St.

Paul University Surigao

St. Paul University System

8400 Surigao City, Philippines

MODULE 4

FRAMEWORKS AND THEORIES BEHIND OUR MORAL DISPOSITION

Introduction

One of the four ethical theories that we will tackle is Natural Law Theory. This theory is very popular to our
individual mindset and presently Christian dominated society. Fernandez et. al. (2018) crystalized natural law theory
as “the general view that moral rules and principles are objective, absolute, and universal (italics mine) truths that can
be discovered in the nature of things and in the structure of life itself through the use of reasoned reflection”. In other
words, natural law theory affirms that there is objectivity not relativity, absoluteness and universality of moral
standards. All we have to do is to discern the truths which are givens in the natural process using our reasoned
reflection.
In the Philippine context, there are times that the Catholic Church will intervene in the passage of some bills
like; Reproductive Health Bill, Same-Sex Marriage, Death Penalty and the like. It is most likely because Natural Law
Theory is a paradigm that “has been so dominant throughout the entire history of the Christian moral tradition,
especially during the Medieval Period, courtesy of Christendom’s greatest thinker—St. Thomas Aquinas—the so-
called Angelic Doctor of the Catholic Church. His thorough, grand and systematic religious interpretation and
appropriation of the purely secular and humanistic Aristotelian conception of nature has exerted a significant
influence in the way Catholic Teachings are traditionally framed and articulated throughout its history, particularly on
matters concerning sexual morality (Fernandez 2018:79)”. Indeed, this theory is relevant in our everyday life-
situation. Yet, there are some principles in this theory that need to be understood so that we can fully embrace this
natural law theory.

AFFIRMATION

“ As a Christ-centered Paulinian, I am a Dedicated, Transformative SUPPORTER and STEWARD of ALL

CREATION, impelled by compassion and charity for all.”

DAY 9

TOPIC : NATURAL LAW ETHICS

HOURS : 3 1/2 hours

LEARNING 1. Comment (positive and negative) on Natural Law and its attributes;(LO7)
OUTCOMES 2. Expound the Church’s teachings on Premarital Sex, Contraception,
Homosexuality and Masturbation; and
3. Explain ideas concerning the ethical principles under natural law theory. (LO7)
TEACHING- :
LEARNING
ACTIVITIES

Processing:

Open this web link as an important explanation on Natural Law Theory.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_UfYY7aWKo

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-law-ethics/

(Adapted from Fernandez, et. al. 2018:79-83, 89-91, 93-102)

Natural law theory refers to the general view that moral rules and principles are objective, absolute,
and universal truths that can be discovered in the nature of things and in the structure of life itself through the use of
reasoned reflection. Such a paradigm has been so dominant throughout the entire history of the Christian moral
tradition, especially during the Medieval Period, courtesy of Christendom’s greatest thinker—St. Thomas Aquinas—
the so-called Angelic Doctor of the Catholic Church. His thorough, grand and systematic religious interpretation and
appropriation of the purely secular and humanistic Aristotelian conception of nature has exerted a significant
influence in the way Catholic teachings are traditionally framed and articulated throughout its history, particularly on
matters concerning sexual morality.
At the outset, “it is important not to confuse ‘natural law’ as it pertains to morality with what modern
science means by a ‘natural law,’ such as the law of gravity. Everyone is subject to the law of gravity and every other
scientific law. Such laws are descriptive generalizations and, as such, are not logically those sorts of things that can
be broken or defied. They are natural laws immutably govern how the natural world operates” (Barry 1995:47).
According to the natural law paradigm, to know and understand what morality demands, of what we
ought to do and not do, we need only to look to nature, specifically human nature—and ask what it demands from us
human beings who are gifted with knowledge and freewill. Thus, there is really nothing mysterious or metaphysical
about it that we could not possibly discover by ourselves. “Morality is not found in some esoteric realm but rather
relies on what can be known from a reflective investigation and deep scrutiny of human nature by our mental
faculties” (Mackinnon 1995:75)
The moral law is accessible to human reason (natural reflection) as well as experience. It is reason or
even “common sense” itself that determines what we ought to do and not do. And since reason is universal (true to
all), it applies also universally to all human beings, regardless of their social and cultural differences and upbringing.
Furthermore, natural law refers to the laws that are built into the nature of life itself, and thus are
knowable generally to all people in all societies or cultures. Reason that is “built in” in all of us is what enables us to
discover what is right and wrong and what’s best for us. So we just have, it is claimed, to follow the dictates of reason
to discover moral truths that are inherently embedded in the very fabric of existence.

