natural law, in philosophy, system of right or justice held to be common to all humans

and derived from nature rather than from the rules of society, or positive law
The first example of natural law includes the idea that it is universally accepted and
understood that killing a human being is wrong. ... The second example includes the
idea that two people create a child, and they then become the parents and natural
caregivers for that child.
natural law incorporates the idea that humans understand the difference between “right” and
“wrong” inherently. Essentially, it concludes that human beings are not taught natural law;
they initiate it by making good and right decisions. Therefore, it is said to be discoverable
through the exercise of reason
It is important to underline that natural law is not to be confused with positive law as it does
not involve any kind of judicial decisions or legislative enactments. Natural law highlights
human behaviour involving ethical standards and ways of being inherent.
Natural law was initially defined by ancient Greek philosophers such as Aristotle and Plato.
the doctrine of natural law to be a theory "which posits a universally applicable criterion, and a
source of the moral validity of positive law and positive morality, independent of the legislator, in
the case of law, and independent of society, in the case of the 'unwritten laws' of conduct."5of
natural law. On the other hand, Aristotle focused on the distinction between law and nature.
It then led to the introduction of natural justice, which can be attributed to the Stoics
The first example of natural law includes the idea that it is universally accepted and
understood that killing a human being is wrong. However, it is also universally accepted that
punishing someone for killing that person is right. The idea demonstrates that without the
requirement of legislation, such beliefs are something that human beings understood
inherently as wrong, without the requirement of law.
For Plato, justice is a spirit, a habit of life that animates man's action; the inner sense of
justice, which is felt by the conscience, is something much higher in spiritual truth and
content than the law of the State; natural law is eternal, like the gods who have given it to
mankind.

Aristotle (384–322 BCE) is considered by many to be the father of natural law—argued that what is
“just by nature” is not always the same as what is “just by law.” Aristotle believed that there is a
natural justice that is valid everywhere with the same force; that this natural justice is positive, and
does not exist ...

natural law, in philosophy, system of right or justice held to be common to all humans and derived
from nature rather than from the rules of society, or positive law. Rembrandt: Aristotle
Contemplating the Bust of Homer.

natural law, in philosophy, system of right or justice held to be common to all humans and derived
from nature rather than from the rules of society, or positive law.
Early formulations of the concept of natural law

There have been several disagreements over the meaning of natural law and its relation to positive
law. Aristotle (384–322 BCE) held that what was “just by nature” was not always the same as what
was “just by law,” that there was a natural justice valid everywhere with the same force and “not
existing by people’s thinking this or that,” and that appeal could be made to it from positive law.
However, he drew his examples of natural law primarily from his observation of the Greeks in their
city-states, who subordinated women to men, slaves to citizens, and “barbarians” to Hellenes. In
contrast, the Stoics conceived of an entirely egalitarian law of nature in conformity with the logos
(reason) inherent in the human mind. Roman jurists paid lip service to this notion, which was
reflected in the writings of St. Paul (c. 10–67 CE), who described a law “written in the hearts” of the
Gentiles (Romans 2:14–15).

St. Augustine of Hippo (354–430) embraced Paul’s notion and developed the idea of man’s having
lived freely under natural law before his fall and subsequent bondage under sin and positive law. In
the 12th century Gratian, an Italian monk and father of the study of canon law, equated natural law
with divine law—that is, with the revealed law of the Old and New Testaments, in particular the
Christian version of the Golden Rule.

St. Thomas Aquinas (c. 1224/25–1274) propounded an influential systematization, maintaining that,
though the eternal law of divine reason is unknowable to us in its perfection as it exists in God’s
mind, it is known to us in part not only by revelation but also by the operations of our reason. The
law of nature, which is “nothing else than the participation of the eternal law in the rational
creature,” thus comprises those precepts that humankind is able to formulate—namely, the
preservation of one’s own good, the fulfillment of “those inclinations which nature has taught to all
animals,” and the pursuit of the knowledge of God. Human law must be the particular application of
natural law.

