Natural Law Ethics PDF

PLVal **PAMANTASAN NG LUNGSOD NG VALENZUELA** Poblacion II, Malinta, Valenzuela City **[E T H I C S]** **NATURAL LAW** **Lesson 3A** **INTRODUCTION** We are used to hearing people justify done something by making the appeal that what they maintain is what is "natural," and therefore acceptabl...

PLVal **PAMANTASAN NG LUNGSOD NG VALENZUELA** Poblacion II, Malinta, Valenzuela City **[E T H I C S]** **NATURAL LAW** **Lesson 3A** **INTRODUCTION** We are used to hearing people justify done something by making the appeal that what they maintain is what is "natural," and therefore acceptable. Likewise, people would judge something as unacceptable on the basis that it is supposedly "unnatural." Thus, we are no longer surprised when we hear people condemn and label many different things as "unnatural": maybe receiving blood transfusions, eating meat, or engaging in sexual relations that one might think deviant. We also realize that sometimes we might find ourselves astonished or perplexed as to what different people might consider "unnatural." In order to proceed, it is therefore necessary to ask: "What do the words natural and unnatural mean?" Sometimes, the word "natural" seems to be used to refer to some kind of intuition that a person has, one which is so apparently true to him that it is unquestioned. For example, a woman may claim that it is simply "unnatural" to eat any kind of insect, and what this means is that she personally finds herself averse to the idea of doing so. In other instances, the word is used to try to justify a certain way of behaving be seeing likeness somewhere in the natural world. For example, a man might claim that it is okay for him to have more than one sexual partner, since, in a pride of lions, the alpha male gets to mate with all the she-lions. In yet other instances, the word "natural" is used as an appeal to something instinctual without being directed by reason. For example, a man may deem it all right if he were to urinate just anywhere because after all he sees it as "natural" function of humans. Lastly, we also find people using the word "natural" to refer to what seems common to them given their particular environment. For example, a Filipina may suppose that eating three full meals of rice and *ulam* every day is what is "natural" because everyone she knows behaves in that way. Given these varied meanings of the term "natural," we need to find a more solid and nuanced way to understand the term. We will explore how Thomas Aquinas provides this, emphasizing the capacity for reason as what is essential in our human reason. This understanding of human nature anchored on our capacity for reason will become the basis of natural law theory, a theory which will provide us a unique way of determining the moral status of our actions. **THOMAS AQUINAS** There have been various thinkers and systems of thought emerging throughout history that could be said to present a natural theory. Among them, the one we will be focusing on is the medieval thinker Thomas Aquinas. It has to be recognized, however, that this natural law theory is part of a larger discussion, which is his moral theory taken as a whole. This moral theory, in turn, is part of a larger project, which is Aquina's vision of the Christian faith. Before we turn to the natural law theory, let us look at these contexts. **THE CONTEXT OF THE CHRISTIAN STORY** The fundamental truth maintained and elaborated by Aquinas in all his works is the promise right at the center of the Christian faith: that we are created by God in order to ultimately return to Him. The structure of his magnum opus *Summa Theologiae* follows the trajectory of this story. There are three parts of this voluminous work. In the first part, Aquinas speaks of God, and although we acknowledge that our limited human intellect cannot fully grasp Him, we nevertheless are able to say something concerning His goodness, His might, and His creative power. Recognizing then that we are created by God, we move on to the next part, which deals with man or the dynamic of human life. This is characterized by our pursuit of happiness, which we should realize rests ultimately not on any particular good thing that is created by God, but in the highest good which is God Himself. Our striving for this ultimate happiness, while important, will not in itself bring us to this blessed state. In other words, salvation is only possible through the presence of God's grace and that grace has become perfectly incarnate in the person of Jesus. Thus, the third part focuses on Jesus as our Savior. Given that our concern here is the question of ethics, it would seem clear that what would be the greatest interest to us is the second part or the section of this story that centers on human life and its striving toward God. However, bringing up the notion that living a good life leads us to God could easily be misunderstood as a simple exhortation to obey certain rules as given to us through Church doctrines or by following certain passages lifted randomly from Sacred Scriptures. In other words, we may fall into the danger of the divine command theory. Instead, we should hope to find that there is much greater complexity, but also coherence, to the ethics of Aquinas. **THE CONTEXT OF AQUINAS'S ETHICS** A full consideration of Aquinas's ethics would require us to explore his discussion of other matters, such as how, in our pursuit of happiness, we direct our actions toward specific ends. We