The Stoics’ Interpretation of the Natural Law

The belief that ethics or morality must be grounded on nature is possibly the oldest in the history of
philosophical thought (Pojman 2005:69).
Historically, the concept of natural law first appears among the Stoics during the first century B.C. The
Stoics made their mark in philosophy by leaving mankind with a certain attitude that views life and the world with a
sense of calmness – thus, the word “stoic” – comes to be associated with a particular attitude of serenity if not
indifference, on anything that arises in the universe (Pojman 2005:69).
The early Stoics believed that “human beings have within them a divine spark ( logos spermatikos –
‘the rational seed or sperm’) that enables them to discover the essential eternal laws that governed the whole
cosmos that are necessary in the attainment of individual happiness and social harmony” (Pojman 2005:69).
The Stoics equated nature with law an reason and taught that what was important was to live a life
according to nature. They called this wisdom. By this, the Stoics seemed to mean the recognition that everything
happens according to a certain law, a necessity. The wise person knows that things must be as they are, and
achieves happiness and a sense of purpose by learning how to accept the necessities of things and events.
This attitude, carried to the extreme was taken to mean that we cannot change the way things are,
simply because that’s what they are, nothing more and nothing less, the idea that things cannot be other than they
will, in fact, be. This is understood by many as fatalism.
Moreover, the Stoics conceived the whole of the universe as governed by certain immutable laws that
exhibit rationality. Nothing in the world, therefore, happens by chance. Everything has its own end or purpose – a
reason for its own being (here, even the great Aristotle is obviously influenced by this thinking).

The Aristotelian Conception of Natural Law

For Aristotelian (384-322 B.C.), highly acknowledge as the greatest of all ancient philosophers,
somehow following essentially the Stoic’s particular way of thinking, believes that everything that exists in nature
serves some particular and specific purpose and that we can never fully understand a thing (anything , in fact for that
matter) until we understand what it is for, or what its purpose for. “Natural Law [appears mysteriously only] if we
forget that everything has a law built into its nature (Rice 1993:27).
The central idea here is that “we can learn by nature what we ought to do and not to do because nature
intends that certain things be done or not done” (Ellin 1995:93). In Aristotle’s view, however, the point applies equally
well to inanimate nature. One of his favorite examples is the acorn. The acorn’s purpose is to become an oak tree.
The whole process of how a thing develops from potentiality to actuality is possible because of the thing’s very
nature. In a way, natural law, as one author puts it, is simply “the story of how things work” (Rice 1993:27).
Furthermore, for Aristotle, every individual substance has an intrinsic nature or principle of operation,
which is dynamic, teleological, and specific. He holds that the purpose of any fully developed entity is to be itself.
Self-realization or actualization then is the very reason or purpose of anything that came to be or simply – “the reason
for being”.
According to Aristotle, “the essence of a thing is an activity, something that the thing does. This, he
understands as its essential characteristics function, that is, that which it does uniquely or better than other things.
This is why, so as to concretely illustrate—the essence of the heart is to pump blood; nothing else in the body can
perform this function. It is unique that no other can do it except itself” (Ellin 1995:94).
Speaking specifically of the human being, we have to ask, according to Aristotle, what is essential
characteristics of a human being that he can do better than any other thing. What is unique only to human being that
makes him a different and distinct from all others?
Aristotle points out that “some functions, such as growth and reproduction, human being share with all
other living things; other functions such as sensual perceptions, they share with animals or the brutes. The thing that
humans can do that others cannot or that particular and specific function or activity which human being does uniquely
or better than any other being in the world is what Aristotle calls as the very characteristic that makes man truly
human”. (Ellin 1195:94).