Natural law in the Enlightenment and the modern era

Other Scholastic thinkers, including the Franciscan philosophers John Duns Scotus (1266–1308) and
William of Ockham (c. 1285–1347/49) and the Spanish theologian Francisco Suárez (1548–1617),
emphasized divine will instead of divine reason as the source of law. This “voluntarism” influenced
the Roman Catholic jurisprudence of the Counter-Reformation in the 16th and early 17th centuries,
but the Thomistic doctrine was later revived and reinforced to become the main philosophical
ground for the papal exposition of natural right in the social teaching of Pope Leo XIII (1810–1903)
and his successors.

In an epoch-making appeal, Hugo Grotius (1583–1645) claimed that nations were subject to natural
law. Whereas his fellow Calvinist Johannes Althusius (1557–1638) had proceeded from theological
doctrines of predestination to elaborate his theory of a universally binding law, Grotius insisted on
the validity of the natural law “even if we were to suppose…that God does not exist or is not
concerned with human affairs.” A few years later Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679), starting from the
assumption of a savage “state of nature” in which each man was at war with every other—rather
than from the “state of innocence” in which man had lived in the biblical Garden of Eden—defined
the right of nature (jus naturale) to be “the liberty each man hath to use his own power for the
preservation of his own nature, that is to say, of life,” and a law of nature (lex naturalis) as “a
precept or general rule found out by reason, by which a man is forbidden to do that which is
destructive of his life.” He then enumerated the elementary rules on which peace and society could
be established. Thus, Grotius and Hobbes stand together at the head of that “school of natural law”
that, in accordance with the tendencies of the Enlightenment, tried to construct a whole edifice of
law by rational deduction from a hypothetical “state of nature” and a “social contract” of consent
between rulers and subjects. John Locke (1632–1704) departed from Hobbesian pessimism to the
extent of describing the state of nature as a state of society, with free and equal men already
observing the natural law. In France Charles-Louis de Secondat Montesquieu (1689–1755) argued
that natural laws were presocial and superior to those of religion and the state, and Jean-Jacques
Rousseau (1712–78) postulated a savage who was virtuous in isolation and actuated by two
principles “prior to reason”: self-preservation and compassion (innate repugnance to the sufferings
of others).

Hugo Grotius

Hugo Grotius

Hugo Grotius, detail of a portrait by Michiel Janszoon van Mierevelt; in the Rijksmuseum,
Amsterdam.

Courtesy of the Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam

The confidence in appeals to natural law displayed by 17th- and 18th-century writers such as Locke,
the authors of the American Declaration of Independence, and the authors of France’s Declaration
of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen evaporated in the early 19th century. The philosophy of
Immanuel Kant (1724–1804), as well as the utilitarianism of Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832), served to
weaken the belief that “nature” could be the source of moral or legal norms. In the mid-20th
century, however, there was a revival of interest in natural law, sparked by the widespread belief
that the Nazi regime of Adolf Hitler, which ruled Germany from 1933 to 1945, had been essentially
lawless, even though it also had been the source of a significant amount of positive law. As in
previous centuries, the need to challenge the unjust laws of particular states inspired the desire to
invoke rules of right and justice held to be natural rather than merely conventional. However, the
19th century’s skepticism about invoking nature as a source of moral and legal norms remained
powerful, and contemporary writers almost invariably talked of human rights rather than natural
rights.
Plato defined a philosopher firstly as its eponymous occupation: "wisdom-lover." He then
distinguishes between one who loves true knowledge (as opposed to mere experience or
education) by saying that the philosopher is the only person who has access to ideas – the
archetypal entities that exist behind all representations of the form (such as Beauty itself as
opposed to any one particular instance of beauty). It is next and in support of the idea that
philosophers are the best rulers that Plato fashions the Ship of State metaphor, one of his most
often cited ideas (along with his allegory of the cave): a "true pilot must of necessity pay attention
to the seasons, the heavens, the stars, the winds, and everything proper to the craft if he is really
to rule a ship".[5

