NATURAL LAW The basis of ethical thinking in

NATURAL LAW The basis of ethical thinking in the Catholic Christian tradition – stemming from Aristotle and given philosophic expression by St. Thomas Aquinas These charts prepared by Dr. Peter Vardy Vice-Principal, Heythrop College, University of London

w “There is no good or evil, there is only power and those with the will to use it. ” (Lord Voldermort in ‘Harry Potter’ – based on Nietzsche!) IS THIS RIGHT? ? w ETHICS IS, PARTLY AT LEAST, ABOUT WHETHER THIS IS TRUE AND THE NATURAL LAW TRADITION WOULD REJECT VOLDERMORT’s VIEW…

FOUNDATIONS FOR CHRISTIAN ETHICS w The main alternative sources for ethical principles are: w THE BIBLE w NATURAL LAW w PROPORTIONALISM w SITUATION ETHICS

The Bible as a basis for Christian Ethics w w w Christians vary as to the status they give to the Bible – between ‘fundamentalists’ and ‘liberals’ (to use very loose terms) So much depends on how a text is read and the context in which it was written. Some things are clearly forbidden by the Bible which are clearly contextual – e. g. not wearing garments made of mixed fabrics. Other things are more debatable such as prohibitions against homo-sexuality. Some Christians maintain that the Bible clearly says that this is wrong, others (such as Rowan Williams the Archbishop of Canterbury) argue that the Biblical text needs to be read in context. These slides deal with the NATURAL LAW TRADITION which is the basis for ethics in Catholicism.

Claudio and Isabella by Holman Hunt Claudio can only be released if Isabella is willing to lose her virginity to the local Lord. w He says that death is a terrible thing, but her reply is that so is a life of shame. w It illustrates the basic difference between a Natural Law, deontological approach and a situationist approach. Are certain actions wrong in themselves or does the situation have to be taken into account when determining whether or not an action is right? w

ORIGINS OF THE DEBATE The origins of much ethical thinking today lie in the philosophy of the great Greek thinkers: Plato and Aristotle. w Whereas Plato’s philosophy saw this world as imperfect, a shadow of the true reality represented by the unchanging and perfect ideas of ‘Forms’, Aristotle was concerned largely with this world. w St. Thomas Aquinas was to use Aristotle’s thinking and this became the intellectual basis for Catholic ethics. w

PLATO – in motion (walking) indicating the changing state of the Universe with the ‘TIMEAUS’ and his finger pointing upwards to the Forms. ARISTOTLE – feet firmly planted on the ground, the ‘ETHICS’ flat and hand extended to emphasise science and observation of this world.

Plato’s Forms Plato considered that MATTER is everlasting – it is inherently chaotic and disordered. w THE FORMS are the perfect exemplars of, for instance, truth, beauty, justice and, above all, THE GOOD. They exist beyond time and space and can never change and never cease to exist. w If we see different examples of beauty, these are all called beautiful because they all resemble or participate in the perfect Form of Beauty which exists beyond time and space as the perfect idea of beauty. w At times, Plato seems to consider there is a Form for everything in the world. w

Aristotle rejected Plato’s Forms Aristotle totally rejected Plato’s idea of the Forms – particularly the Form of the Good. w He considered that no-one would be helped by knowing what this was. A doctor needs to know in what health consists or a general what victory represents. w So, for Aristotle, philosophy begins with a study of the world – with a study of ends or purposes. w

THIS WOMBAT IS GOOD NOT BECAUSE IT IS MORALLY GOOD – IT IS GOOD BECAUSE IT FULFILLS THE NATURE OF A WOMBAT. FOR ARISTOTLE, EVERY SPECIES HAS A DISTINCT NATURE – AND THE SAME APPLIES TO HUMAN BEINGS.