Here, Aristotle concludes that the very function or activity that makes humans distinct from the rest of
creation is the capacity to think. The activity of thinking, our rationality or intelligence is what is natural for us as
humans. Thus, “to use and exercise our intelligence in suitable ways is the purpose and reason of what is meant to
be human. To do what is natural according to our nature as rational is what is good or right” (Ellin 1995:94).
To be good therefore is to be reasonable. To be reasonable is to act in accordance with our nature, which
is our rationality. To be good is to be rational in our actions and conduct.
Further, what this means is that, to be moral is to exercise our capacity to reason or our ability to
deliberate on the things that we ought to do. We must not allow our lower faculties to dominate our decisions and
actions. To be human is to be reasonable in our conduct.
It is clear that for Aristotle, to follow nature is to follow reason. And to follow reason is the way to be good.
And to be good is what we ought to be. And what we ought to be is the purpose or reason of our being – the very
goal of human existence.
Aristotle’s conception of natural law revolves around four basic ideas. These are (Camp, Olen & Barry,
2015:75):
I. Everything in nature has a purpose.
II. Everything in nature has an essential nature – certain features that constitute its defining features.
III. Everything in nature has its proper good.
IV. Something’s natural purpose, its essential nature, and its proper good are intimately related.

The Moral Law

Law, in its broadest sense, is “a rule or norm which governs nature and/or actions of things” (Montemayor
1994:78). It is also generally understood as “any constant way of acting or reacting any directive rule of activity”
(Peschke 1987:109).
All beings in the world, both animate and inanimate, are under some sort of a law. There is a law that
governs for example the movements of the planets and the solar system, as there are also laws that govern the
growth of plants and other living things. There is also a law that governs our biological systems as humans.
In its narrower sense, which is our concern here, “law refers to the free acts of [man as] rational beings…”
(Montemayor 1994:79). In relation and in the specific context of ethics and morality, law here is understood as a “rule
of conduct which governs, directs, or regulates the free acts of men” (Montemayor 1994:79).

The Thomistic Influence on Natural Law

Law as Defined by St. Thomas

The classical concept of law is one that is articulated by St. Thomas Aquinas. He defines law as “an
ordinance of reason for the common good, promulgated by one who has the care of the community” (as cited in
Fagothey 1967:106).
To say that a law is an ordinance simply means it is a command or directive emanating from a legitimate
authority. And since it is an order, “it is binding upon the subjects to obey.” A law, in this sense, is not just a request
but a command (Gualdo 2000:48).
A law in the above sense differs from a plea or advice since it requires obedience on the part of those who
are expected to follow it. This sense of obligation renders a law with an element of force or power. Hence, a law is a
kind of imposition which necessitates obedience on the part of the subjects.
Furthermore, for something to be a law, it has to be in accord with human reason, that is, it must be
something that any reasonable human being can agree with. It should not be something that is simply a product of
anyone’s whims and caprices, say a tyrant or a despot’s unreasonable wielding of power and authority. Thus, a law
to be truly considered as one, it should be a product of reason in the finest sense of the term.

Essential Elements for a Law to be Reasonable

For a law to be reasonable, it must contain the following elements (Baldemeca et. al. 1984:100).
1. It must be just. This means that a law should not command what is morally wrong or evil. It must
promote and uphold the inherent rights and dignity of every human person.
2. It must be honest. This means that a law should not contradict in essence to any higher law. It should
be consistent within itself.
3. It must be possible of fulfillment. This means that the people who are obliged by a law can follow it
without extreme difficulty. A law that is simply beyond the normal capacity of an ordinary individual to
fulfill is, strictly speaking, not a law meant for humans but one which is for angels.
2. It must be relatively permanent. This means that a law, once established and enacted, should be more
or less stable, meaning, it must be something that continues to be binding on the subjects, unless
repealed or amended with good reason by the legitimate authority or its proper or rightful
representatives.
3. It must be promulgated. This means that a law, in order to be followed by the subjects, must be made
known or publicize to them in a language or manner that is understandable so that they can comply
with it. A city ordinance in Davao, for example, on garbage/waste segregation, before it was
implemented to the public, it was published in local dailies as well as in other mediums (TV, Radio,
posters, leaflets, etc.)
4. It must be directed to the common good. This means that a law should promote the general welfare
rather than just serve a few individuals. A law that only benefits a privileged sector cannot be
considered a law in the truest and finest sense of the word. Thus a law should always be for the good
of all or the entire community.
5. It must be promulgated by one who has the care of the community. This means that a law should be
enforced or established by a competent and legitimate authority; be it a single person (president/prime
minister/sultan/head of state, etc.) or a group of persons, such as the city council (local level) or the
senate and congress (in the national level).