Epistocracy[edit]
The concept of the philosopher king is closely related to the idea of epistocracy. Epistocracy
(akin to noocracy) is the idea that those who possess a certain level of knowledge or wisdom
should rule over those who do not. An argument in favor of epistocracy consists of three main
tenets: that there are objectively correct answers to some political questions (truth tenet), some
people know these answers and others do not (knowledge tenet), and those who know those
answers should have political authority over those who do not (authority tenet). [6] The
philosopher Jason Brennan identifies six possible forms of epistocracy: values-only voting
(citizens only have the power to choose the ends of government and not the means of their
achievement), epistocratic veto (an epistemic political body holds ultimate veto authority over a
citizen legislature), plural voting (certain citizens get more votes than others),
restricted suffrage (only certain citizens have the right to vote and participate in decisions),
enfranchisement lottery (citizens are randomly selected and given the right to vote, though they
must first possess a certain level of competence), and government by simulated oracle (policy
choices are guided mainly by statistics and data rather than an uninformed electorate). [6] The
concept of the philosopher king cannot be equated with epistocracy because many epistocrats
are uncomfortable with the idea of one philosopher king or a small group of philosopher kings
being the ultimate source of authority; some prefer a very large and diverse epistocratic polity.
Epistocracy is subject to many criticisms and questions such as how exactly do we identify those
more qualified to rule than others? Is it even possible for some one to have totally sufficient
knowledge to become the ideal epistocratic ruler? And, could an epistocracy really produce
better outcomes than its main adversary democracy?[6]
philosopher king, idea according to which the best form of government is that in
which philosophers rule. The ideal of a philosopher king was born
in Plato’s dialogue Republic as part of the vision of a just city. It was influential in
the Roman Empire and was revived in European political thought in the age
of absolutist monarchs. It has also been more loosely influential in modern political
movements claiming an infallible ruling elite.

In Plato’s Republic the leading character, Socrates, proposes the design of an ideal
city as a model for how to order the individual soul. Such a just city will require
specialized military “guards,” divided subsequently into two groups—rulers who will
be “guards” in the sense of guardians, dedicated to what is good for the city rather
than for themselves, and soldiers who will be their “auxiliaries.” Already at this stage
of the Republic it is stressed that the guardians must be virtuous and selfless, living
simply and communally as do soldiers in their camps, and Socrates proposes that
even wives and children should be in common.

At the outset of Book V, Socrates is challenged by his interlocutors to explain this last
proposal. In response, Socrates expounds three controversial claims, which he
acknowledges will expose him to ridicule. The first is that the guardians should
include qualified women as well as men; thus, the group that will become known as
“philosopher kings” will also include “philosopher queens.” The second claim is that
these ruling men and women should mate and reproduce on the city’s orders, raising
their children communally to consider all guardians as parents rather than attach
themselves to a private family household. Those children, together with those of the
artisan class, will be tested, and only the most virtuous and capable will become
rulers. Thus, the group to become known as “philosopher kings” will be reproduced
by merit rather than simply by birth. Finally, Socrates declares that these rulers must
in fact be philosophers:

Until philosophers rule as kings or those who are now called kings and leading men
genuinely and adequately philosophize, that is, until political power
and philosophy entirely coincide…cities will have no rest from evils…there can be no
happiness, either public or private, in any other city.
Socrates predicts that this claim will elicit even more ridicule and contempt from his
Athenian contemporaries than will equality for women rulers or communality of sex
and children. Many Athenians saw philosophers as perpetual adolescents, skulking
in corners and muttering about the meaning of life, rather than taking an adult part
in the battle for power and success in the city. On this view, philosophers are the last
people who should or would want to rule. The Republic turns this claim upside down,
arguing that it is precisely the fact that philosophers are the last people who would
want to rule that qualifies them to do so. Only those who do not wish for political
power can be trusted with it.

