Virtue and Natural Law Theories PDF

Always knows what to say, who can diffuse a tense situation. Deliver tough news gracefully, Is confident without being arrogant. Brave but not reckless. Generous but never extravagant. This is the type of person that everybody wants to be around, and to be like: someone who seems to have mastered th...

Always knows what to say, who can diffuse a tense situation. Deliver tough news gracefully, Is confident without being arrogant. Brave but not reckless. Generous but never extravagant. This is the type of person that everybody wants to be around, and to be like: someone who seems to have mastered the art of being a person. This may sound like an impossible feat, but Aristotle believed that, while rare, these people do exist and they are what we all should aspire to be virtuous. And there\'s a whole moral theory based on this idea of virtue.\ \ But unlike most of the moral theories we've discussed, virtue theory doesn't spend a lot of time telling you what to do. There's no categorical imperative or principle of utility. Instead, virtue theory is all about character. Rather than saying, "follow these rules so that you can be a good person," Aristotle and other virtue theorists reasoned that, if we can just focus on being good people, the right actions will follow, effortlessly. Become a good person, and you will do good things. No rulebook needed. So, why should you be a virtuous person? Because eudaimonia. \ \ \ Virtue theory reflects the ancient assumption that humans have a fixed nature -- an essence -- and that the way we flourish is by adhering to that nature. Aristotle described this in terms of what he called proper functioning. Everything has a function, and a thing is good to the extent that it fulfills its function, and bad to the extent that it doesn't. This is easy to see in objects created by humans. A function of a knife is to cut; so, a dull knife is a bad knife. And a function of a flower is to grow and reproduce; so, a flower that doesn't grow is just bad at being a flower. And, the same goes for humans -- we're animals -- so all the stuff that would indicate proper functioning for an animal holds true for us as well -- we need to grow and be healthy and fertile. \ \ But, we're also "the rational animal," and a social animal, so our function also involves using reason and getting along with our pack. Now you might notice that some of this sounds a lot like parts of natural law theory, Aquinas\' theory that God made us with the tools we need to know what's good. Well, Aristotle had a strong influence on Thomas Aquinas, so part of Aristotle's thoughts on virtue ended up in natural law theory. But for Aristotle, this isn't about God's plan, it's just about nature. \ \ Aristotle argued that nature has built into us the desire to be virtuous, in the same way that acorns are built with the drive to become oak trees. But what exactly does it mean to be virtuous? Aristotle said that having virtue just means doing the right thing, at the right time, in the right way, in the right amount, toward the right people. Which sort of sounds like Aristotle is saying exactly nothing. I mean, how vague can you be? But according to Aristotle, there\'s no need to be specific, because if you're virtuous, you know what to do. All the time. You know how to handle yourself and how to get along with others. You have good judgment, you can read a room, and you know what\'s right and when.  Aristotle understood virtue as a set of robust character traits that, once developed, will lead to predictably good behavior. You can think of virtue as the midpoint between two extremes, which Aristotle called vices. Virtue is the just the right amount, the sweet spot between the extreme of excess and the extreme of deficiency. And this sweet spot is known as the Golden Mean. \ \ So, let's take a look at some particular virtues, starting with courage. What is courage? To take a closer look at this, let's head to the Thought Bubble for some Flash Philosophy. \ \ Walking home from a movie, you see a person being mugged. What is the courageous action for you to take? Your impulse might be to say that, "a courageous person would run over there and stop the mugging, because courage means putting yourself in harm\'s way for a good cause, right?" Well, no. A virtuous person -- in the Aristotelian sense -- would first take stock of the situation. If you size up the mugger and have a good reason to believe that you could safely intervene, then that\'s probably the courageous choice. \ \ But if you assess the situation and recognize that intervention is likely to mean that both you and the victim will be in danger, the courageous choice is not to intervene, but to call for help instead. According to Aristotle, courage is the midpoint between the extremes of cowardice and recklessness. Cowardice is a deficiency of courage, while recklessness is an excess of courage and both are bad. Aristotle said that you definitely can have too much of a good thing. So, being courageous doesn't mean rushing headlong into danger. A courageous person will assess the situation, they'll know their own abilities, and they'll take action that is right in the particular situation. \ \ Part of having courage, he argued, is being able to recognize when, rather than stepping in, you need to find an authority who can handle a situation that\'s too big for you to tackle alone. Basically, courage is finding the right way to act. And a lot of the time -- but not all of the time -- that means doing a thing that you know you're capable of, even if doing it scares the pants off of you. Thanks, Thought Bubble! \ \ Aristotle thought all virtue works like this. The right action is always a midpoint between extremes. So, there's no all-or-nothing in this theory, even honesty. In this view, honesty is the perfect midpoint between brutal honesty and failing to say things that need to be said. Like, no one needs to be told that they have a big zit on their face; they already know. The virtue of honesty means knowing what needs to be put out there, and what you should keep quiet about. And it also means knowing how to deliver hard truths gracefully. How to break bad news gently, or to offer criticism in a way that's constructive, rather than soul-crushing. \ \ The virtue of generosity works the same way. It avoids the obvious vice of stinginess, but also doesn't give too much. It's not generous to give drugs to an addict, or to buy a round of drinks for everyone in the bar when you need that money for rent. The right amount of generosity means giving when you have it to those who need it. It can mean having the disposition to give just for the heck of it, but it also means realizing when you can't or shouldn't give. So now you can see why Aristotle's definition of virtue was totally vague. Where that Golden Mean is depends on the situation. But, if you have to figure out what virtue is in every situation, how can you possibly ever learn to be virtuous? Aristotle thought there was a lot that you could learn from books, but how to be a good person was not one of them. He said that virtue is a skill, a way of living, and that's something that can really only be learned through experience. \ \ Virtue is a kind of knowledge that he called practical wisdom. You might think of it as kind of like street smarts. And the thing about street smarts is that you gotta learn 'em on the street. But the good news is, you don't have to do it alone. Aristotle said your character is developed through habituation -- if you do a virtuous thing over and over again, eventually it will become part of your character. But the way you know what the right thing to do is in the first place, is by finding someone who already knows and emulating them. These people who already possess virtue are moral exemplars. And according to this theory, we are built with the ability to recognize them, and the desire to emulate them. So you learn virtue by watching it, and then doing it. \ \ In the beginning, it\'ll be hard, and maybe it'll feel fake because you're just copying someone who\'s better than you at being a good person. But over time, these actions will become an ingrained part of your character. And eventually, it becomes that robust trait that Aristotle was talking about. It\'ll just manifest every time you need it. That\'s when you know you have virtue, fully realized. It becomes effortless. OK but, why? What\'s your motivation? What if you have no desire to be the guy who always says the right thing, or the lady who always finds the courage when it\'s needed? Virtue theory says that you should become virtuous because, if you are, then you can attain the pinnacle of humanity. It allows you to achieve what\'s known as eudaimonia. This is a cool Greek word that doesn't have a simple English translation. You might say it means "a life well lived." It's sometimes translated as "human flourishing." And a life of eudaimonia is a life of striving. It's a life of pushing yourself to your limits, and finding success. A eudaimonistic life will be full of the happiness that comes from achieving something really difficult, rather than just having it handed to you. \ \ But choosing to live a eudaimonistic life means that you're never done improving, you're never to a point where you can just coast. You're constantly setting new goals, and working to develop new muscles. Choosing to live life in this way also means you\'ll face disappointments, and failures. Eudaimonia doesn't mean a life of cupcakes and rainbows. It means the sweet pleasure of sinking into bed at the end of an absolutely exhausting day. It's the satisfaction of knowing you've accomplished a lot, and that you've pushed yourself to be the very best person you could be. This is morality, for Aristotle. It's being the best person you can be, honing your strengths while working on your weaknesses. And, for Aristotle, the kind of person who lives like this, is the kind of person who will do good things. \ \ Today we learned about virtue theory. We studied the Golden Mean, and how it exists as a midpoint between vices of excess and deficiency. We talked about moral exemplars and the life of eudaimonia that comes with virtuousness.  **NATURAL LAW** St. Thomas Aquinas\' teaching on natural law and its relation to human law has had an enormous influence, but it isn\'t always easy for us to understand it unless we grasp the deep roots it has in his wider thought, centered on God. In a previous video, we saw that the eternal law is the highest kind of law. Aquinas says that it is the eternal plan of order in the mind of God for the whole universe, and further, that this plan is, in a certain way, in the creatures that God creates so that they have an inclination or tendency to their own proper acts and ends according to where they fit in this vast and beautiful divine plan. The Natural Law This eternal law, this plan of God, is imprinted in rational creatures, like human beings, in a special way. And Aquinas calls this the natural law. He says that the natural law is the rational creature\'s participation in the eternal law. What does that mean? We are capable of understanding the world around us, grasping with our minds what is good for us to do and moving ourselves to do it according to this rational desire, which we call our will. That means that we have a higher participation in God\'s providential plan than other creatures do, because we can understand it and become willing agents in bringing it to completion for ourselves, for others, and for our communities. Let\'s unpack this. Like other lower creatures, we have certain inclinations or tendencies that are natural to us. They\'re a part of our natures, features of the kind of creatures we are. The natures of inanimate things, of plants, of animals, entirely determine their movements. A stone goes down. A tree flowers in the spring. A cow eats grass. Human Nature These actions are natural to these kinds of things. Human beings are like these things in a certain way. We\'re creatures with material bodies, and so, like other animals, we have an inclination to remain in being, to seek food and self preservation, to reproduce and to raise offspring. Yet, unlike these creatures, we are endowed with the power of reason, which means that we\'re not simply moved by brute force or instinct. We have something higher, a spiritual soul, which gives our nature a spiritual dimension. Now, on this point, there\'s often a very deep misunderstanding. Our spiritual nature is the basis for our ability to understand and to make free choices. It gives us a higher perspective on our lower or bodily inclinations and desires, so that, for example, we can decide at a particular moment that we will not eat right now, even though we\'re hungry. Spiritual Nature But here is the key point. Our spiritual nature is not opposed to our natural inclinations. In fact, it also has its own natural inclinations. And these inclinations, which belong to us because of the spiritual dimension of the human person, don\'t determine our movements and actions, but rather they\'re the source and the cause of them. Our spiritual nature lies at the root of our freedom and gives it its vital energy. Consider what we mean when we say, \"I\'m thirsting for the truth. We\'re using an analogy. We all know what it\'s like to be thirsty. A biological inclination like this sometimes directs our appetite in a very compelling way. But is thirst contrary to our freedom? No. It\'s an eating and drinking that we have the physical strength to do all the other things that we do. Is our thirst for the truth an obstacle or limit to our freedom? Well, obviously not. What we\'re trying to express is actually the root of our free desire to know the truth. And anyone who\'s ever been drawn to a particular subject and who thirsts to know more about it, realizes that this thirst, this love for the subject, doesn\'t decrease freedom, but actually is the root of our free activity by which we learn more and more about what we love. In other words, our spiritual inclinations are real. They\'re really a part of our spiritual nature and they\'re not blind determinations that limit our freedom, rather, they\'re its very source and they spur it on. Let\'s now return to the idea of the eternal law. Aquinas teaches that God has imprinted in creatures their inclinations to their proper acts and ends in accordance with God\'s eternal plan. And likewise, that He\'s imprinted these inclinations in human beings in a higher way, we have inclinations that belong to us in virtue of our spiritual nature. We\'re now in a better position to understand what Aquinas means by his famous claim that the precepts of the natural law follow the order of our natural inclinations. He means that as we understand the inclinations of our spiritual nature, we come to grasp what God made a human being to be and what human life is ordered to. And so, we come to know what a human being ought to do and avoid. St. Thomas lists five principle natural inclinations. The inclination to the good, that is, to what perfects us. The inclination to self-preservation, for example, to seek food, shelter, clothing, to avoid threats to our life. The inclination to sexual union and the upbringing of offspring. The inclination to knowing the truth. And the inclination to living in society, which includes the inclination to friendship and to justice and fairness towards others. Of course, some people might sometimes act contrary to one or another of these inclinations, and there\'s always the possibility that, due to sin, our desires will become distorted. But