Natural Law

Thomas Aquinas

Another deontological theory that places the moral basis of an act, not on its results, but on its
conformity to duty is the natural law theory. The older variants of the theory share some similarities with
the divine command theory, since those who subscribe to this theory generally recognize the existence of
God and point to God as the source of the natural law However, the concept of God varies among the
advocates of the natural law theory. There are those who believe that God is immanent in, or even identical
with, nature. This view, known as pantheism, was espoused by the Stoics in the ancient era who understand
God to be diffused throughout the world. As such, there is a kind of cosmic nature, which man has to align
himself with in order to live a good life. On the other hand, there are those who conceive God as separate
from the universe, but from whom the universe owes its existence. God is thought to be the source of the
order that exists, not only in the cosmos, but in the very nature of the human person.
In contrast to these ancient beliefs on natural law theory, some modern and recent versions of the
natural law theory do not necessarily imply belief in God. In these versions, natural law is thought to be
something inherent in the universe and in humanity, and hence does not need a supernatural source.
Moreover, reason as the essence of our nature can discover the laws necessary for human flourishing. Given
its non-reliance on God's existence to advance its case, the natural law ethics is able to overcome criticisms
raised against the divine command theory, pointing to the latter's failure to anchor itself on a more rational
foundation and to give value to human autonomy and reason. Etsi Deus non Daretur means even if there
is no God. All men even if there those who do not believe in God have sense of right and wrong because
there is an ethical system in all of human because of Natural Law.

Basis of Right Action

The natural law theory holds that morality is part of the natural order of things. It claims that certain
actions are right by nature, apart from the opinions or practices of humans, while other things, like dress
and manners, are right merely by custom or convention. Reason can discover valid moral principles by
looking at the nature of humanity and society. Many people have a deep-seated feeling that if something is
"unnatural," it is also immoral. Even the law sometimes makes reference to "unnatural acts" with the
obvious intent of condemning them as wrong. The words unnatural and immoral are closely connected in
popular thought. On the other hand, the connotation of the word natural is strongly associated with what is
good or right, and we can easily see why this is the case. If ethics is supposed to regulate human conduct,
the purpose of this regulation must surely be for the good of human beings themselves, and it is reasonable
to believe that this good is determined by the requirements of human nature. What more reasonable
foundation could any ethical system have than human nature itself?
However, understanding this theory is not simple and easy as there are pertinent things we need to
clarify. Does this theory imply that doing whatever comes naturally is right? What exactly does the natural
law ethics mean by "nature?" How do we determine the standards of conduct that our human nature
presumably entails?
The Notion of Nature
The Stoics (in the first century BC) were one of the first thinkers who conceived of the idea of
natural law as the basis of morality. They understood nature as referring to the natural order as a whole
"cosmic nature." as we might call it. They spoke of a fundamental cosmic principle that governs and unifles
everything in the world, and as such, the order of the universe is fundamentally rational. To reason and act
rationally is to be in harmony with the universe. Thus, rationality is a key to pursuing a moral life.
Subsequently, violence and vice are consequences of irrationality and not being in harmony with universal
laws.
But though the natural law theory was conceived in the classical period, it came of age in the
medieval times, particularly during the rise of the Roman Catholic Church. Perhaps, the greatest exponent
of the natural law theory was Thomas Aquinas (1224-1274). He synthesized the Stoic's sense of cosmic
natural law with Aristotle's view that human beings have a specific nature, purpose, and function. If the
function of a knife is to cut sharply, a pencil's function is to make marks on a paper, and a "good" knife or
pencil then is one that performs its function well. Is there such a function that all of humanity shares which
we can properly consider as our nature? According to Aristotle, there is and it is to live the life of reason.
As he puts it:
Reason is the true self of every man, since it is the supreme and better part. It will be
strange, then, if he should choose not his own life, but some other's... What is naturally proper to
every creature is the highest and pleasantest for him. And so, to man, this will be the life of Reason,
since Reason is, in the highest sense, a man's self (Aristotle, 1962, 1097b).
Following Aristotle's point, Aquinas asserts that humanity's function is to exhibit rationality in all
its forms: contemplation, deliberation, and action. Reason's deliberative processes discover the natural laws.
They are universal rules, or "ordinances of reason for the common good, promulgated by him who has the
care of the community:"
To the natural law belong those things to which a man is inclined naturally: and among
these it is proper to man to be inclined to act according to reason... Hence this is the first precept of
law, that good is to be done and promoted, and evil is to be avoided. All other precepts of the natural
law are based upon this, so that all the things which the practical reason naturally apprehends as
man's good belong to the precepts of the natural law under the form of things to be done or avoided.
Since, however, good has the nature of an end, and evil, the nature of the contrary, hence it is that
all those things to which man has a natural inclination are naturally apprehended by reason as good,
and consequently as objects of pursuit, and their contraries as evil, and objects of avoidance.
Therefore, the order of the precepts of the natural law is according to the order of natural
inclinations (Aquinas, 1945, question 94).