Natural Law and the Church’s Teaching on Contraception

The theory of natural law ethics, as interpreted and articulated brilliantly by St. Thomas Aquinas during the
medieval period (widely considered as the golden age of Christian Philosophy), became the central philosophical
basis of Catholic morality, particularly (as previous mentioned) in matters concerning sexual morality.
A clear example of the concrete application of natural law theory is the Roman Catholic opposition or the
use of artificial birth control method, which is what the current government is advocating through the RH Law. “It is
argued that the contraception of a baby is the natural purpose of the sexual act. That may also be enjoyable which, at
the same time, may strengthen the relationship between the couple. But positive these things may be, they arise in
the context of an act, which has an essential purpose the conception of children” (Thompson 2003:251).

Thus, in view of this specific and particular natural purpose of the act, “anything that deliberately or willfully
frustrates the natural outcome (of the act) must be viewed as ethically wrong. Every sexual act should at least be
open to the possibility of conceiving a child. Anything outside of it is always morally unjustified” (Thompson
2003:251).
In the same respect, any other form of sexual intercourse that does not lead, or at least not open to the
possibility of conception like anal and oral intercourse, masturbation, homosexuality and the like, are considered to
be morally wrong. These acts are, accordingly, simply go against nature (Italics mine). These are even viewed as
sexual perversions, and thus have to be discouraged, if not condemned.

Natural Law and the Church’s Teachings on Premarital Sex

According to Church’s document entitled “Declaration on certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics,
Article VII” (approved by Pope Paul VI, and was issued by the Vatican in 1975), “Premarital Sex is wrong, even
among these with a firm intention to marry. This position is supported not just by appeals to scripture, but also
appeals to experience, reflection, history, and human dignity. Having children outside of marriage is also considered
immoral, as it deprives children of the stable environment they deserve in marriage” (as cited in Camp et al.,
2015:84-85).
So even couples who are already in a long relationship and are “committed” to each other ( At ang kulang
na lang ay kasal), “the fact remains” asserts the said Declaration, “that these [type] of relations [engaging in sex
before marriage] cannot ensure, in sincerity and fidelity, the interpersonal relationship between a man and a woman,
not specially can they protect this relationship from whims and caprices.”
Thus, the Church’s position regarding premarital sex is firm and absolute: “[E]very genital act MUST
(emphasis ours) be within the framework of marriage.” Hence, no marriage, no sex whatsoever. The pleasure that a
couple gets out of sex should be something that can be enjoyed “only” after the marital vows through the sacrament
of marriage.
This may sound “killjoy” to some but the sexual act, as ordered by nature (and sanctified by the Creator) is
primarily and essentially meant for procreation and not for “recreation”. And procreation entails responsibility to the
one (child) whom a couple could create in the conjugal act of sex.
Hence, premarital sex is not only something that the Church discourages the young (and the not so young)
to engage in, but it is, above all, an “irresponsible” act, and therefore morally wrong.

Natural Law and the Church’s Teachings on Homosexuality

The Church’s specific teachings concerning homosexuality relations (through quite sympathetic to their
situation), essentially remains strong and unequivocal. The same Declaration states:

“[Although . . . homosexuals must certainly be treated with understanding and sustained in the hope of
overcoming their personal difficulties and their inability to fit into society . . . [and] their culpability will be judged with
prudence . . . [still] . . . no pastoral method can be employed which would give moral justification to these
[homosexual] acts on the grounds that they would be consonant with the condition of such people. For according to
the objective [natural] moral order, homosexual relations are acts which lack an essential and indispensable finality”
[that every genital act should be geared towards procreation/reproduction].