Thus, the key to the notion of the “philosopher king” is that the philosopher is the
only person who can be trusted to rule well. Philosophers are both morally and
intellectually suited to rule: morally because it is in their nature to love truth and
learning so much that they are free from the greed and lust that tempts others to
abuse power and intellectually because they alone can gain full knowledge of reality,
which in Books V through VII of the Republic is argued to culminate in knowledge of
the forms of Virtue, Beauty, and, above all, the Good. The city can foster such
knowledge by putting aspiring philosophers through a demanding education, and the
philosophers will use their knowledge of goodness and virtue to help other citizens
achieve these so far as possible.

Thus, the emphasis in the Platonic notion of the philosopher king lies more on the
first word than the second. While relying on conventional Greek contrasts between
king and tyrant and between the king as individual ruler and the multitudinous rule
of aristocracy and democracy, Plato makes little use of the notion of kingship per se.
That he had used the word, however, was key to the later career of the notion in
imperial Rome and monarchical Europe. To the Stoic Roman emperor Marcus
Aurelius (reigned 161–180), what mattered was that even kings should be
philosophers, rather than that only philosophers should rule. To François Fénelon,
the Roman Catholic archbishop charged with the moral education of Louis, duc de
Bourgogne, the grandson of Louis XIV, the crucial issue was that kings should
possess self-restraint and selfless devotion to duty, rather than that they should
possess knowledge. The enlightened despots of the 18th century, such as Frederick
II the Great of Prussia and Catherine II the Great of Russia, would pride themselves
on being philosopher kings and queens. But philosophy by then had left behind
Plato’s focus on absolute knowledge, signifying instead the free pursuit of knowledge
and the implementation of reason.
In his masterpiece dialogue, The Republic, Plato presents Socrates, speaking in the
first person, retelling the course of a discussion on the nature of "justice." The
main persons who provoke the discussion in the dialogue are Glaucon and
Adiemantus, Plato's real life brothers. Socrates is challenged to defend his belief
that the virtuous life -or as it is put in the dialogue "the life of the just man"- is
the greatest in happiness. To make sure that it is really justice, and not merely
the appearance of justice which leads to happiness, Socrates is to imagine a
competition between the perfectly just man who shall appear to others (because
of their ignorance) as supremely "unjust" versus the perfectly unjust man who is
absolutely ruthless, observing no moral constraints in attaining what he wants, and
moreover who possess a magical ability never to "get caught" and always appear to
others as supremely "just."

Naturally we must first determine what "justice" is. Socrates' strategy is to

analogize the human soul to the Greek city state (polis in Greek, which gets
mistranslated "republic"), for the polis is the soul of its citizens "writ large." If we
can discern where justice is found in the polis, we can then, in the analogy, see
where it is found also in the individual human life. This leads Socrates to develop a
model of an ideal just polis.

The view of the social-political whole which Plato gives here strikes most
contemporary Western readers as "authoritarian" and neglectful of those
"individual human rights" which form the philosophical basis of the democratic
conception of political authority. Nevertheless, it should not be forgotten that the
Greek polis is radically different from the contemporary nation state, and that
Plato's avowed purpose is not to develop a realistic political system. Furthermore,
perhaps somewhat ironically, the conception of "natural rights" which underlies
contemporary justifications of democratic government, itself derives from a
conception of what it is to be human that has at least one of its roots in Plato's
philosophy.

