To what extent is natural law the best way to resolve moral problems. (40 marks)

To what extent is natural law the best way to resolve moral problems. (40 marks)

The natural law theory is a method of moral decision making from an absolutist point of view.  It is a deontological theory meaning that it is absolute and always stays the same regardless of the situation. The problem with this is the fact that it does not take the situation in to account, we cannot deal with murder, manslaughter, genocide and self-defence in the same way. The natural law theory was developed from virtue ethics by Thomas Aquinas. It expresses that morality is innate from birth. What is ‘right and ‘wrong’, ‘good’ or ‘evil’ can be perceived almost instantly by everyone because morality is universal. This can be explained through a toddler, when treated unfairly, children drop to the floor and cry out “It’s not fair!” this shows that from a young age we have presumptions of justice. However, Aquinas does not explain why people choose to do wrong even though they know that it is wrong. Furthermore, Aquinas’ view has a very rose-tinted perspective of humanity. Aquinas emphasises that regardless of being religious or not, everyone has the ability to access natural law. Cicero explains that, “true law is right reason in agreement with nature”. This is a perfect definition of natural law. People assume that natural law is a religious theory, but Cicero and Aquinas argue that it is a theory based of nature and common sense. However, this does not explain why the primary precepts tell us to worship God. Aquinas sums up the whole theory by stating that “Good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided.” Natural law simply makes this principle more obeyable by creating clear cut laws to ensure that certain things are intrinsically right or wrong. Aquinas believed that there were primary precepts that were necessary for the continuation of society and from these came the secondary precepts which are rules that uphold the primary precepts. They also teach us about things that we should or should not do. These were his primary precepts. Firstly, we must worship God - Humans question their origins. For Aquinas this means, they want to know God. Therefore, it is natural to be inclined towards worshipping God; to live in an ordered Society - most people seek to resolve disputes and want to live peacefully; to reproduce - It is natural to want to have sex in order for society to grow and continue to thrive. It makes sense to bring up children in a sable, lawful relationship e.g. marriage; to learn - humans have an inclination to want to know everything there is about the universe. It makes sense for each one of us to seek education; and finally, the most important precept is to defend the innocent - it is natural to create conditions to keep ourselves fit and healthy and avoid situations which threaten life. He claimed that these rules were innate in nature and in the nature of mankind.

In contrast, Utilitarianism is a teleological method of moral decision-making meaning that it depends on the situation rather than pre-set rules in order to calculate the best moral decision. Utilitarianism came about from Bentham and Miller as a method of making the best moral decision that guaranteed pleasure. However, this might not always be the case, Immediate pleasure is not always the best thing, sometimes pain brings pleasure. Nonetheless, Bernard explains that “nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure, it is for them alone to point out what we ought to do.” This show that decision making is based on our own pleasure and satisfaction rather than about doing what pleases God. This can be explained through an analogy of a toddler. From such a young age children know that pleasure is more desirable than pain, so it makes sense to be ruled by pain and pleasure. Bentham’s theory of utilitarianism is based solely on one principle, “the greatest happiness for the greater number”. A problem with this theory is that it does not take the minority in to consideration. For example, if slavery benefits the majority it does not mean that it is right. Similarly, if 10 people wanted to kill one man it does not make it right or just. Hence why his theory is known as “a doctrine fit for pigs”. Due to his quantitive approach towards pleasure, he thought that all pleasure was the same. He argued that push pin (a children’s game) was just as good as poetry.  On the other hand, Miller argued that there were different types of pleasure (qualitative approach), and that intellectual pleasures were better than sensual pleasures. He claims that, “it is better to be a human dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.” He argued that we should universalise our actions before actually committing them, this way we can find out if it is the right choice. Bentham and Miller’s theory is extremely unrestricted making it impossible for society to share and have the same values. Bentham, Miller and Aquinas fail to realise that they were ahead of their time and that most people were uncapable of thinking like them. What I think might bring me pleasure is different to someone else. I might think that music gives me pleasure whereas murder might give a serial killer pleasure, surely, we can’t both use the same calculus to work out what is right or wrong.

Natural law is a good approach to ethical decision making because it takes less time to calculate what is right and wrong, it is fair since the same rules apply to everyone and to all situations and it leaves no room for disagreement about whether an action is right or wrong, so it avoids complication. For example, killing is always wrong because it is against the precept of ‘preservation of life’, so in two situations where people had killed someone, there would be no exceptions due to their intention for example. This ensures that it is a good approach due to it’s just nature and how the same type of crime will always be wrong with no exceptions. However, many would suggest it being a deontological theory is a bad thing because it is a part of human nature to think about the outcomes of an action. So, following the natural law theory could involve carrying out a good action that results in a bad consequence. Such as, not allowing a woman to have an abortion who is so ill that she will clearly die if she is made to continue with her pregnancy. As a result, the woman dies because the preservation of life of the foetus was thought about without any consideration of the outcome, and as a result the baby will grow out without and mother and so a poor quality of life. This portrays how it is not a good approach to ethical decision making because it could lead people making decisions that cause more harm than if they were avoided. However, you could argue that it is good that the Natural Law theory is deontological because the outcomes are often unpredictable, meaning even human reason can’t predict the future. So, it prevents random moral actions being undertaken that could lead to more harm than good. Similarly, utilitarianism can be seen as a good approach to moral decision making since it guaranties happiness. However, if happiness comes at the cost of someone else’s suffering how can we possibly consider it to be ethical? Also, utilitarianism can be seen as a bad method of decision making since it attempts to use the end result to calculate happiness, however, it is impossible to think of all the possible outcomes. Besides, it sounds ridiculous to calculate every action before doing it, this also means that it takes lots of time.

Overall, we can argue that both theories have a positive aspect to them. Arguably, natural law could be seen as the best approach to ethical decision making because it is simple and easy to apply to all situations, in any place at any time. To this day, natural law is still important in our society especially since our laws are based on it. For example, the Human Rights Act However, at the same time it causes a lot of conflicting ideas about what is considered natural and how on earth it could be possible to judge two separate situations using the five primary precepts, with no exceptions. Similarly, utilitarianism is a very selfish and unwise method of moral decision making. Although they are both outdated and old fashioned, natural law is the best way to resolve moral problems.