The Natural Law Theory

Natural Law Theory: the Main Idea

The Natural Law theory has three main parts.
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.
The Greeks believed that everything in nature has a purpose.
 Aristotle (384–322 b.c.) built this idea into his system of thought when he said that, in
order to understand anything, 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 world, therefore, is an orderly, rational system, with each thing having its own
proper place and serving its own special purpose.
The Christian thinkers = the divine 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.
Moral rules are now viewed as deriving from the laws of nature. Some ways of behaving
are said to be “natural” while others are said to be “unnatural”; and “unnatural” acts are
regarded as morally wrong.
We were created by God, with a specific “human” nature, as part of his overall plan.
Natural-law theory has also been used, however, to support more contentious moral
views. Religious thinkers often condemn “deviant” sexual practices, and they usually
justify this by appealing to the Theory of Natural Law.
Outside the Catholic Church, the Theory of Natural Law has few advocates today. It is
generally rejected for three reasons.
First, the idea that “what’s natural is good” seems open to obvious counterexamples.
Sometimes what’s natural is bad.
Second, the Theory of Natural Law seems to confuse “is” and “ought.” 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.
3. The third part of the theory addresses the question of moral knowledge. How can we
determine what is right and what is wrong?
The “natural laws” that specify what we should do are laws of reason, which we are able
to grasp because God has given us the power to understand them. Therefore, the
Theory of Natural Law endorses the familiar idea that the right thing to do is whatever
action has the best reasons backing it up.
Moral judgments are “dictates of reason.”
God has given everyone the ability to listen to reason and follow its directives.

Natural Law Theory: the Main Attraction

The natural law theory promises to solve some very serious problems in ethics. Four of
these are especially important.
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.
According to this theory, human nature can serve as the objective standard of morality.
We do right when our acts express human nature, and do wrong when they violate it.
Since individuals and entire societies can be mistaken about what our true nature is,
they can be badly off target about what morality asks of us.
2. Natural law theory easily explains why morality is specially suited for human beings,
and not for anything else in the natural world.
Almost everyone agrees that a distinctive human feature is our sophisticated reasoning
abilities. A few other animals may be able to reason in basic ways, but no species on
earth can approach our ability to assess various ways of life, critically analyze the merits
of actions and policies, and then govern our behavior on the basis of our reflections.
This capacity for rational thought also seems to be the cornerstone of morality. Moral
agents—those who bear responsibility for their actions, and who are fit for praise or
blame—are those who can control their behavior through reasoning. That’s why we
don’t hold animals (or trees or automobiles) morally responsible for the harms they
sometimes cause. Only human beings have the sort of nature that enables them to be
moral agents. Natural law theory can thus explain why moral duties apply only to human
beings (or, if there are any, to other life forms who share our rational powers).
3. Natural law theory has a clear account of the origins of morality.
The theory tells us that morality is only as old as humanity itself, that morality dates to
the earliest days of humankind. But that isn’t because morality depends on human
opinion, as so many people believe. Rather, it is because morality depends on human
nature. No humans, no human nature. No human nature, no morality.
4. Natural law theory may solve one of the hardest problems in ethics: how to gain
moral knowledge.
According to natural law theory, moral knowledge requires two things: we must know
what our human nature is, and know whether various actions fulfill it. Knowledge of
human nature may be quite difficult to get—that depends on how we conceive of human
nature, which we will consider shortly. In principle, though, we should be able to
investigate the matter and come up with some well-informed views. Equipped with this
knowledge, we can then look carefully at individuals to see whether their actions line up
with human nature.

Some Objections to the Natural Law

Theory
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.
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.