For our purpose of understanding Plato's theory of knowledge (epistemology ) as

presented in the Theory of Forms, it is not necessary to go into the details of Plato's
ideal state; suffice it to say that as we would expect, the perfectly just state will be
one ruled by the perfectly just ruler(s) . In the analogy to the soul, the ruler in
the polis is the parallel to the "mind" (in Greek: nous) in the soul . As the eyeball is
the organ with which the body is able to see , so the "mind" may be thought of as
the "organ" with which the soul acquires knowledge. The perfectly just
soul would then be a soul "ruled" by a mind which had perfect knowledge ,
complete wisdom. This use of "perfect" is intended to mean no possibility of error
or mistake; the perfectly just ruler(s) will necessarily do what is right, for if an
error was made, one could imagine a better ruler who didn't make that error.
Obviously such an "ideal" may very well be humanly impossible, but, Socrates
insists, it is still essential to have such a perfect ideal as a kind of "yardstick"
against which to measure the degree of justice or injustice in actually existing
states and people.

Socrates defends his conception against three "waves" of criticism directed by

Glaucon and Adiemantus. The passage assigned begins with the third -and most
devastating- of these waves, and this is the challenge to explain what least possible
change in existing social-political institutions could bring about the realization of
such an ideal, or at least move us as far as possible in that direction.

Socrates' answer is known as "the paradox of the philosopher king" and is stated
dramatically at 473d: the way to bring about a just state is to have it ruled by
philosophers, or what is commonly called "the Philosopher-King." This
conclusion would naturally be felt as paradoxical by most of Socrates' listeners
because philosophers were perceived as people with "their heads in the clouds" and
consequently as manifestly unfitted for the realities of the political world. So now
to defend his view, Socrates must finally tell us what he means by the ideal
perfect "philosopher" and what sort of education would produce such a person.

We start with the root meaning of the word "philosophy"; the philosopher is
the lover of wisdom. The philosopher is in pursuit of wisdom in all its forms, in
love with learning. But people seek to learn many different kinds of things, are all
of them philosophers? No, the philosopher is distinct from the others in that the
philosopher wants to learn "the truth " as distinct from the false illusions (being
sold by sophists in the marketplace). The learning of the philosopher is therefore
the acquisition of true infallible knowledge , whereas others, those who follow
the sophists. learn merely fallible "opinions" (in Greek: doxa)

So now the original question about justice, an ethical question, is transformed into
an epistemological question: how do we distinguish true genuine knowledge (the
real thing the philosopher seeks) from fallible opinions (the phony, "counterfeit"
beliefs of the "lovers of opinions," the sophists). In answer Plato presents his most
famous exposition of his "Theory of Forms" which extends all the way to 521b.
Many crucial distinctions on which this theory is based appear in this discussion.
Plato believed that philosophers would be the best rulers of society because
they’re able to understand true goodness and justice in a way that other
people cannot. Because they would understand that the greatest self-benefit
is living virtuously, they would act out morally and not out of self-interest.
Because they would have the best thinking capabilities and education, they
would be more equipped for making policy decisions than ordinary people.
Plato proposed a controversial system of how his philosopher-governed
republic would function. Although his work cannot be used as guidelines
for good governance, it illustrates the implications of rule by “experts”
rather than rule by the people. It also and offers some ideas for thought,
such as the potential of meritocracy, a system where advancement of an
individual is based on his/her merit.
ARISTOTLE

Ethical Orientations: Teleology

In contrast to the deontological approach, the teleology ethical orientation
emphasizes outcomes over the process. It is a results-oriented approach that
defines ethical behavior by good or bad consequences. Ethical decisions are
those that create the greatest good. The most common teleology approach is
utilitarianism, which stresses the greatest good for the greatest number of
individuals. Jeremy Bentham, an influential proponent of utilitarianism,
believed a good or moral act would result in the “greatest happiness of the
greatest number of people.”

In the 2002 Spiderman blockbuster film, Spiderman faces an utilitarian ethical

quandary when the Green Goblin forces him to choose between saving a
cable car full of young children or his girlfriend Mary Jane. The teleology
ethicist believes Spiderman should save the children. After all, the tram car is
full of children whose lives are in jeopardy. Unable to save both, the greater
good of saving the children justifies the means of sacrificing Mary Jane. Of
course, in Hollywood reality, Spiderman manages to save both, but public
relations professionals rarely have “save both” as an option. In reality, it is
often unclear which outcome will be good or bad prior to the action. Public
relations practitioners are left to their best guess on the nature of the outcome.

