Chapter 6: Natural Law Human beings are the “rational animal”/ “political animal” – zoon politikon as Aristotle says. Key to understanding morality is to understand our place in the natural order of things. Animals live good lives when their natures are fulfilled Ex1. Acorn produces a wonderful oak tree with wide branches and deep roots. Ex2. Acorn produces something like Charlie Brown’s wilting tree; it’s barely alive, not a good example of its kind. Which one is a better tree Ex1 or Ex2? Human beings have a human nature, and live well when their human nature is fulfilled. Natural law theory defined: “In each of these cases, nature is dictating the terms of appraisal. The things in nature have a nature. Such things are bad when they are unnatural, and good to the extent that they fulfill their nature. Perhaps we can say the same about human beings” (76). Moral law = natural law NLT: An action is right just because they are natural, and wrong just because they are unnatural; And people are good or bad to the extent that they fulfill their true nature—the more they fulfill their nature, the better they are. Four Problems Solved By Natural Law Theory in Ethics 1. Natural law theory promises to explain how morality could possibly be objective, that is, how moral standards depend on something other than human opinion We do right actions when we express human nature, and do wrong to violate it. Since entire societies can be wrong about how to express human nature, entire societies can be off the mark when it concerns morality. Ultimate moral standard is acting in accordance with human nature. A. Theistic natural law theory (Catholicism): God gives us our human nature to reason, but reason figures out how best to express our human nature. B. Non-theistic natural law theory: the ultimate standard of expressing our human nature need not depend on God for its origin Theistic natural law definitely more common than non-theistic natural law theory Insofar as there is something like human nature, we can have an objective account of morality. 2. Natural law theory easily explains why morality is especially suited for human beings, and not for anything else natural in the world. Reasoning abilities means we can reflect upon our own actions and be moral agents. Moral agents are those who bear responsibility for their actions because they have reflective ownership of their actions. - These people are fit for praise or blame for their actions - Only human beings can be moral agents, and this explains why morality only applies to human beings. 3. Natural law theory has a clear account about the origin of morality. - Morality has its origins only so long as human beings have been around. No human beings, no human nature. 4. Natural theory may solve one of the hardest problems in ethics: how to gain moral knowledge. - Let’s look at Hume’s Argument as a challenge to undermine the scope of moral claims. First, some definitions. Empirical truth- a proposition known to be true only from the five senses. Ex. NDC’s football team is playing on the field right now. T/F How do we know if this is T/F We have to see them playing on the field right now. We look out the window. Conceptual truth- a proposition whose truth relies only by understanding it with reason, but not with the five senses. Ex. No sphere is a cube. All integers are even or odd. All bachelor are unmarried males. All widows had a spouse. Hume’s Argument 1. We can know only two sorts of claims: conceptual claims or empirical truths. 2. Moral claims are neither conceptual truths nor empirical truths. 3. Therefore, we can have no moral knowledge. Moral claims are not conceptual truths because we can understand a moral claim completely and still wonder whether it is true. Ex. Dating Cindy is wrong. Is it truly wrong to date Cindy? Is that really true? Moral claims are not empirical truths because we do not discover by means of our senses the wrongness of any moral claim. The wrongness of dating Cindy is not like “Dr. H is taller than 5 ft.” Morality tells us how the world ought to be, not describe what is. Example of abducted and murdered child. If Hume is right, no matter what we say about the abducted murdered child, it may seem wrong, but there’s no moral knowledge about what ought to be the case. NLT can address the argument against Hume. Moral knowledge requires two things: 1. We must know what human nature is. 2. Know whether or not various actions fulfill our human nature. Neither 1 and 2 are mysterious, so we can derive an ought from an is. Three Conceptions of Human Nature 1. Human Nature as Animal Nature TO be human is to act as animals do. - This has limits. Ex. Just because most animals eat other animals does not give us license to eat other human beings. - NOT very precise and helpful when deciding what we ought to do. 2. Human Nature is What is Innate Innate traits are traits we have from birth; they are natural from the sense of being born. Traits acquired through socialization and culture are artificial. We can use the scientific method and discover what’s innately human, and solve Hume’s challenge immediately. Ex. Rousseau thought human beings were innately good. Cities corrupt us. We’re kind, cooperative and attentive to the needs of others in our pre-society state of nature. Ex. Thomas Hobbes thought that human beings are innately selfish. We’re not kind, cooperative, and attentive to the needs of others but intensely aware of selfish natures in our pre-society state of nature. Science would need to settle the issues between our Rousseauian and Hobbesian tendencies. We need to resolve nature/nurture debate to see what’s innate and what is not (and therefore see what is right and wrong). Very confident morality is not: selfishness, mistrust, or competition. The ultimate origins of our impulses are irrelevant to the morality of our actions. Rape and robbery are immoral no matter whether or not the impulse to do these things is innate or acquired. – Looking to what’s innate might not help us as much as we think it does. 3. Human Nature is What All Humans Have in Common Our human nature is whatever traits all humans have in common. Two problems with this view: 1. There may be no universal human traits. 