Thus, homosexual acts (usually done by LGBT’s) are unnatural and are considered evil, worthy of moral
condemnation.

Natural Law and the Church’s Teachings on Masturbation

While Acknowledging that traditional Catholic doctrine that teaches the act of masturbation “constitutes a
grave moral disorder is often called into doubt or expressly denied today” (due to the advances made by Psychology
and Sociology, which show that [masturbation] “is a normal phenomenon of sexual development”), the Declaration
still insists “without hesitation that masturbation is an INTRINSICALLY AND SERIOUSLY DISORDERED ACT”
[emphasis ours].
The main reason of the said teaching, accordingly , “. . . is that, whatever the motive for acting
[masturbation], the deliberate use of the sexual [organ] outside normal conjugal [marital] relations essentially
contradicts the finality of the faculty [sex organ as meant for procreation].”
Hence, masturbation, by nature, is wrong, and morally abhorrent.

A SUMMARY OF THE MAIN IDEA OF NATURAL LAW THEORY

1. Everything in the world has its own reason or purpose of being

2. This reason or purpose is true especially to human beings.
3. Humanity has an essential rational nature.
4. Morality is governed by a law built into the nature of man as laws of nature govern natural things.
5. Man can know, through the use of his reason, what is in accord with his own nature which is good.
6. The natural laws are universal and unchangeable, and are the basis to judge individual cultures and
societies with regard to their norms and practices.
7. Moral laws, which are based on the natural law, have objective validity.
8. The first, self-evident precept of the natural law is: “Do good and avoid evil.”

SPECIFIC ETHICAL PRINCIPLES UNDER NATURAL LAW THEORY

The Principle of Double Effect

Moral thinkers following the doctrine of natural law are aware that there are certain complex situations
wherein the morality of an act cannot be categorized into a definite and simple labeling of good and bad. There are
situations in life wherein good and bad effects or consequences of an act are both present and unavoidable.
In a problematic and complicated situation such as the one mentioned, which we can consider as a moral
dilemma, natural law theorists were able to develop a particular device to help people decide as to the particular
course of action or decision in such a situation. This ethical device is known as the “Principle of Double Effect.”
The Principle of double effect is a moral principle that “provides a neat algorithm for solving all moral
disputes [and problems] in which an act will have two effects, one good and the other bad” (Pojman 2002:45). This
principle applies to a situation in which a good effect and an evil effect will result from an act with a good or noble
cause or intention/motive.
In principle, an act that has good and bad effects is morally justified or permissible as long as certain
conditions are met or satisfied. These are:

1. The action intended, in and of itself must be good or at least morally indifferent or neutral.
2. The evil effect must not be directly intended but morally allowed only as a regrettable side issue
(side effect)
3. The evil effect must not be the means by which the good effect is achieved.
4. The good effect must outweigh the evil effect or at least proportional.

The first condition simply reaffirms the fundamental moral principle that one may never do evil in order to
achieve the good. Just because the act may also have some good consequence does not thereby make it justified.
Thus, first and foremost, the act intended must be in itself good or at least ethically neutral, otherwise it is wrong at
the very outset.
This first condition clearly rules out any consideration of actions that are bad in themselves or inherently
wrong and immoral. This goes to show that the primary moral consideration here is the nature of the act rather than
its motive and consequence.
The second condition concerns the motive or intention of the moral agent. What this means is that our
primary intention in doing the act is to achieve the good effect. The negative effect, though foreseen at the outset,
should not be the primary reason for acting. One is only permitted to have the evil effect as an indirect consequence
of the act, something that is a “necessary evil.”
Here, the motive or intention takes a central role in assessing the morality of the act. A good act that is done
out of a bad motive will automatically invalidate whatever moral worth the good act may have.
The third condition is a restatement of the traditional moral principle that says: “The end does not justify the
means.” One is not morally justified to do something evil when with a good intention in mind, even if the reason or
purpose of acting is good but the means of obtaining it is wrong, it is wrong.
The fourth and last condition points to the presence of a sufficient reason for allowing the evil effect to
happen while doing the act. When placed in the balance, the good effect should be of more weight than the evil effect
should be of more weight than the evil effect or at least proportional. The act is never justified if the evil effect is
heavier than the good effect.
Common sense tells us that it is foolish to do something if more harm than good will come out of the act we
intend to do.
It is important to take note that all the above conditions have to be fulfilled in order for an act to be morally
justified and permissible. If it happens that one of the conditions is not met, the entire act is deemed morally
objectionable and thus, should not be performed.
The principle of double effect finds concrete relevance in troublesome cases that are commonplace in the
medical context. This is particularly invoked in situations where the action of the medical practitioner involves saving
and losing lives such as in the case of a woman whose life and that of a baby are equally both at risk due to a
delicate pregnancy or problems or complications in delivery.