Teleology’s focus on outcomes is further problematic as unethical behavior

could be justified if the result is good. To offset utilitarianism’s shortcomings,
John Stuart Mill suggested that both the quality of good and the long-term
consequences of an outcome should be considered. He defined good as
including “higher” and “lower” pleasures. Higher pleasures were positive and
included intelligence, mental pleasure, and health while lower pleasures were
negative and included ignorance, stupidity, selfishness, and physical
pleasures. Later friendship, loyalty, and fairness were believed to have
positive, intrinsic worth. Mill believed that a person must consider all potential
consequences of a particular action. The risks and benefits of an action must
be weighed in order to maximize benefit and minimize harm. In the opening
example, the benefit of increased goodwill among patients, staff, news media,
and fans would be a positive outcome that might outweigh the harm, or the
means, of using children’s sickness and football stars’ notoriety as a platform
for the activity.
2.3 Teleological ethics

Consequentialism

Consequentialist ethics come from the teleological branch of ethical theory. You will remember that
teleological theories focus on the goal of the ethical action.

Consequentialist theories are those that base moral judgements on the outcomes of a decision or an
action. If the outcomes of an action are considered to be positive, or to give rise to benefits, then
that action is held to be morally right. Conversely, if the outcome causes harm, then the action is
held to be morally wrong. The judgement of right or wrong depends on the consequences of the
decision or action. The two main consequentialist theories considered here are egoism and
utilitarianism.

What are some of the key differences between consequentialist and deontological ethics?

Check your answer

Egoism

Egoism is the theory that one's self is, or should be, the motivation for all of our actions. It is worth
distinguishing between egoism as a descriptive argument (an argument that tells us how the world
actually is) and egoism as a normative argument (an argument that tells us how the world ought to
be). Egoism as a descriptive argument describes human nature as self-centred. In its strongest form,
it argues that individuals only ever act in their own self-interest. Even where they appear to be
acting in others' interests, descriptive egoism explains that the person is really motivated by their
own self-interest disguised by arguments (rationalisations) of 'doing one's duty' or 'helping others'.
In fact, our motivation behind doing 'good deeds' may be to make ourselves feel good; to make
ourselves look good in the eyes of others; or because we believe that, by helping others, others will
help us. Even if we donate money to charity anonymously, we may still only really do this because it
makes us feel good about ourselves. In contrast, egoism as a normative argument tells us that we
should be acting in our own interests, as this is the only way that overall welfare can be improved. If
everyone acts in their own self-interest, then society will become more efficient, which will be in
everyone's interest. It is therefore morally right to pursue one's own self-interest.

One of the most famous normative egoists was Adam Smith, one of the pioneers of neo-classical
economic theory. He argued that self-interested behaviour is right if it leads to morally acceptable
ends. Smith argued that if everyone followed their self-interest, then society as a whole would be
improved. (Importantly, he also argued that if egoism led in fact to the worsening of society, then it
should be abandoned.) The theory of egoism is at the heart of capitalist arguments that a
corporation's sole responsibility is to its shareholders. However, some form of social and
environmental responsibility can be consistent with egoism because egoist decisions may address
immediate moral demands by aiming to satisfy long-term self-maximising objectives - of the firm (eg
profitability) or the individual (eg philanthropy). While it is an important theory for understanding
economic rationality, we do not consider egoism in great depth here. Of more interest is another
consequentialist theory: that of utilitarianism.

