LEARNING MODULE SURIGAO STATE COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY

TITLE: MODULE 4
TOPIC: Natural Law
TIME FRAME: 6 hours
INTRODUCTION:

The Theory of Natural Law rests on a particular view of the world. on this view, the world
has a rational order, with values and purposes built into its very nature. This idea comes from
the Greeks, whose worldview dominated Western thinking for over 1,700 years. The Greeks
believed that everything in nature has a purpose.

OBJECTIVES:

In this lesson, learners will be able to:

PRE-TEST: Follow the instruction below.

1. Share your thoughts in the image below.

LEARNING ACTIVITIES:

Discussions on the Theory of Natural Law

1. The Theory of natural Law rests on a particular view of the world. on this view, the world
has a rational order, with values and purposes built into its very nature. This idea comes from
the Greeks, whose worldview dominated Western thinking for over 1,700 years. The Greeks
believed that everything in nature has a purpose. Aristotle (384–322 B.c.) built this idea into
his system of thought. To understand anything, he said, four questions must be asked: What is
it? What is it made of? How did it come to be? And what is it for? The answers might be:
This is a knife; it is made of metal; it was made by a craftsman; and it is used for cutting.
Aristotle assumed that the last question—What is it for?—could be asked of anything
whatever. “nature,” he said, “belongs to the class of causes which act for the sake of
something.”

Obviously, knives have a purpose, because craftsmen build them with a purpose in mind. But
what about natural objects that we do not make? Aristotle believed that they have purposes,
too. One of his examples was that we have teeth so that we can chew. Biological examples are
quite persuasive; each part of our bodies does seem, intuitively, to have a special purpose—
our eyes are for seeing, our ears are for hearing, our skin exists to protect us, and so on. But
Aristotle’s claim was not limited to organic beings.

According to him, everything has a purpose. To take a different sort of example, he thought
that rain falls so that plants can grow. He considered alternatives. For example, he asked
 LEARNING MODULE SURIGAO STATE COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY

whether the rain might fall “of necessity,” which helps the plants only “by coincidence.”
However, he considered that unlikely.

The world, Aristotle thought, is an orderly, rational system in which each thing has a proper
place and serves its own special purpose. There is a neat hierarchy: The rain exists for the
sake of the plants, the plants exist for the sake of the animals, and the animals exist—of
course—for the sake of people. Aristotle says, “If then we are right in believing that nature
makes nothing without some end in view, nothing to no purpose, it must be that nature has
made all things specifically for the sake of man.” This worldview is stunningly
anthropocentric, or human-centered. But Aristotle was hardly alone in having such thoughts;
almost every important thinker in human history has advanced such a thesis. Humans are a
remarkably vain species.

The Christian thinkers who came later found this worldview appealing. only one thing was
missing: God. Thus, the Christian thinkers said that the rain falls to help the plants because
that is what God intended, and the animals are for human use because that is what God made
them for. Values and purposes were thus seen as part of God’s plan.

2. A corollary to this way of thinking is that the “laws of nature” describe not only how
things are but also how things ought to be. The world is in harmony when things serve their
natural purposes. When they do not, or cannot, things have gone wrong. Eyes that cannot see
are defective, and drought is a natural evil; the badness of both is explained by reference to
natural law. But there are also implications for human conduct. Moral rules are now viewed
as deriving from the laws of nature. Some ways of behaving are said to be “natural” while
others are regarded as “unnatural”; and “unnatural” acts are seen as morally wrong.

Consider, for example, the duty of beneficence. We are morally required to care about our
neighbors. Why? According to the Theory of natural Law, beneficence is natural for us, given
the kind of creatures we are. We are by nature social and need the company of other people.
Someone who does not care at all about others—who really does not care, through and
through—is seen as deranged. Modern psychiatry says that such people suffer from antisocial
personality disorder, and such people are commonly called psychopaths or sociopaths.

A callous personality is defective, just as eyes are defective if they cannot see. And, it may be
added, this is true because we were created by God, with a specific “human” nature, as part of
his overall plan. The endorsement of beneficence is relatively uncontroversial. Natural-Law
theory has also been used, however, to support more questionable ideas. Religious thinkers
often condemn “deviant” sexual practices, and they usually justify this by appealing to the
Theory of Natural Law. If everything has a purpose, what is the purpose of sex? The obvious
answer is procreation. Sexual activity that is not connected with making babies can, therefore,
be seen as “unnatural,” and practices like masturbation and gay sex may be condemned for
this reason. This view of sex dates back at least to Saint Augustine (a.d. 354–430) and is
explicit in the writings of Saint Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274). The moral theology of the
Catholic Church is based on natural-law theory.

3. The third part concerns moral knowledge. How can we tell right from wrong? on the
Divine Command Theory, we must consult God’s commandments. on the Theory of Natural
Law, however, the “natural laws” of morality are just laws of reason; so, what’s right is
what’s supported by the best arguments. on this view, we can figure out what’s right because
God has given us the ability to reason. Moreover, God has given this ability to everyone,
putting the believer and nonbeliever in the same position.

Objections to Natural-Law Theory. outside the Catholic Church, the Theory of natural
Law has few advocates today. It is generally rejected for three reasons.
 LEARNING MODULE SURIGAO STATE COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY

First, the idea that “what’s natural is good” seems open to obvious counterexamples.
Sometimes what’s natural is bad. People naturally care much more about themselves than
about strangers, but this is regrettable. Disease occurs naturally, but disease is bad. Children
are naturally self-centered, but parents don’t think this is a good thing.

Second, the Theory of natural Law seems to confuse “is” and “ought.” In the 18th century,
David Hume pointed out that what is the case and what ought to be the case are logically
different notions, and no conclusion about one follows from the other. We can say that people
are naturally disposed to be beneficent, but it does not follow that they ought to be beneficent.
Similarly, it may be true that sex produces babies, but it does not follow that
sex ought or ought not to be engaged in only for that purpose. Facts are one thing; values are
another.

Third, the Theory of Natural Law is now widely rejected because its view of the world
conflicts with modern science. The world as described by Galileo, newton, and Darwin has no
need for “facts” about right and wrong. Their explanations of nature make no reference to
values or purposes. What happens just happens, due to the laws of cause and effect. If the rain
benefits the plants, this is because the plants have evolved by the laws of natural selection in a
rainy climate.

Thus, modern science gives us a picture of the world as a realm of facts, where the only
“natural laws” are the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology, working blindly and without
purpose. Whatever values may be, they are not part of the natural order. As for the idea that
“nature has made all things specifically for the sake of man,” well, that was only vanity. To
the extent that one accepts the worldview of modern science, one will reject the worldview of
natural-law theory. That theory was a product, not of modern thought, but of the Middle
Ages.

POST-TEST: Follow the instructions below.

1. Explain Natural Law in your own words.

2. Summarize the arguments against Natural Law with the advent of modern science.

REFERENCE

Rachels, James “What is morality?” Chapter 1 in The Elements of Moral Philosophy 4th ed.
New York: McGraw-Hill College, 2004. 54-57.

GE Eth: Ethics 3
Second Semester 2020-2021