The Principle of the Inviolability of Life

The principle of the inviolability of human life springs from the religious belief that life, any human life, is of
infinite value as it is a sacred and precious gift from the Almighty Creator. Its worth outweighs everything in the world.
It can never be sacrificed by whatever means or for whatever reasons.
The practice of sometimes weighing the value of life against another in difficult cases (as in the case of
whose life more important: the baby or that of the mother? or the drug pusher or the victim?) is not correct. No one’s
life is more important or valuable than others. All lives are of infinite worth (that is, unquantifiable) that we simply
cannot weigh one as against the other. Each individual life is in itself incalculable or immeasurable.

This principle applies to every human life, including life of the unborn (fetus) that is still in the process of
developing in the womb of the mother. The unborn, even in the earliest stages of growth does have all the basic
natural right to life that must be protected from any harm.
Human life-from the moment of conception and thorough all subsequent stages-is sacred, because human
life is created in the image and likeness of God. This divine truth demands that we all must protect and preserve
human life. Even an embryo is marked with a unique identify from the moment of conception. Inviolability simply
means that no innocent human life can be directly killed and disposed.
It is therefore immoral for any medical practitioner to participate in any action that intentionally and directly
terminates an innocent human life, such as abortion and direct euthanasia. Let it be said that the doctor’s (or any
health care professional for that matter) mission is TO HEAL AND NOT TO KILL (Maximiano,1992).
In certain difficult medical situations where the fetus poses a grave danger or threat to the life the mother as
in ectopic pregnancy or similar cases, the principle of double effect may be applied. But only the ones who are truly
competent, qualified and well trained (an ethics committee in a hospital) are given the authority to go through the
ethical process of decision-making that the principle provides.
The principles of the inviolability of human life also gives every life, no matter how it is lived, an equal worth
and dignity to every other. This means that the life of a criminal is as important as the life of an upright person. Our
status in society does not also count when weighing the value of one’s life.
The issue of capital punishment or death penalty, of taking a life of one who has committed a heinous crime
against humanity, argued vigorously by some, puts the principle of life’s infinite value to an acid test. Perhaps, the
Principle of Forfeiture offers a clearer answer.

The Principle of Forfeiture

There are real life cases wherein a person’s life is mortally threatened by the presence of another who is an
aggressor. Here, the person who is in mortal danger is innocent (an innocent person is one who has not willfully
threatened anyone’s life nor having any intention to do harm to anyone in any way). In a certain situation like this,
the principle of forfeiture can be invoked.
The innocent person whose life is put in extreme risk by an intruder (who is hell-bent to seriously harm the
prospective victim) in this case can apply the principle of forfeiture as an act of self-defense. “Natural law thinkers
are of the opinion that even though you might have to kill your would-be assailant, it is morally justified since in the
first place your-would be assailant has forfeited his innocence (and his or her right to life) by threatening yours”
(Harris 1997:104).
Thus, in this case, “it is morally permissible for you to defend yourself, even to the point of taking another life
(if there is no other recourse or way out). The natural and fundamental human inclination and tendency to self-
preservation or survival on the part of the aggressor is herein forfeited in your favor” (Harris 1997:104)
Even legally (provided that it is really proven beyond any reasonable doubt that you acted in genuine self-
defense), your act is justified, and hence you will not be held accountable and cannot be punished by a court of law.
Here, “a distinction has to be made between killing (which is the act) and murder (which is a crime). Killing is taking
the life of a non-innocent individual, while murder is the act of depriving an innocent person his/her life. The former is
just act whereas the latter is unjust” (Harris 1997:104).
Hence, in the same respect, when someone takes the life of a person who threatens one’s life, he or she
has not committed murder though the act of killing is involved.