Utilitarianism

The modern form of the consequentialist theory of utilitarianism derives from 19th century British
philosophers such as Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, and it has been particularly influential in
areas of the world influenced by British culture. Rather than maximise individual welfare,
utilitarianism focuses on collective welfare and it identifies goodness with the greatest amount of
good for the greatest number of people: the 'greatest happiness principle'. So maximising benefits
for the greatest number of people involves net assessments of benefit: utility is the net result of
benefits and 'disbenefits' - or costs. Utility has entered modern economics as a key quantitative
concept. The concept of trade-offs is specifically embraced and social and environmental cost-
benefit analyses are explicit utilitarian tools for assessing the goodness of an action. A simple
balance sheet of costs and benefits can be drawn up to assess the overall utility of a decision.

Utilitarianism has three essential elements:

Whether an action is right or wrong is determined solely by its consequences.

The value of the consequences of an action is assessed in terms of the amount of happiness or well-
being caused.

In assessing the total happiness caused to a number of people, equal amounts of happiness are to
have equal value, no one person's happiness having greater value that another's.

Now read 2.3.1 and consider the question below.

2.3.1 Why preserve biodiversity?

Reason 1: Feeding the world

A mere 20 species provide about 90% of the world population's food. All major food crops, including
corn, wheat, and soybeans, depend on the introduction of new strains from the wild to cope with
evolving disease and pests. If those strains are lost, the security of our food supply will be
threatened. For example, a wild relative of corn called milpilla (Zea diploperennis) is exceptionally
disease-resistant and is the only perennial in the corn family. If successfully interbred with domestic
corn, its genes could boost corn production by billions of dollars. Zea diploperennis grows on only
one mountain in western Mexico.

Source: NatureServe (2010)

The text in 2.3.1 is taken from a webpage entitled 'Ten Reasons to Save the Diversity of Life'
[biodiversity]. What are the main arguments given here? What kind of ethical reasoning is being
used?

Check your answer

Virtue ethics

Another branch of the teleological strand of ethics is that of 'being good'. The most well-known of
these ethical theories is virtue ethics. Virtue ethics shifts the analytical emphasis away from rule-
based decision-making (of deontological ethics) or of the consequences of an action (eg in
utilitarianism) towards the ethics of individuals and the ethics of human character. So, for example,
where a utilitarian would argue that giving to a charity maximises well-being in society, and a
deontologist would argue that we have a duty to help others, a virtue ethicist would point to the fact
that helping others displays desirable virtues such as being charitable or benevolent. Other desirable
virtues include honesty, courage, friendship, mercy, loyalty, modesty, patience, and so on. The
opposite of virtues are vices. These terms are explained in 2.3.2.

2.3.2 Virtues and vices

'[I]t is possible to see the ethical validity or correctness of an action in terms of conformity to certain
types of conduct. Instances or patterns of conduct that are ethically right, good and proper are
virtues, while those that are wrong, bad or improper are vices. This [...] pattern of ethical evaluation
lends itself particularly to expressions of ethical judgement that emphasize the character of the
actor, so that not only is the act virtuous, but also the person who reliably acts in virtuous ways.'

Source: FAO (2004) pp. 7-8

Do you could consider yourself to be a 'good person'? What virtues do you generally demonstrate in
your actions and in the decisions you take? Do you have many vices?

Whilst the roots for virtue ethics in Western philosophy can be found in the ancient Greek
philosophies of Aristotle and Plato, as a theory it fell out of favour for many centuries. However,
during the 20th century virtue ethics again became an important area of ethical study. In particular,
some philosophers argue that it can overcome some of the criticisms of traditional ethical traditions
examined in the next section.
teleology, (from Greek telos, “end,” and logos, “reason”), explanation by reference to some purpose,
end, goal, or function. Traditionally, it was also described as final causality, in contrast with
explanation solely in terms of efficient causes (the origin of a change or a state of rest in something).
Human conduct, insofar as it is rational, is generally explained with reference to ends or goals
pursued or alleged to be pursued, and humans have often understood the behaviour of other things
in nature on the basis of that analogy, either as of themselves pursuing ends or goals or as designed
to fulfill a purpose devised by a mind that transcends nature. The most-celebrated account of
teleology was that given by Aristotle when he declared that a full explanation of anything must
consider its final cause as well as its efficient, material, and formal causes (the latter two being the
stuff out of which a thing is made and the form or pattern of a thing, respectively).