2. Even if there are universal human traits, these traits may not provide good moral guidance. NLT Response to these two problems: Buck analogy: many bucks are not good examples of their kind 1. Some have three-legs 2. Some are albino. 3. Some do not grow antlers to fend away mate competition. Like the buck, we do not need to look to ALL, but only MOST humans. We need to know what most traits human beings share. Problem for the NLT: How do we determine the threshold for most humans? Ex. Suppose that most people are selfish. It would then seem that because most are selfish that we should add this trait to our universal nature. The big problem: The fact that many, most, or all people behave a certain way, or have certain character traits, is not enough to show that such behaviors and traits are morally good. The line from IS to OUGHT is not so easily crossed. Natural Purposes Given that 1-3 conceptions of human nature fail, then how do natural law theorists proceed. Human nature is what we are designed to be and to do; it is some function of ours, some purpose that we are meant to serve, some end that we were designed for. Human being’s natural purpose to be rational = Aristotle/St. Thomas Natural purposes are grounded in religious traditions. Schafer-Landau doesn’t want to revisit shortcomings of Divine Command Theory - Alternative strategy, give secular interpretation of natural purpose view of human nature. Two models of secular interpretation of natural purpose 1. Efficiency Model - Ex. Heart’s natural purpose is to pump blood; it does it more efficiently because of its structure than anything else By analogy, we can have the natural purpose/function of what we efficiently do better than anything else in the world. Problem: there are so many things we are better at than anything else that we don’t get much out of this idea. 2. Fitness Model - Our natural purpose is to do what increases our fitness, which means for survival and reproduction. - Ex. Heart pumps blood to enhance our fitness just like any other organ. We can also see why virtues like courage, fortitude and committing suicide are immoral in this view. Testing Fitness Model Consider NLT again: (1) Acting naturally – fulfilling our natural purposes is always moral. (2) Acting unnaturally – frustrating our natural purposes is always immoral. If Fitness Model is correct, then (1) is false. Rape increases the evolutionary success and fitness of men, and that would mean that the Fitness model condones rape. Any ethical view that condones rape is counter-intuitive to the requirements of morality. Therefore, the fitness model is false. If Fitness Model is correct, then (2) is false. Wearing a pair of headphones to not hear predators would be immoral. That’s nonsensical. Challenges to NLT Shortcomings of NLT come from every conception of human nature thus considered. Consider the following weak argument. Natural Law Argument 1. If an act is unnatural, then it is immoral. 2. Suicide, contraception, and homosexual activity are unnatural. 3. Therefore, suicide, contraception, and homosexual activity are immoral. Schafer-Landau: Premise 1 is false due to all the interpretations of human nature tested out by now. The morality of suicide, contraception, and homosexual activity are logically independent of human nature. Argument from Humanity 1. It is always wrong to deliberately kill an innocent human being. 2. A fetus is an innocent human being. 3. Therefore, it is always wrong to deliberately kill a fetus. Major problem: Premise 2 is ambiguous. Two senses of humanity: Species-membership is a biological definition. Moral personhood is a moral definition, not a biological one. If we think of a purely biological definition, then premise 1 assumes the truth of the conclusion it is setting out to prove. If we think of humanity as a moral category, then premise 2 assumes the truth of the conclusion it is setting out to prove. Overcome the problem by using the same meaning for human being in both premises. Both the pro-choice and the pro-life positions require supplemental argumentation to get this argument off the ground. You cannot get around the deep need to engage in moral arguments. You cannot rely on definitions alone to solve complex moral problems. Consider again, the Marriage Argument. Marriage Argument 1. Marriage is defined as a relation between a man and a woman. 2. Homosexual relations are between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman. 3. Therefore, homosexual relations can never qualify as marriage. The search for a definition is a search for an essence, yet you cannot define marriage as you think it ought to be as in premise 1, a person objecting to same-sex marriage would have to show why we ought to accept 1 in the first place. The question of same-sex marriage is whether or not a state should give the rights of marriage to same-sex couples. It cannot be settled with a definition. Conclusion: Promise of NLT is to base morality on something not mysterious and clear. Moral laws on this account are just natural laws like those of physics moving planets and molecules. Problem is how to discover moral laws since they are so different from natural scientific laws. NLT was more appealing when our picture of the universe was more teleological. Aristotle’s teleology undergirds St. Thomas, and that’s why NLT is the model of Catholic thinking. Acorn has the potential to actualize its essence (it’s natural purpose)-- becomes a Great Oak Or it becomes a wilting tree, a poor example of its kind. Cheetah has the potential to actualize its natural purpose to become a fast running predator Or it becomes a weak example of its kind: only born with three legs etc. Everything in the natural world has a natural purpose, and it was true in the medieval ages, but not so true in today’s conception of nature.
