. In contrast to the primary precepts, the secondary precepts can change i.e. once in a while, new laws are brought in concerning traffic.
Aquinas also distinguished between ‘apparent’ and ‘real’ good. He maintained that humans were orientated towards the achievement of perfection and that we could never knowingly perform evil. Any actions that are performed without the pursuit of perfection are termed as ‘apparent’ goods, as it does not fit in with the human ideal: ‘A fornicator seeks a pleasure which involves him in moral guilt.’ Aquinas termed sin as ‘the privation of good’, thus not following the ‘real’ good is not following the inclinations of human nature which bring us to goodness. To choose an apparent good therefore is a sin, as it isn’t good for us; allow a drug addict may feel good after taking drugs; it is an apparent good as it does not do the individual any good.
Aquinas also believed that the intention and the act were as important as the other. To act in a good way but for the wrong reasons is to perform a good ‘exterior’ act but a bad ‘interior’ act. In interior acts are concerned with our intentions, if our intentions are true, then our interior act as are good. Exterior acts are concerned with the deliverance of the act itself; again if the act is good then the exterior act is good. For example, if one were to give money to charity so that everyone could see how good they are, then they are not being charitable for the right reasons. Thus, one is performing a good ‘exterior’ act but a bad ‘interior act.’ On the other hand, one can perform a good interior act but a bad exterior act. If I was to steal money in order to give it to charity, my intentions would be good but the act of stealing is a bad act in itself. For Aquinas, the only end value is God; physical pleasures cannot be the final end because if they were, then animals would be able to experience them also. Academic pleasures aren’t accessible to everyone, so the ultimate aim open to all human beings is God. Another point stressed by Aquinas is that all acts are intrinsically good or bad, because when humans act in accordance with their ultimate purpose, God is glorified. The act of giving to charity in the above example is good, as it is in accordance with the destiny of how humans should be which in turn glorifies God.
It is so, therefore, that Aquinas and other supporters, believe that the theory of natural law is something present in the human nature. It is a set of unwritten precepts, which when followed can lead a person to the good of a communion with God.
The theory of ‘Natural Law’ isn’t supported by everyone. On the contrary, the theory has come under heavy fire from those who see the natural law theory to be nothing more than a set of proven assumptions used to help prove the existence of a higher power, namely God.
In evaluating the strength and weaknesses of the argument as to whether it can be used as a tool to discern whether an action is right or wrong, one has to consider first the weaknesses of the argument and then try to argue whether or not this criticism is justified.
The first criticism placed forward, is whether or not there actually is a moral code in existence. One may argue that there are some people who don’t have a good bone in their body, so how can they be naturally inclined to go. Kai Neilsson (1959) ‘An examination of the Thomistic theory of natural moral law’, argues against Aquinas’ belief in a uniform human nature present across all societies, ‘from the point of view of science, there is no such thing as an essential human nature which makes man man.’ Adolf Hitler for example, who killed millions of innocent people, if he was inclined to do good, then how could he have committed so many atrocities. One may argue that Hitler had freewill and it was his choice to turn to evil, yet Hitler was a reasoning man who surely thought a great deal about his actions and yet he committed such great crimes.
For the Natural Law theory to work, human nature has to be static and never change. It can be argued that human beings do not have a fixed nature and that moral law changes over a period of time. Look at the example of homosexuality, heterosexuality is considered to be ‘natural’ for all, yet there is homosexuality present in the world. According to the natural law theory, homosexuality is ‘disordered’ and ‘unnatural’ because it prohibits procreation and can have an effect on maintaining life e.g. AIDS. The incidences of homosexuality have risen and many homosexuals are naturally inclined to a certain sexual preference, this genetic link suggests that homosexuality may not be ‘unnatural’ and ‘disordered’.
Another critic David Hume (1771-1776) drew attention to what has been termed as the ‘naturalistic fallacy.’ This theory points to the fact that you can’t get an ‘ought’ from an ‘is’, and points out the fact that just because something happens in nature, it doesn’t make it right. For example, the fact that human beings have a natural urge to procreate, it doesn’t justify rape. Hume claimed that the two are logically different, what ‘is to be the case’ is obviously not the same as ‘what ought to be the case’. For example, just because sex produces babies, is doesn’t mean that sex shouldn’t be used for other purposes and should ‘ought’ to produce a baby every time it is done
The above argument leads to another, questioning the fact that Aquinas’ approach is too holistic. Many believe that to focus on the genitals and their purpose is to ignore all the other aspects of humanity. Aquinas maintained that human beings should seek to preserve the species, meaning that every discharge of semen should be associated with life generation. In their book ‘The Puzzle of Ethics’ (1994), Peter Vardy and Paul Grosch argued that sex is about more than just procreation. They argued that sex can be used to bind a couple’s loving relationship. They also argued that the purpose of the genitals also be to generate pleasure rather than reproduction. Modern science takes another approach when considering the body. Scientists look at the body as one ‘psycho-physical’ whole, not the collection of parts that Aquinas believed in.
Modern science presents a world in which there is little or even no reference to purpose or values. Science supports the fact that life is the way it is, not because it ‘ought to be’ but simply because ‘it is’ and was originally dictated by mathematical laws and evolutionary processes. The Darwinian Theory provides a huge criticism to natural law. If we were once apes, then at what stage did we gain our human nature and at what stage were we endowed with a purpose? Hence, it can be said that ‘natural’ laws are the laws of biology, chemistry and physic, not moral laws.
In some cases it may be the case that to go against the principles of natural law, a better end will result. For example, if the Coalition forces found that to kill Saddam Hussain would mean the saving of millions of lives, then surely the act is justified in itself. If this is possible, then this severely weakens the argument as a whole.
In contrast, the argument is not all bad. Many people passionately in the natural moral law code, as a guide to achieving goodness and communion with God. One encouraging fact is that the argument is based on man’s reason and has a universal effect. For example, the rules set by the natural code as to the problem of murder are universally recognised to be right. Yet some cultures practice murder as a way of gaining eternal life, but this is a vast minority. This enables a structured society so that each person knows their place in their country, world and eventually before God.
A positive argument is that if it is part of our nature to be moral, then we should expect everyone to be good and respectful. If this were followed, then the world would be a lot more pleasant and a generally much happier place to be.
A fact that supports the historicity of the argument is that this argument has been taught by the Catholic Church for approximately two thousand years. The ‘Constitution of the Catholic Church’ (Gaudiem et Spes’) maintains ‘the moral aspect of any procedure is influenced by the intentions and motives but also by objective standards, based on the nature of the human person and his acts.’ The fact that mainly millions have believed in the argument and followed the principles of the argument is testimony to the faith that many have in God and the nature of the human person.
The theory of natural law holds too many weaknesses for one to commit totally to its objectiveness. One may believe that there is a human nature present within us all, but the early years of learning and developing and the influences of our parents and other influential people around us, determines whether this nature is followed or not. One must believe that many of the many of the precepts should be natural inclinations i.e. preserving life, no suicide, no euthanasia e.t.c., but whether they are or not leaves a lot to be desired, leaving a more subjective approach as to whether a moral life should be followed.