What about in cases where the unborn (fetus) who is by all means “innocent” poses harm and thus mortally
threatens the life of the mother? is it moral to terminate it? Is the fetus here be legitimately considered an unjust
aggressor and therefore can be justifiably killed?
Some ethical theorists argued that the fetus, though “subjectively innocent” should be removed on the
ground that it is “objectively” an aggressor on the mother’s life. Natural law thinking, following the Principle of Double
Effect does not allow it if it involves direct killing of the fetus (see the Principle of Double Effect for further
discussion).
What about if a person’s life poses a serious and grave threat to society in general, as in the case of
hardened criminals who committed crimes which society considers as heinous and beastly? Does society have the
moral right to take life away in a form of capital punishment or death penalty?
This particular issue has been debated for so long in many countries and communities, both Christian and
non-Christian alike. The argument that would support it points to the idea that criminals (such as drug users and
pushers who rape, murder and do some other unimaginably beastly acts) having committed inhuman and savage
acts degrade themselves and thus deserve to be treated in the same way (an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth).
A concrete case on the above controversy is the current administration’s vigorous anti-drug campaign,
particularly through the so-called “Oplan Tokhang” (Tok-tok, Hangyo) that has resulted in numerous deaths of
suspected drug users in the hands of arresting policemen. The reason usually cited by the authorities of the killings
is due to “Nanlaban” (fight back), and thus, in a way, invoking the principle of forfeiture. The policemen, in this case,
it is claimed, have no other recourse but to defend themselves against the suspects who violently resisted arrest.

The Principle of Totality

A traditional element in biomedical discussions, the principle of totality refers to the view that a part (of the
human body, that is) exists for the good of the whole. This particular bioethical principle is often invoked when a
particular part or organ of the human body has to be cut off, mutilated, or removed.
However, a person, is morally permitted to do this “only insofar as the general well-being of the whole body
requires it” (Timbreza, 1993:57). Hence, it is only when an infectious organ is putting the entire body at risk, that it
may be removed. Here, the preservation of the whole is more important than the conservation of the part.
Under the ethical principle of natural law, each person has a natural right to live and to continue in existence.
Anything that will obstruct or put in jeopardy that natural basic drive and tendency goes against what is considered
good. It is therefore morally justified for anyone to do whatever is necessary to protect that right, provided no unjust
harm is done to others.
Accordingly, a defective organ “may be amputated or excised for the good of the whole body organism”
(Timbreza 1993:57). Thus, a woman who is suffering from breast cancer may have this part of her body removed to
stop the disease from invading the entire body and thus putting her life at grave risk.
However, healthy organs may not be subjected to any form of mutilation, as this would pose a mortal danger
to the person’s health and well-being.
Though the principle of totality primarily applies to amputations and the removal of infected and diseased
organs, it also involves the ethical and religious principle that says that persons are not the owners of their bodies but
only given the task of administration. Thus, the principle of totality is a way of affirming that we may legitimately
sacrifice a part of our body if this is necessary to preserve and maintain the health of the entire body.
On this regard, therefore, we can say that the principle of totality considers as immoral the mutilation or
removal of healthy organs for commercial purposes.