might explore how emotions -- "the passions" -- are involved in this process, and therefore require a proper order if they are to properly contribute to a good life. We might explore his discussion of how we develop either good or bad habits with a good disposition leading us toward making moral choices, thereby contributing to our moral virtue, and a bad disposition inclining us toward making immoral choices, bringing us to vice. The Christian life, therefore is about developing the capacities given to us by God into a disposition of virtue inclined toward the good. Aquinas also puts forward that there is within us a conscience that directs our moral thinking. This does not refer to some simple intuition or gut feeling, for Aquinas, there is a sense of right or wrong in us that we are obliged to obey. However, he also adds that this sense of right and wrong must be informed, guided, and ultimately grounded in an objective basis for morality. So, we are called to heed the voice of conscience and enjoined to develop and maintain a life of virtue. However, these both require content, so we need something more. We need a basis for our conscience to be properly informed, and we need a clearer guidepost on whether certain decisions we make lead us toward virtue or vice. Being told that one should heed one's conscience or that one should try to be virtuous, does very little to guide people as to what specifically should be done in a given situation. Thus, there is a need for a clearer basis of ethics, a ground that will more concretely direct our sense of what is right and wrong. For Aquinas, this would be the natural law. We can recall how the ethical approach called the divine command theory urges a person toward unthinking obedience to religious precepts. Given the problems of this simplistic approach to ethics, we can contrast how the moral theory of Aquinas requires the judicious use of reason. In doing so, one's sense of right and wrong would be grounded on something stable: human nature itself. **NEOPLATONIC GOOD** God creates. This does not only mean that He brings about beings, but it also means that He cares for, and thus governs, the activity of the universe and of every creature. This central belief of the Christian faith, while inspired by divine revelation, has been shaped and defined by an idea stated in the work of the ancient Greek philosopher Plato, which had been put forward a thousand years before Aquinas. He is credited for giving the subsequent history of philosophy in one of its most compelling and enduring ideas: the notion of a supreme and absolutely transcendent good. In his work *The Republic,* it is often supposed that Plato is trying to envision the ideal society. But that plan is only a part of a more fundamental concern that animates the text, which is to provide an objective basis and standard for the striving to be moral. In other words, it can be said that Plato was trying to answer questions such as, "Why should I bother trying to be good?" and "Why cannot 'good' be just whatever I say it is?" His answer, placed in the mouth of Socrates, is that good is real and not something that one can pretend to make up or ignore. Socrates, in discussing this, elevates the notion of the good to unprecedented heights: **The Idea of the Good** Excerpt from *The Republic* Plato Readers of *The Republic* have long been baffled by this enigmatic passage and are still trying to figure out how exactly to interpret it. Rather than be dismissed, this *idea of the good* -- a good which is prior to all being and is even the cause of all being -- will become a source of fascination and inspiration to later thinkers even to this day. In the next centuries after Plato's time, some scholars turned to his texts and tried to decipher the wealth of ideas contained here. Because they say their task as basically clarifying and elaborating on what the great thinker had already written, these later scholars are often labeled as Neoplatonists. In the hands of the Neoplatonists, Plato's idea of the good, which is the source of all beings, becomes identified with the One and the Beautiful. This is the ultimate reality, which is the oneness that will give rise to the multiplicity of everything else in the cosmos. All these beings have a single goal, which is to return to that unity. Through Neoplatonists like Plotinus, the Platonic idea of the good would continue well into the Christian Middle Ages, inspiring later thinkers and allowing it to be through anew in a more personal way as a creative and loving God. **ARISTOTELIAN BEING AND BECOMING** In Aristotle's exploration of how to discuss beings, he purposes four concepts which provide a way of understanding any particular being under consideration. Any being according to Aristotle, can be said to have four causes. First, we recognize that any being we can see around is corporeal, possesses or certain materiality or physical "stuff." We can refer to this as the *material cause.* A being individuated -- it becomes the unique, individual being that it is -- because it is made up of this particular stuff. Yet, we also realize that this material takes on a particular shape: so a bird is different from a cat, which is different from a man. The "shape" that makes a being a particular kind can be labeled its form. Thus, each being also has a *formal cause.