Two approaches to Theological Ethics Divine Command & Natural Law Natural Law also has a secular appeal.

Today’s Assignment:Natural Law

• EMP (15 pages)– The Tradition of Natural

Law (Lucas), pp. 195-198; from “Summa Theologica (St. Thomas Aquinas), pp. 199-202; from The Ethics of Natural Law (Harris), pp. 203-209.

Objectives from reading:

Natural LawKnow difference between descriptive (scientific ), prescriptive (natural and divine), & human (civil, positive, statue) laws

Comprehend Aquinas’ features of a law, how natural law can be explained in terms of moral standards and the 4 natural inclinations of human beings.

Comprehend the concept of “the common good” vs. concept of “greatest good for the greatest number.”

Know & apply the Principle of Forfeiture and the Principle of Double Effect

The Peacemaker

Natural Rights & Natural Law

• In the “Declaration of Independence,” Thomas Jefferson (following the English philosopher, John Locke) makes reference to “self-evident” truths, among which are certain “inalienable rights”

• Martin Luther King makes reference explicitly to “natural law” (as well as the U. S. Constitution) to argue that racist laws are inherently unjust

What is this “natural law”?What is this “natural law”?

Natural LawTwo important things about natural law

theory:

(1) Natural laws are prescriptive; they tell us how we ought to behave.

In this sense, they are unlike physical laws aka laws of nature (e.g., gravitation), which tell us how things do in fact behave and are, therefore, descriptive.

“Unlike rocks, we are always at liberty to disobey the natural laws that pertain to us. This is how we sin.”

Natural Law

(2) Natural laws are absolute, because the goods in which they are grounded are incommensurable

- that is, there is no common metric that would allow us to compare them.

Hence, there can be no ‘trade-offs’ between, say, protecting life and seeking knowledge; or, more importantly, between protecting this life rather than that life.

Natural Law

• Encompasses tradition of moral and legal philosophy reaching back to Aristotle & Roman Stoics (Cicero)

• There is a secular and a theological version – (the latter connect nicely to the notion of “divine

command” theory; cf. St Paul)

• Neither focuses upon “civil” law (what we normally mean by “law”); – instead, these traditions use “Law” in the same sense as

Kant – the “moral law”

Sources of Natural Law Tradition

• Suppose we took the world’s current major legal systems and threw out any provisions that were unique to one or only some. – Would there be anything left?

• Political Problem of the Roman Empire:– “How do we govern a multinational,

multicultural, pluralistic commonwealth encompassing many nationalities, religions, ethnicities, and legal systems?

– What laws shall we uniformly enforce upon ALL subjects (regardless of race, color, or religious creed)?”

Transition from Secular to Sacred

Solution: Common legal core, the Roman code

But of this code, Cicero writes:“True law is right reason in agreement with nature;

it is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting; it summons to duty by its commands, and averts from wrongdoing by its prohibitions. . .

…We cannot be freed from its obligations by Senate or People, and we need not look outside ourselves for an expounder or interpreter of it . . .

…There will not be different laws at Rome and at Athens, or different laws now and in the future, but one eternal and unchangeable law one eternal and unchangeable law will be valid for all nations and all timeswill be valid for all nations and all times, and there will be one one master and ruler, that is God, over us all, for he is the author of this master and ruler, that is God, over us all, for he is the author of this law, its promulgator, and its enforcing judgelaw, its promulgator, and its enforcing judge.”Cicero(106 BC-43 BC)

Natural Law: St Thomas Aquinas

• God’s law is “imprinted upon us . . . The light of natural reason, whereby we discern what is good and what is evil, is nothing else than an imprint on us of the divine light”

• There are at least some moral truths, derived from God and grounded in God, that everyone, regardless of their religious beliefs or cultural background, must be responsible for knowing

• Distinguish this (as Romans did) from “civil” or “positive” law, and also from “divine” or “revealed” law (the Church has custody of this)

1225-1274

In his Summa Theologica, Aquinas acknowledges universal moral truthsIn his Summa Theologica, Aquinas acknowledges universal moral truths

Examples of Natural Law

– “Golden” Rule – Principle of reciprocity– Prohibition of

unjustifiable homicide– Respect for Life

Everyone, everywhere seems to have some versions of these

Danger: mistaking one’s own cultural or religious habits (or even prejudices) for universal natural law

e.g., Which of the 10 Commandments would you challenge as not being a “Natural Law”?