The Principle of Stewardship

The principle of stewardship has its basis on the religious belief that all life comes from God, the supreme
creator and maker of all. This would imply that no individual person could claim that he or she is the owner of
anything in the world and that of his or her own body. We humans are only given the power to take good care of
creation and do not have sole authority to do whatever we want.
It is therefore morally wrong to commit actions such as suicide and euthanasia since stewardship entails
proper protection and responsible care of what the Almighty has given. It goes without saying therefore that it is only
God who has dominion over life and of our bodies. Our duty is to take care of them until God takes them back from
us in His own good time (Timbreza 1993:57).
From the foregoing contentions, it follows that “one has [the moral] obligation to seek medical aid when
something goes wrong with [one’s] body. [This would also mean]… that each [person] has a responsibility not to
behave in a way which will damage the body, and take appropriate action to prevent ill health” (EPH, 2003). In the
words of the Reverend Karl H. Peschke (1987):

Bodily life is a gift of God entrusted to man not in ownership – the Lord and owner of our life is God
who created it – but in stewardship…. Therefore man is not allowed to use and to damage this life
and the integrity of his body arbitrarily. On the other hand he is obliged to restore injured health in a
responsible way.

Synthesis: In this lesson, we have seen how the natural law theory is instrumental to an ethics that is
rooted in the Christian faith. In elaborating this, we explored how Aquinas has synthesized concepts
of the ancient Greeks to put forward an intellectual grounding that can overcome the limitations of a
simplistic divine command theory.

REFLECTION Briefly expound on the following statements by applying the basic concepts of Natural Law
Theory.

1. “Everything has a specific reason for being.”

2. “What is natural is good.”
3. “We ought to follow nature in order to do what is right.”

ASSESSMENTS I. Objective Quiz (Questions are modified from Fernandez, Ethics 2018:115)
True or False
1. Natural Law is built in the very structure of life itself.
2. Natural Law ethics is a product of human convention.
3. Natural Law is immutable, absolute and universal.
4. In natural law theory, morality is incapable to be discovered.
 5. Suicide is unnatural since humans are naturally inclined to live.
6. The “Oplan Tokhang” killings of suspected drug users and pushers (if truly
“Nanlaban”) can be justified under the principle of forfeiture.
7. Using condom is natural because of the risk of getting AIDS, according to the
natural law theory.
8. Masturbation is wrong since the sexual organ is meant to be used with the
opposite sex as a partner for procreation.
9. “Fake News” is wrong since men by nature seek for what is true.
10. Morality, according to natural law ethics, is changeable.
11. Cheating is also immoral since it goes against the basic natural human
tendency to seek for truth and knowledge.
12. The RH Law goes against the inviolability of life principle.
13. Premarital sex is unnatural and an irresponsible act, therefore, morally wrong.
14. The principle of stewardship can be used to deal with the issue on irresponsible
mining.
15. The principle of forfeiture can be invoked in the case of extra-judicial killing
(EJK).
16. Naturally, marriage is designed for a man and a woman in order to procreate,
therefore, same-sex marriage is unnatural and therefore immoral.
17. It is morally justifiable under the principle of totality if a poor person sells his/her
vital organ in order to make money for his/her family to live during this
pandemic.
18. Divorce is morally wrong because the institution of the family is divinely ordered,
God being the author of life.
19. Climate Change is an issue that can be dealt primarily under the principle of
totality.
20. Taking shabu is covered under the discussion on the principle of totality.

III. Comment on this statement using the Natural Law Ethics:

“I don’t believe in the concept of Marriage proposed by your non-existent God”.

ASSIGNMENTS
 Choose two assignments:

I.Make a brief and concise explanation of the following principles: (You may give example/scenario).

1. The Principle of Double Effect

2. The Principle of the Inviolability of Life
3. The Principle of Forfeiture
4. The Principle of Totality
5. The Principle of Stewardship

RESOURCES: Fernandez, Apolinar, et. al. 2018. Ethics: Deciding What’s Right and Wrong. SMKC
Printshoppe. Davao City.
Gallinero, Winston, et. al. 2018. Ethics. Mutya Publishing House, Inc. Malabon City.
Ocampo, Ma. Liza Ruth. 2018. Ethics Primer: A Young Person’s Guide to Moral
Reasoning. Vibal Group, Inc. Davao City.
Pasco, Marc Oliver, et. al. 2018. Ethics. C & E Publishings, Inc. Quezon City.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_UfYY7aWKo
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-law-ethics/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5tAGlFMyII