WHAT IT IS TO BE GOOD Central to Aristotle’s approach is that a tree, plant, animal or human is good if it fulfils its nature – if it becomes what it is intended to be. w A good dandelion, kiwi fruit, kangaroo or box jellyfish are good because they fulfil their nature. w To a human, a box jellyfish may appear bad, but this is not Aristotle’s position. It is good if it does what a box jellyfish should do. w

Study and Empiricism By studying something, one can eventually come to understand what its ‘form’ is – and its form is related to its ‘end’ or function. So Aristotle is an empiricist. He was the first scientist studying things to understand their nature. w Take an axe – its function would be the power to chop. If it should lose this ability and if this could not be restored, then it would no longer be an axe. w Take an eye – its function is to see. But if the eye loses its function (for instance it is in a bottle), then it is no longer an eye. w

Potential w w w Aristotle defined what things were in two ways: 1) What they were physically, and 2) What they had potential to do. Everything in the universe has potential and part of working out what a thing is depends on knowing its potential. The same applies to human beings. We share with animals the potential to move, communicate and reproduce, but there is more to being human this.

The drive to perpetuate Everything seeks to perpetuate itself – Aristotle says there is a force in all things for the preservation of their form. Reproduction is an example of this (this is a very modern view and fits in well with evolution – e. g. Richard Dawkins). w Each animal or plant has a natural drive to perpetuate their form and they do this by producing offspring. Their form is transmitted through reproduction – this can fit well into modern ideas of genetics. w

All humans desire by their nature desire to know. This is vital for Aristotle: all human beings seek understanding. It is an essential part of what makes them human – for Aristotle, this understanding is itself Divine. w When humans study the natural world they are also coming to understand their place in nature. They are thus also coming to understand themselves. w The Gaia hypothesis echoes this today – we are part of the whole of nature, not set apart from it. w

Potentiality and Actuality Aristotle makes an important distinction between potentiality and actuality. w An axe has a potential to cut, but this potentiality has to be actualised. w Similarly a human being has the potential to run, to love or to know – but this does not mean that these are actualised. A person can go through life and not actualise any of these potentialities. w

Potentiality to actuality A person has the potential to learn. w When learning, one is actualising this potential – ignorance is replaced by knowledge w When using this knowledge we reinforce what we have learned. w Humans have the potential to hear passed on by their parents. When they do hear, they are actualising this potential. So the hearer is active when she hears. w

Jonathan Lear and Kermit w w w Jonathan Lear in ‘Aristotle: The desire to understand’ (p. 118) gives the following example: 1. Kermit as an embryo (bare potential – to develop into a tadpole, then into a frog, then into an active adult) 2. Kermit the tadpole (higher level potential to become a frog and then a mature, adult frog) 3. Kermit the mature frog – asleep (now fully actual at the first level as there is a fully actual, living body) 4. Kermit actively living his mature life (now fully actualised not just as a body but using its capacities)

Human potential w w w w An embryo has the potential to become a foetus The foetus has the potential to become a baby The baby has the potential to become a child The child has the potential to become an adult The child and adult have the potential to learn and to know (this will be the life of a student) The adult has the potential to apply this knowledge (this will be the life of a busy, active adult, making money, being a doctor, lawyer, worker, family man/woman, etc. ) The adult has the potential to become a thinker and to understand…… (not everyone fulfils this potential!)

THE HUMAN ABILITY TO UNDERSTAND Aristotle considers that humans are alone among animals in having the potentiality to understand the nature of other things – humans can apprehend something of the form of another thing, not just its sensible form (notice that this is totally different from Plato’s ideas of the Forms) w The universe, Aristotle considers, is capable of being understood (it is intelligible) and humans have the potential to understand it. This led to science and scientific enquiry. w As humans come to understand the world, they also learn about themselves – that it is part of their nature to understand. THIS IS PART OF WHAT IT IS TO BE HUMAN. w