Aquinas thinks that these five inclinations really are features of the kind of beings that we are, and that they give us a fundamental orientation towards what will make us increasingly happy and increasingly free. It\'s important to see that for Saint Thomas, natural law is thus not imposed on us by some alien will that commands us from above. It\'s rather, the very design of our being. Freedom As we come to know this with our minds, we\'re then able to participate intentionally and freely in this plan. We order ourselves, our actions, beings lower than us and even our communities, according to this plan, by the use of our freedom. This is, in an important sense, the very purpose of our freedom, that we would be the creatures that order ourselves freely and knowingly to God, according to His plan. Let\'s conclude with some brief remarks on the relation between natural law and human law. Aquinas thinks that a human law is only just when it\'s in accord with a natural law. And that laws that conflict with the natural law are not morally binding. The natural law is most clear with respect to certain general and negative precepts. For example, the precepts of the Ten Commandments. Theft, murder, lying, adultery and other sexual sins, suicide, these are wrong always and everywhere, because they\'re contrary to what the natural law teaches us is the good for human beings. Self-preservation, sexual union and the raising of children, truth, life together in society. Positive precepts are a different case because they\'re harder to apply. Conclusion We might all agree with the precepts be brave, be just, but there are many ways we can do these things and some of them might be better than others. That\'s why Aquinas thinks the negative precepts of the natural law are more easily known and apply always and everywhere, while the positive precepts don\'t necessarily apply in every circumstance. Aquinas thinks that an important part of the job of human lawmakers is to specify and apply the general precepts of the natural law in a particular context and for a particular community. Then, always respecting what the natural law demands in it\'s negative precepts, human lawmakers should write laws that order their community towards its common good. Thomas Aquinas was no dummy. Remember him? The Italian fella? Christian monk? Philosophical superstar of the 13th century? Aquinas thought morality was important for everyone, and that being a good person was a vital part of God's plan for each of us. But he knew that not everyone had been exposed to the Bible, or had even heard of God. So, what bothered him was: How could people follow God's moral rules -- also known as the divine commands -- if they didn't even know about the guy who made the commandments? Aquinas just couldn't believe that God would have expectations for us, if he didn't also give us -- all of us -- a way to meet them. So, Aquinas' theorized that God made us pre-loaded with the tools we need to know what's Good. This idea became known as the natural law theory. And there are a lot of versions of this theory still circulating around today. But Aquinas' original take on natural law is by far the most influential, and the longest standing. How influential? Well, if you're Catholic or a member of any of the major Protestant denominations, or were raised in any of those traditions, then you're probably already familiar with how Aquinas saw the moral universe and your place in it. Basically, God is awesome, and he made you. So, you are awesome. It's just important that you don't forget to be awesome. **What is Natural Law** We all want stuff. Aquinas got that. And he said that it was OK. In fact, the theory of natural law is based on the idea that God wants us to want things -- specifically, good things. Aquinas argued that God created the world according to natural laws, predictable, goal-driven systems whereby life is sustained, and everything functions smoothly. And as part of this natural order, God made certain things that were good for his various creatures. Sunlight and water are good for plants. Meat is good for cats, and plants are good for bunnies. And -- because God is awesome -- he instilled all of his creatures with an intuitive desire for the things that he designed to be best for them. **Basic Goods** The things that we're designed to seek are known as the basic goods, and there are seven of them. The first thing that all living things just naturally want, Aquinas said, is self-preservation -- the drive to sustain life. Aquinas thought God built all creatures with a survival instinct. And this appears to be pretty much true. I mean, we naturally avoid dangerous situations like swimming with hungry sharks, and when we find ourselves in danger, we don't have to stop and ponder the options before getting ourselves to safety. After preserving our own lives, our next most pressing basic good is to make more life -- in other words, to reproduce. Some beings are able to do this on their own, but since we need to coordinate matters with a partner, God kindly instilled us with a sex drive, and made the process feel good, to make sure that we do it. Thanks, God! But once we manage to achieve our second