* One can also realize that a being does not simply "pop-up" from nothing, but comes from another being which is prior to it. Parents beget a child. A mango tree used to be a seed that itself came from an older tree. A chair is built as the product of a carpenter. Thus, there is something which brings about the presence of another being. This can be referred to as the *efficient cause.* Also, since a being has an apparent end or goal, a chair to be sat on, a pen for writing, a seed to become a tree, or a child to become an adult, one can speak of the *final cause* of each being. Identifying these four causes -- material, formal, efficient, and final -- gives a way to understanding any being. Of course, it is not a case of a being that is something is already permanently set as it is and remains forever unchanging. So in addition to describing a being, Aristotle also has to explain to us the process of becoming or the possibility of change that takes place in a being. A new pair of principles is introduced by him, which we can refer to as *potency* and *act.* A being may carry within itself certain potentials, but these require being actualized. A puppy is not yet a full-grown dog. These potencies are latent in the puppy and are actualized as the puppy grows up and achieves what it is supposed to be. The process of becoming -- or change -- can thus be explained in this way. Understanding beings, how they are and how they become or what they could be, is the significant Aristotelian contribution to the picture which will given to us by Aquinas. **SYNTHESIS** The idea of a transcendent good prior to all being resurfaces in Aquinas in the form of the good and loving God, who is Himself the fullness of being and of goodness; as Aquinas puts it, God is that which essentially is and is essentially good. So, we recognize that all beings are only possible as participating in the first being, which is God Himself. God's act, like an emanation of light, is the creation of beings. Insofar as God is that from which all beings come, it is possible for us to speak of Him as the first efficient cause. Insofar as God is that toward which all beings seek to return, it is possible for us to speak of Him as the final cause. We see here the beginning of the synthesis by noting how Neoplatonic movement from and back toward the transcendent is fused with Aristotelian notion of causes. It must be noted, though, that this is not some mechanistic unthinking process. It is God's will and love that are the cause of all things; to every existing thing, God wills some good. Creation therefore is the activity of the outpouring or overflowing of God's goodness. Since each being in this way participates in God's goodness, each being is in some sense good. However, while beings are good because they are created by God, the goodness possessed by a being remains imperfect. For Aquinas, only God in the fulfillment of His being and goodness is perfect; all other beings are participating in this goodness, and are good to that extent, but are imperfect since they are limited in their participation. But, once again, God did not create us to simply be imperfect and to stay the way as he leaves us alone. Instead, God, in His infinite wisdom, directs how we are to arrive at our perfection. The notion of divine providence refers to how beings are properly ordered and even guided toward their proper end: this end, which is for them to reach their highest good, is to return to the divine goodness itself. God communicates to each being His perfection and goodness. Every creature then strives to its own perfection; thus the divine goodness is the end of all actions. All things come from God and are created by Him in order to return to Him. We now need to recall that beings are created by God in a particular way. It is not accidental how beings emerge into existence; each being is created as a determinate substance, as a particular combination of form and matter. This applies to all beings, including man. The particular form determines the materiality which makes a being a certain kind of being; the unique way that we have been created can be called our *nature.* This nature, as a participation in God's goodness, is both good and imperfect at the same time. Coming from God, it is good, but in its limitations, it has yet to be perfected. This perfection means fulfilling our nature the best we can, thus realizing what God had intended for us to be. We accomplish this by fulfilling or actualizing the potencies that are already present in our nature. While all beings are created by God in order to return to Him, the way the human being is directed toward God is unique. Given that we are beings with capacity for reason, our way of reaching God is by knowing and loving Him. It is of key importance then that the presence of a capacity for reason is the prime characteristic of the kind of beings we are, and how that capacity for reason is the very tool which God had placed in our human nature as the way toward our perfection and return to Him. This applies not only to an individual human being, which is the universe itself, is directed toward its return to God. This is not, as mentioned earlier, an unthinking process, but is the very work of divine reason itself or God's will. We think, then, of the whole work of creation as divine reason governing a community toward its end. Under the governance of the Divine, beings are directed as to how their acts are to lead them to their end, which is to return to Him. On the next lesson, we shall try to understand this dynamic once again, but this time think of it in terms of *law.*