Here, Aquinas lays down the fundamental precept of the natural law: good is to be done and evil
avoided. However, this is too general to be the guiding principle for particular moral situations. What is the
good or the evil he is referring to here? In the above passages, Be states that all those things to which man
has a natural inclination are naturally apprehended by reason as good, and consequently as objects of
pursuit, and their contraries as evil, and objects of avoidance. Thus, for Aquinas, good is acting in
accordance with our natural inclination; he holds that reason can sort out which of our inclinations are part
of our true nature, and how are we to relate them to one another. Aquinas identifies the desires for life and
procreation as fundamental values, without which other values could not even get established. Knowledge
and sociability are two other intrinsic values that are reflections of our human nature. The pursuit of the
goods these values specify is the way to individual fulfillment (Aquinas 1945). It is not clear, however,
whether the mentioned items are supposed to constitute an exhaustive list. As such, other natural law
theorists have expanded the list to include such things as play and aesthetic experience. Nonetheless, the
ones given by Aquinas are fundamentally adequate to represent our basic natural inclinations, as validated
by pertinent studies of psychologists, sociologists, and anthropologists.
In order to understand better the concept of Aquinas’ natural law, we have to understand the other types of
laws according to Aquinas.

Four kinds of Law

1) Eternal Law refers to the rational plan of God by which all creation is ordered. As God is the supreme
ruler of everything, the rational pattern or form of the universe that exists in his mind is the law that directs
everything in the universe to its appointed end. To this eternal law, everything in the universe is subject.
2. Natural Law is that aspect of the eternal law which is accessible to human reason. Because mankind is
part of the eternal order, there is a portion of the eternal law that relates specifically to human conduct. This
is the moral law, the law or order to which people are subject by their nature ordering them to do good and
avoid evil.
3. Divine Law serves to complement the other types of law. It is a law of revelation, disclosed
through sacred text or Scriptures and the Church which is also directed toward man’s eternal end. Though
concerned also with external aspects of conduct, the divine law is more focused on how man can be
inwardly holy and eventually attain salvation.
3) Human law refers to the positive laws. For natural law to be adhered to, more exact and forceful
provisions of human law are helpful. Because the natural law is too broad to provide particular guidance,
the human law’s precise, positive rules of behavior are supposed to spell out what the natural law prescribes.
Moral virtues are also reinforced by and cultivated through these human laws. This human law includes the
civil and criminal laws, though only those formulated in the light of practical reason and moral laws.
Aquinas defined this law (positive law) an ordinance of reason for the common good, promulgated by
someone who has care of the community.