basic good -- reproduction -- we need to educate those kids we just made. For humans, that's going to mean stuff like school and lessons in morality. But even non-human animals need to teach their babies how to hunt and avoid predators. Otherwise, the offspring they worked so hard to create aren't going to survive long enough to reproduce themselves, which, of course, is the goal of everything. And while these first goods seem to apply to a pretty wide swath of creation, some of the basic goods are just for humans, because of the particular kind of being we are. For instance, Aquinas thought we are built with an instinctual desire to know God. He believed we seek him in our lives, whether we've been exposed to the idea of God or not. Interestingly, the existentialist Jean-Paul Sartre agreed with Aquinas on this. He said we're all born with a god-shaped hole inside of us. The tragedy, for Sartre, is that he was an atheist, so he believed this was an emptiness that could never be filled. Next, taking a page out of Aristotle's book, Aquinas also said that humans are naturally social animals, so it's part of our basic good to live in community with others. While short periods of solitude can be good, he believed that we're basically pack animals, and our desire for love and acceptance, and our susceptibility to peer pressure, are all evidence of this. Now, since we naturally want to be part a pack, it's a good idea not to alienate our pack-mates. So, basically, Aquinas said we recognize the basic good of not pissing everybody off. I mean, he didn't actually say it that way. But if he did, I'm sure it sounded a lot better in Latin. The point is, Aquinas said we feel shame and guilt when we do things that cause our group to turn against us, and that was another basic good. And finally, Aquinas said we're built to shun ignorance. We're natural knowers. We're inquisitive, and we want to be right. This is another trait we share with non-human animals, because knowledge promotes survival, and ignorance can mean starving to death or ending up as someone else's dinner. So these are the basic goods, and from them, we can derive the natural laws. We don't need the Bible, or religion class, or church in order to understand the natural law, Aquinas said. Instead, our instinct shows us the basic goods, and reason allows us to derive the natural law from them. Right acts, therefore, are simply those that are in accordance with the natural law. So how does this whole system work? Well, I recognize the basic good of life, because I value my own life. And that's clear to me, because I have a survival instinct that keeps me from doing dangerous, stupid stuff. Then, reason leads me to see that others also have valuable lives. And from there I see that killing is a violation of natural law. So, for each negative law, or prohibition, there's usually a corresponding positive one -- a positive injunction. For example, 'Do not kill' is a prohibition, but there's also a positive injunction that encourages us to promote life. And I can take that positive injunction of promoting life to mean anything from feeding the hungry, to caring for the sick, to making healthy choices for myself. And we could do the same thing with each of the basic goods. The basic good of reproduction leads to a prohibition, don't prevent reproduction, which is why the Catholic Church has been so opposed to birth control. And the positive injunction there is: Do procreate! Do all the procreating you want! And if you think it through -- using your God-given reason -- you'll be able to see how the other natural laws are derived from the basic goods. **Questions** But, of course, as with the Divine Command Theory, the theory of Natural Law raises plenty of questions. For example, if God created us to seek the good, and if we're built with the ability to recognize and seek it, then why do people violate the natural law all the time?! Like, if this is supposed to be something so intuitively obvious that even plants and non-human animals can manage it, why is the world so full of people-killing and offending others and folks who do everything but seek God? Aquinas had two answers for this: ignorance and emotion. Sometimes, he said, we seek what we think is good, but we're wrong, because we're just ignorant. And yes, that happens. I mean, there once was a time when cigarettes were literally what the doctor ordered. Back then, we thought we were promoting our health, but we were actually hurting it. No matter how awesome God made you, or your desires, you have to have some understanding of how to be awesome. But ignorance can't account for all of the stupid things we do. Aquinas, again following Aristotle here, said that, even though we're rational, we're also emotional creatures. And sometimes, we see what we should do, but emotion overpowers our reason, and we fail to do the things we know we should. So, in those cases, we just forget to be awesome. Now, as with the Divine Command Theory, Natural law gives us a handy answer to the grounding problem. It tells us that morality is grounded in God, that he created the moral order. It also gives us a reason to be moral -- following the natural law makes our lives work better.