Aristotle and Kermit Aristotle, as a human being, has the capacity to learn about frogs. w When he does learn, he actualises this potentiality as he acquires knowledge and learns of the ESSENCE of Kermit the frog. The essence is not something material, it is the very nature of frogs. w However he then has an even higher level capacity – the ability to use this knowledge. w

DELIBERATION Most of us today think that, as human beings, we deliberate on what we are going to do with our lives and what their purpose is. ARISTOTLE REJECTS THIS. w Aristotle holds that the telos or purpose of our lives comes from our human nature. Deliberation is confined to how this given purpose is to be fulfilled. The purpose itself is a ‘given’. w So, for Aristotle, we do not choose our purpose. We can just make good or bad choices about how this purpose to be be fulfilled. w The good life, Aristotle considered, is the life of happiness, and happiness is greatest when we are philosophers. w

St. Thomas Aquinas was probably the greatest philosopher and theologian of the last 2000 years. Writing in the University of Paris in the C 13 th, he used the philosophy of Aristotle which had been kept alive in the great Islamic centres of learning - to make sense of Christian morality and theology. w In particular, morality was, he claimed, based on Aristotle’s argument that all human beings share a common human nature. w

All human beings seek the good… Aquinas considered that all human beings seek the Good. In other words they all seek what they think is good for them. w However they can be mistaken. They may seek an APPARENT GOOD rather than the REAL GOOD. Thus a thief what she thinks is good but she makes a mistake – she pursues what appears to be good and not what is really good. w The task of moral philosophy is to work out what is REALLY GOOD for human beings, rather than what APPEARS TO BE GOOD. w

WHAT IS REALLY GOOD? For Aquinas, what is ‘really good’ is fulfilling the potential of our common human nature. w Those actions which help us to become MORE FULLY HUMAN – more what we are capable of being – are good. VIRTUE ETHICS COMES IN HERE. w Those actions which lead us to be LESS THAN FULLY HUMAN – which lead us away from what we are capable of being – are morally wrong. w

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY PRECEPTS Aquinas defined what is to be human in terms of purpose. The general purpose of being human is to ‘LIVE, WORK, REPRODUCE, EDUCATE CHILDREN, HAVE AN ORDERED SOCIETY AND WORSHIP GOD’. w All these came from Aristotle except for the worship of God which was added by Aquinas. w However it is at the next level – of secondary precepts -that the detail is worked out w

‘Reproduction’ is held by Aquinas to be one of the primary purposes of human life… w w w At the level of secondary precepts the detail is worked out… WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF GENITALIA? ? Aquinas answered ‘reproduction’ Once this answer is given, then any use of genitalia for any other purpose is ‘intrinsically evil’ – it is evil in and of itself. So masturbation, sex using contraception, sex with an animal, homosexuality, etc. will all be INTRINSICALLY EVIL ACTS…. i. e. these are acts which are morally wrong (or evil) in themselves.

So, for instance, there are two reasons why the Catholic Church (basing its teaching on Natural Law) would reject I. V. F. w Two ‘intrinsically evil acts’ are involved in I. V. F. – WHAT ARE THEY? ? w 1) The husband has to masturbate to produce the sperm necessary to fertilise his wife’s eggs… NOTE he cannot say that he is doing this for a good purpose as THE ACT ITSELF IS INTRINSICALLY EVIL. w 2) I. V. F. involves taking 15 – 20 eggs out of the woman, fertilising them and reimplanting 2 or 3. This means killing the unused, fertilised eggs. In the Catholic tradition, since life may begin at conception this means killing people…. . (note the reference to ‘may begin at conception’. The Church’s Magisterium says that there can be no certainty when life begins but, because of the danger of being in error, it is right to treat life as beginning at conception).

Challenges to Natural Law w w Perhaps all human beings do NOT share a common human nature – genetics may indicate this. Perhaps Aquinas’ understanding of human nature is mistaken Perhaps actions are not right or wrong in themselves but depend on context Perhaps the Natural Law approach lacks flexibility The Natural Law approach leaves no room for love as a factor in ethics.