Moral Absolutism and the Qualifying Principles

Is the Moral Theory of Aquinas an Absolutism? Moral absolutism claims that certain kinds
of actions are always wrong or always obligatory regardless of the consequences. This is one of
the criticisms thrown at natural Law theory. All the values preceding from the natural inclination
cannot be violated. The problem with moral absolutism is the fact some actions can be justified.
For instance, if you are a moral absolutist, then killing another person is immoral regardless of
circumstances. Hence, killing a person even if it is done out of self-defence is immoral.
The moral theory of Aquinas is not an Absolutism. Based on his writings we can find these
two principles: Principle of Forfeiture and Principle of Double Effect. Let’s discuss these two
principles.
According to the Principle of Forfeiture, a person who threatens the life of an innocent
person forfeits his or her own right to life. For instance, you have been taken hostage by a group
ot criminals and threatened to be killed if a large sum of money will not be given to them at a
particular time. Is it morally permissible for the police authorities or even you yourself to kill the
hostage-takers in order to save your life? The natural law theorist would say it is morally
permissible since the aggressors in this case have forfeited their innocence by unjustifiably
threatening your life. In a sense, they have fortified their claim to have their natural inclination to
self-preservation respected.
The principle of forfeiture can be used to justify not only individual self-defence but other
acts as well such as capital punishment, Aquinas himself is open to supporting capital punishment
when he spoke of this passage: "Therefore if any man is dangerous to the community and is
subverting it by some sin, the treatment to be commended is his execution in order to preserve the
common good... Therefore to kill a man who retains his natural worthiness is intrinsically evil,
although it may be justifiable to kill a sinner just as it is to kill a beast, for, as Aristotle points out,
an evil man is worse than a beast and more harmful" (Aquinas, 1945, question 64). Here, Aquinas
is saying that certain contexts change a bad act (killing) into a good act (killing to repair the
violation of justice done by the person killed, and killing a person who has forfeited their natural
worthiness by killing)
The other qualifying principle is the Principle of Double Effect. It states that it is always
wrong to do a bad act intentionally in order to bring about good consequences, but that it is
sometimes permissible to do a good act despite knowing that it will bring about bad consequences.
There are four conditions that must be satisfied for such act to be considered morally permissible
(see Pojman, 1999, 48):
Before proceeding to the four conditions of the Double effect, it is important to discuss of the 3 determinants
of morality for Aquinas.
1. The object (the act itself) - the object is the act itself. It means the free will chooses to door not to do -
-in thought, word or deed.
2. The circumstances- it means all the elements (conditions) that surround a human action and affect its
morality without belonging to its essence. Who? Where? How? How much? By what means? How often?
3. The end (of the agent) the end is the purpose for which the act is willed. It means the end is the motive
or the reason why an action is performed

4 conditions of the Principle of Double Effect

1. The Nature-of-the-Act condition -The act, considered in itself and apart from its
consequences, is good, or at least morally permissible. Torturing an innocent person is
never permissible as it is by nature an evil act.
2. The Means-End Condition-the bad effect must not be the means by which one
achieves the good effect.

3. The Right-intention Condition-The intention must be the achieving of only the good
effect, with the bad effect being only an unintended side collect. If a bad reflect is a
means of achieving the good effect, then the act is immoral. The bad effect may be
foreseen but must not be intended. The moral significance of this condition lies in the
belief that if an alternative method that does not produce the bad effect is available but
not used, we must assume that the bad effect was intended.
4. The Proportionality Condition -The good effect must be at least equivalent to the
importance of the bad effect.
 Let us illustrate this principle by applying it to a case in which a pregnant woman was
diagnosed with a cancerous uterus, and subsequently has to undergo hysterectomy to save her life,
but such procedure will lead to the termination of pregnancy.
First Condition- Undergoing hysterectomy to preserve her life is morally permissible. In
fact, considered in itself hysterectomy and apart from its consequences, it is morally obligatory for
the woman to have the procedure, since she is obliged to do what she can to preserve her life.
Second Condition, the bad effect is not the means of achieving the good effect. An abortion
is not a necessary step in curing the person, rather it just happens that the only procedure that will
save the woman's life also causes the termination of pregnancy. The abortion is an unfortunate and
unintended side effect due to the particular nature of the medical procedure.
Third, if we assume that such procedure is the only one that will save the mother and that
it cannot be put off until after the baby is born, then the bad effect is unavoidable. In this situation,
the death of the child is not intended. Let us clarity what natural law theorists mean. The bad effect
is certainly foreseen; the woman knows that undergoing hysterectomy will cause abortion. But an
effect may be foreseen without also being intended, that is, without being the goal of the action.
If another medical procedure or treatment could be availed of that would save the woman's life
without causing abortion, then such alternative means must be taken. Otherwise, it would be
difficult to argue that abortion was not intended.
Fourth, a proportionally serious reason exists for allowing abortion to happen. The death
of the fetus is at least balanced by the saving of the mother's life. If the bad effect were serious as
in the case of abortion, but the good effect were relatively insignificant, the action would not be
justifiable by the principle of double effect, even if the other conditions were met.
The proportionality condition would lead one into thinking that values can be measured
and human lives can be weighed against one another, which is contrary to the earlier statement
about natural law theory. However, this condition should be seen as an exception to such earlier
statement as well as to the claim that consequences are not considered in moral evaluation. Here,
consequences do play a part in natural law reasoning but note that the consequences can be
considered only when the other three conditions have been met.