Impact/Influence of Natural Law Tradition

• International Law (Grotius, Pufendorf)

• Constitution & U. S. Declaration of Independence (Jefferson)

• JUST WAR THEORY (jus ad bellum AND jus in bello – law of war)

• Kant and the Categorical Imperative

• Gandhi, King, and notion of principled civil disobedience

Natural Inclinations

• Self-preservation– Natural inclination to live

• Procreation– Natural inclination to reproduce

• Knowledge– Natural inclination to learn

• Sociability– Natural inclination to love and seek affection

1. The Principle of Forfeiture

and

2. The Principle of Double Effect

Two Important Principles of Natural Law (“Casuistry” in Harris’s essay)

Principle of Forfeiture:

If I threaten your life… (i.e., violate the principle concerning the protection of life), …I forfeit my right to life.

Thus, killing in self-defense is morally permissible.

“If you take another life, you forfeit your own right to life”“If you take another life, you forfeit your own right to life”

Principle of Double Effect

• A wrong or evil result brought about as a consequence of some morally right action (undertaken with intention to do good) is not itself blameworthy– Most common in medicine & military

• Sometimes it is permissible to perform an action that has,

besides its desired (good) effects,

a second effect that it would be impermissible to bring about, either as an end or as a means.

Secondary evil must be a consequence…not a catalyst!Secondary evil must be a consequence…not a catalyst!

Principle of Double Effect

• Is the act good / morally permissible?

• Is the bad effect unavoidable?

• Is bad effect means to achieve good effect?

• Does good effect outweigh bad effect?

Sometimes the answer to the middle two questions is not readily apparent…

Key points are: “intentions” and “avoidability”

Sometimes the answer to the middle two questions is not readily apparent…

Key points are: “intentions” and “avoidability”

Doctrine of Double Effect

Is it Permissible?

Is it Permissible?

Is the Bad Effect Avoidable?

Is the Bad Effect Avoidable?

Is the Bad Effect the Means of Producing a Good Effect?

Is the Bad Effect the Means of Producing a Good Effect?

Is the Bad Effect Disproportionate?

Is the Bad Effect Disproportionate?

YesYes NoNoNot Not IntendedIntended

NoNo Act is P

erm

issible

Act is P

erm

issible

Not Permissible……Forbidden

Not Permissible……Forbidden

NoNo Yes, Yes, It is It is

avoidableavoidable

Yes, Bad Yes, Bad Effect is Effect is IntendedIntended

YesYes

(Side Effect Only)

Act

Case 1

A pregnant women is diagnosed with uterine cancer. If her uterus is removed, she will be saved, but the fetus will die. So the hysterectomy will have evil effects.

May a surgeon perform the operation?

Similar case : Conjoined twins

Case 2

Terror Bombing vs Strategic BombingSometime in 1940, British policy regarding bombing changed to mandate the targeting of built-up areas as opposed to military and industrial targets. It’s estimated that 300,000 German civilians were killed and 780,000 injured as a direct result of this terror bombing. In Dresden alone, 100,000 civilians were killed.

Case 2 (con’t)1. In the context of war, bombing

the enemy is a morally legitimate action.

2. The direct effect of the bombing was the deaths of civilians and the promotion of terror. This is not morally acceptable.

3. The intent of the British policy was to incur terror. Killing civilians was indeed an essential part of the plan.

Questions on Natural Law?

Reading for Next ClassApplying the Doctrine of Double Effect

• EMP (7 pages)– Natural Law and the

Principle of Double Effect: Six Hypothetical Cases (Lucas), pp. 211-217.

• CSME (6 pages)– Incident at Shkin (Schoultz),

pp. 7-11; Terror and Retaliation-Who is Right?” (Rubel), p. 57.

Objectives from reading:

Natural Law

Comprehend the concept of “the common good” vs concept of “greatest good for the greatest number.”

Know & apply the Principle of Forfeiture and the Principle of Double Effect

Mid-term Review

• Responsible for course material through Unit 13 (Applying the Doctrine of Double Effect)

• 2 sections– Short essay: Using case study, discuss ethical decision

making framework (Constitutional Paradigm, Categorical Imperative, Doctrine of Double Effect or Principle of Utility)

– Short answer questions to validate knowledge of core concepts…

• Example 1: Describe the major legal constraints on military force and give an example of each

• Example 2: Describe differences between Jeremy Bentham’s and John Stuart Mills theory of Utilitarianism