AMENDING NATURAL LAW It is possible to remain faithful to the Natural Law methodology but to challenge Aquinas’ understanding of human nature. w Human understanding of sexuality, physiology, psychology, etc. has increased enormously. Perhaps what is needed today is a new understanding of human nature. w WHAT IS IT TODAY TO LIFE A FULFILLED HUMAN LIFE? This question is as relevant today as ever in the past…. (Peter Vardy argues for this approach in w ‘The Puzzle of Sex’ [Harper Collins] and ‘Being Human’ [DLT]) and it is crucial to the debate today.

w THE MAJOR DEBATE TODAY AMONGST CATHOLIC MORAL THEOLOGIANS

THE MAJOR DEBATE TODAY w ‘Perhaps the most divisive debate in contemporary Catholic moral theology concerns the existence and grounding of universally binding moral norms. The Scholastic moral theology of the manuals held that certain acts were intrinsically evil on the basis of the act itself, independent of the intention, circumstances and consequences. Revisionists maintain that the evil in acts such as contraception or even direct killing is not moral evil but. . . premoral evil which can be justified for a proportionate reason. ‘John Macquarrie's 'A new Dictionary of Christian Ethics' (p. 392):

The Major Debate in Catholic moral theology today To put this another way, the issue is whether certain acts (for instance abortion, euthanasia, theft, lying, etc. ) are w 1) Always wrong in themselves (they are ‘intrinsically evil’) or w 2) Whether it can sometimes be the morally right thing to do to perform an act which, in itself, is wrong but is justified by a proportionate reason (this is a reason of sufficient gravity) w

PROPORTIONALISM This is based on the Natural Law approach and stems from the Catholic tradition. Many Catholic moral theologians maintain that it is faithful to this tradition. w It holds that there ARE firm more rules – BUT circumstances have to be taken into account in deciding on the nature of an act. Acts cannot be defined without reference to the circumstances and intentions behind the acts. This means that an act which may appear to be lying is recognised as being more complex to define if there is a proportionate reason which would justify this. w Proportionalism is held to be faithful to the mainstream Catholic Christian tradition in a way in which the strict deontological approach is not. w An action may be objectively WRONG but morally RIGHT and that another action may be objectively RIGHT but morally WRONG w

Proportionalism contd. A distinction has to be made between acts which are good and acts which are right and this distinction, proportionalists maintain, is often not made. w A person may have a good intention but may be able to achieve that intention only through an act which is considered to be, in itself, evil. w The proportionalists hold that it is possible for an action, in itself, to be wrong, whilst based on the actual situation in which the action is done the action may be morally right. w

Circumstances have to be taken into account Proportionalists seek the right thing to do in the particular circumstances. w Unlike advocates of situation ethics, they affirm that there are nonmoral goods and evils, but they maintain that the circumstances need to be taken into account in deciding whether a nonmoral evil is also a moral evil. Killing, theft or contraception (if one is a Catholic) MAY be morally good in certain circumstances. w Those who advocate Situation Ethics and supporters of Proportionalism both maintain that agape is the only criterion for moral goodness or badness. HOWEVER PROPORTIONALISM REFUSES TO ACCEPT THE SITUATION ETHICIST'S VIEW THAT LOVE CAN MADE AN ACTION RIGHT. w

PROPORTIONALISM CONDEMNED Proportionalism has been condemned by the Catholic Magisterium and by Pope John Paul ll. Some Bishops therefore consider that it is a position that should not be taught in any Catholic school. w The logic of this condemnation is compelling as it opens the door to individuals deciding to go against the teaching of the Church when they consider that a proportionate reason justifies this. Whether this condemnation is faithful to the mainstream Catholic tradition is a matter of debate amongst Catholic moral theologians. w This also raises the issue of CONSCIENCE and INFORMED CONSCIENCE. To what extent can individual conscience allow someone to act against Church teaching? w