Natural Law Theory: Morality and Nature

Natural Law Theory (NLT)

• Morality is connected to understanding one's place in nature, as many believe.
• Something that fulfills its nature, humans included, could be considered "good".
• NLT posits actions are right if natural and wrong if unnatural; people are good when they fulfill their true nature.
• Moral law is equivalent to natural law, implying actions should align with nature.

Advantages of NLT

• NLT argues morality roots in something beyond mere human opinion: nature.
• Some, like Aquinas, connect NLT to God, but the theory stands without theism.
• Morality has an objective basis as long as human nature persists.
• Reasoning abilities make morality distinctly human.
• Moral agents, accountable for actions, need reasoning skills.
• Morality isn't based on opinion; it depends on human nature.
• Morality is linked to the existence of human nature.
• Gaining moral knowledge involves understanding human nature and determining if actions align.

Conceptions of Human Nature

• Applying NLT requires a clear human nature definition.
• Human nature includes the essential traits defining humans.
• NLT assumes a fixed human essence.

Human Nature as Animal Nature

• Humans are animals, so acting naturally means behaving like other animals.
• There are shared animal traits with humans.
• Animals exhibit violent behavior which is something humans should not copy.

Human Nature as Innate Traits

• True nature is what one is born with
• Rousseau suggested humans are naturally good, kind, and cooperative, while society corrupts.
• Hobbes claimed humans are naturally selfish and competitive.
• It depends on what is considered innate (Rousseau vs. Hobbes).
• Resolving the nature vs. nurture debate is crucial.
• Morality should not hinge on whether traits are innate or learned.

Human Nature as Universal Traits

• Human nature consists of traits all humans share.
• Universal traits might not exist; for example reasoning or desire for food as some people lack these.
• Defining "most" in modifying the view to say "most people" is challenging as just because most people act a certain way doesn't make it moral.

Natural Purposes

• Human nature is tied to the intended purpose, or what one is designed to do.
• From a religious view, God designed human nature with specific purposes (Aquinas).
• Secularly, natural purposes exist even without God.
• Purpose can be defined as effectiveness or fitness.

Evaluation of Natural Purposes

• The Efficiency Model defines a thing's purpose by what it does best. Humans can excel at immoral actions, like building weapons, which is a problem.
• The Fitness Model equates purpose with survival and reproduction.
• It could imply that unprotected sex (even without consent) is morally required, which is unacceptable.
• Preventing pregnancy or sacrificing oneself in war would be considered immoral, which seems wrong.

Problems with NLT

• The argument that unnatural things are immoral is flawed, based on all interpretations of human nature.
• Suicide, contraception, and homosexuality are unnatural and immoral.
• Premise 2 is questionable.

The Argument from Humanity

• Killing an innocent human being is wrong.
• A fetus is an innocent human being.
• It is wrong to kill a fetus, assuming humanity extends to fetal life.

Evaluation of the Argument

• The term "human being" is ambiguous.
• The term "human being" = "biological Homo sapiens," then Premise 1 assumes the conclusion.
• Definitions alone cannot solve complex moral problems and argumentation is needed.

The Marriage Argument

• Marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman.
• Homosexual relationships involve same-sex couples.
• Conclusion: Homosexual relationships cannot be marriages.

Evaluation

• The core issue is state's equal legal rights for all couples.
• Definitions alone are insufficient; deeper ethical questions are required.

Conclusion

• NLT seeks to ground morality in objective nature.
• Deriving moral rules from natural facts has problems and natural laws describe behavior, not obligation.
• Moral laws prescribe behavior norms.
• Nature can limit morality, but not define right and wrong.
• Nature alone can't form morality's foundation, because moral truths require more than natural facts.

Psychological Egoism

• Plato's "The Ring of Gyges" questions the motivation behind moral actions.
• Real-life self-sacrifice, like Ross McGinnis's, exists.
• Carnegiehero.org recognizes selfless acts of heroism.

Psychological Egoism (PE)

• All human actions are driven by self-interest.
• Actions are believed to benefit oneself in some way even when acting kindly or altruistically.
• Altruism does not exist if PE is true.

Key Features of Psychological Egoism

• PE describes human motivation based on fact.
• It tests the theory, and it is descriptive, not moral.
• PE claims what people always do, not what they should do.

Core Claim

• All actions aim to avoid personal loss or gain personal benefit, short or long term.

What Doesn't Disprove PE?

• Actions such as self-destructive actions, short-term gain, attempts at success don't disprove PE.
• Motivation, not outcome, matters; involuntary actions aren't based on human motivation.

Implications of PE

• Altruism is nonexistent as every action is self-interested.
• No moral duty to be altruistic exists as people can't be expected to do the impossible
• Conventional morality is unrecognizable as morality would be drastically different.
• Morality depends on PE validity; traditional morals might not hold.

Argument for PE

• If psychological egoism is true, altruism is impossible.
• Altruism is impossible, because people can't be morally required to be altruistic.
• No moral duty to be altruistic if PE is true.

Evaluating the Argument

• If PE is true, altruism is ruled out by definition.
• One cannot be required to do what is impossible seemingly reasonable.
• Whether we have a moral duty to be altruistic depends on whether PE is true.

The Argument from Our Strongest Desires

• Everyone does what they desire most.
• Desires are self-interested.
• Therefore, all actions are self-interested

Evaluating the Argument

• Some act against desires due to duty which causes a problem with the premise.
• Someone in an oppressive regime risks it all to do the right thing.
• If duty overrides desire, Premise 1 is questionable.
• The fact that I desire something doesn't mean the goal is my self-interest.

The Argument from Expected Benefit

• Actions are expected to lead to positive outcomes.
• The expectation of improvement is self-interest.
• So all actions are self-interested.

Evaluating the Argument

• Pessimists act without expecting personal gain falsifying the argument.
• Just because one expects to gain something does not qualify that as a personal goal, this poses a problem.
• A tired student expects to be tired after studying, that does not mean they study to become tired.

Letting the Evidence Decide

• Beliefs need evidence people believe things without evidence.
• PE needs psychological evidence that backs it.
• Empathy creates the ability to put oneself in another's shoes.
• Hundreds of studies have shown if people act from empathy, then all actions are not self-interested.

Testing PE's Validity

• Testimony and behavior is needed to prove PE.
• Altruism exists via suggestion.
• If PE reinterprets all evidence to fit itself, it becomes untestable and unscientific.

Conclusion

• If PE is true, morality collapses.
• Morality often asks as to act against self-interest, for others.
• Without altruism, benevolence is meaningless.
• Humans aren't saints, or purely selfish which allows for genuine altruism.

Principle of “Following Appearances”

• Things are assumed to as they seem until strong evidence provides otherwise.
• People care about each other selflessly, and this should be taken seriously.
• Psychological Egoism's argument fails to explain away altruistic behavior.

Final Verdict on PE

• Evidence is needed from the Psychological Egoism side.
• One should be skeptical of PE and accept the reality of altruistic motivation until stronger arguments are presented.

Ethical Egoism

• Ethical Egoism: A normative moral theory that actions are morally right if and only if they maximize self-interest.
• Our only moral duty is ti improve one's own well-being as much as possible.
• There is never a conflict between morality and self-interest because what is moral is what benefits us most.

Relationship Between PE and EE

• PE is descriptive claiming people always act in self-interest.
• EE is normative claiming people should act in self-interest and that PE suggests EE, but are not the same theory.

Argument from Paradigm Cases

• Theories requiring immoral actions to maximize self-interest must be false.
• Killing, raping, or theft are sometimes required for self-interest.
• EE must be false.

Evaluating the Argument

• EE faces challenges and critics.
• If EE allows harmful acts for self-interest, it clashes with common moral beliefs.
• Divine punishment or suffering internal torment ensures immoral acts never benefit.
• It assumes EE is false at start which is considered "begging the question", but that Aristotle argues against this.
• EE must provide evidence to prove otherwise.

Two Popular Arguments for Ethical Egoism

• EE conflicts with core moral beliefs. EE may require "immoral" or forbid "moral" actions, and allows duty escape.

The Self-Reliance Argument

• One should focus on their own needs improves society.
• One should take the most efficient path.
• Focusing on themselves, instead of others.

Evaluating the Self-Reliance Argument

• Premise 1 is false and contradicted by EE.
• Contradicts EE's lack of duty to society by accepting premise 2.
• A balance between self-interest and is a more effective approach to helping society.

The Libertarian Argument

• Moral duties to help others only originate from consent or harm reparation.
• Without agreement to help one has no moral obligations

Evaluating the Libertarian Argument

• Consent and reparation create duties but they are not the only.
• Rejecting consent/reparation as duty sources are made by EE and are inconsistent with its premise.
• Without morality seems to require helping someone at little cost like calling 911 if one is drowning.

The Best Argument for Ethical Egoism

• If an action enhances well-being, there's reason to recommend it and if one is morally required to do something.

Evaluating the Argument

• Premise 1 is plausible and duties should be reasonable
• Premise 2 is flawed calling claiming calling 911 for a stranger benefits the caller.
• EE lacks a solid argument supporting it by taking on the questionable aspects of (B).

Three Major Problems for Ethical Egoism

• EE contradicts core moral beliefs and demands harming others.
• It has been strongly defended and has no strong defense.
• Justification is needed to reject EE.
• EE is arbitrary, denies individual moral rights, and claims only one's interests matter.

Conclusion

• EE problematic conflicts with core moral beliefs and has no arguments to justify moral belief abandonment is needed.
• The right to reject EE is reasonable until better arguments are made.

Consequentialism

• Actions are morally required if they produce the best overall results.
• Five-Step Process:
• Identify what are intrinsically good.
• Identify what is intrinsically bad.
• List all available actions.
• Determine the value of each action's result (good vs bad).
• Choose the action the maximize the outcome.
• Utilitarianism is a type of consequentialism that focuses on maximizing well-being.

Principle of Utility

• Actions are right if it improves overall well-being more than any other action.
• It requires choosing the action that creates the best overall balance of happiness over suffering and is not helping the most people or maximizing total happiness.

Moral Knowledge

• Problem: How do we know if an action is right if its consequences unfold over time?
• Solutions: Actions are right only if they bring the best results; actions are expected to be reasonable.

Actions vs. Intentions

• Intentions don't determine morality, bad intentions but good outcomes can still be right.
• Good intentions but bad outcomes are still morally wrong.

Attractions of Utilitarianism

• It is impartial, justifying moral beliefs such resolving moral dilemmas
• It is flexible for that an be justified for greater things.

Scope of the Moral Community

• Membership includes those whose interests matter, not communication or species.
• Test for Membership: The capacity to suffer.

Argument From Marginal Cases

• Harming mentally impaired humans and animal is wrong and should be harm animals with cognitive abilities.

Responses to the Argument

• Responses can often be theological (God) or humanist (only humans matter).

Utilitarian View

• The respect should be respected and not treated as mere tools as a very wide community including infant and animals.

Measuring Well-Being

• Applying Utilitarianism includes adding up all steps.
• Challenges include Value Measurement
• One must measure and have a value toward actions which is difficult because there is no measurement unit.
• Quantifying Well-Being comes from sources such as happiness, the quality of pleasures makes it difficult which challenges previous steps.

Evaluative Objections

• The precise measurement may not be as possible.
• Determine the balance may be tough which makes it less useful complex situations.

Utilitarianism Is Very Demanding

• It requires information and is near calculating is impossible in deliberation.
• There must be a response and a motivation when having consistent benevolence which leads to much.
• Action should be optimific.

No Intrinsic Wrongness

• Actions that can bring the best result, has not actions that are intrinsically right.
• One has to minimize harm.

Problem of Injustice

• Committing serious injustices to deter each.
• Should Condemn and focuses an minimizing the best outcome.

Potential Solutions

• Utilitarianism is flawed and injustice.
• No moral theory should require it.

Injustice Responses

• It is intrinsically valuable.

Conclusion

• Has focus on equality, impartiality and results in Consequentialism.
• Expands the moral community by animals and humans.