With the rise of modern science in the 16th and 17th centuries, interest was directed to mechanistic
explanations of natural phenomena, which appeal only to efficient causes; if teleological
explanations were used, they took the form not of saying (as in Aristotelian teleology) that things
develop toward the realization of ends internal to their own natures but of viewing biological
organisms and their parts as complex machines in which each smaller part is minutely adapted to
others and each performs a specific function that contributes (e.g., in the case of the eye) to the
function or purpose of the whole (e.g., that of seeing). For the 18th-century Protestant Apologist
William Paley and his followers, the machinelike nature of biological organisms could be explained
only by positing a divine designer of all life. Paley’s teleology thus became the basis of the modern
version of the teleological argument for the existence of God, also called the argument from design.

William Paley

William Paley

William Paley.

From The Works of William Paley, D.D., by The Rev. Edmund Paley, A.M., 1838

Aristotle

READ MORE ON THIS TOPIC

philosophy of biology: Teleology from Aristotle to Kant

The philosophy of biology, like all of Western philosophy, began with the ancient Greeks. Although
Plato (c. 428–c. 348

Immanuel Kant’s Kritik der Urtheilskraft (1790; Critique of Judgment) dealt at length with teleology.
While acknowledging—and indeed exulting in—the wondrous appointments of nature, Kant
cautioned that teleology can be, for human knowledge, only a regulative, or heuristic, principle and
not a constitutive one—i.e., a guide to the conduct of inquiry rather than to the nature of reality.
Accordingly, teleological language in the biological sciences is not to be taken literally; it is essentially
a set of useful metaphors.

Paley’s teleology was undermined in the 19th century by the emergence of evolutionary theory,
which was able to explain the machinelike nature of biological organisms as having come about
entirely through efficient causation in a long process of natural selection. Despite apparently having
made teleology conceptually unnecessary to biology, however, evolutionary theory did not result in
the elimination of teleological language from the biological sciences. Darwinists as much as believers
in divine design continued to speak of the function or purpose of the eye, for example. Was that fact
an indication that some notion of function or purpose (or end or goal), one that could not be
captured in Darwinian terms, remained essential to biology? Or was it merely a reflection of the
usefulness of teleological language as a shorthand for referring to processes and relations that were
greatly more complex?

Those who took the latter position, which was essentially that of Kant, attempted from the early
20th century to systematically eliminate teleological language from the biological sciences, with
mixed success. One such approach advocated simply defining the notion of function in terms of
Darwinian natural selection. Those who held the former view recognized that some notion of
function or teleology generally was uniquely suitable to biology and not eliminable from it. Some
theorists within this group argued that biological teleology could not be explained entirely in terms
of natural selection because the former essentially involved references to normative concepts such
as the “good” (of an organism or its parts), “benefit” (to an organism or its parts), or “harmony” (of a
biological system).
Natural law
Intro
Natural law theories are considered as proposing a normative approach. They
are often centred on creating a philosophical method for determining the
validity of ordinary law.
Natural law propounds a principle that ordinary laws must refer to external
values in order to maintain legitimacy.
Ordinary law must not detract or conflict with principles of human rights and
must always be consistent to moral and ethical values. This approach allows
society and legal bodies to evaluate the validity of ordinary based on generally
accepted principles.
The ancient Greek philosophical approach that natural law thinking is rooted in
the human effort to understand
- The importance of governing life according to rules
- The true basis for rules in human life
- A rational approach to determining rules that govern human life – moral,
ethical or legal.

PLATO
Plato’s writings, it is asserted or assumed that true philosophers—those who
recognize how important it is to distinguish the one (goodness, virtue is,
courage) from the many (things that are so called good or virtuous or
courageous)—can become ethically superior to unenlightened human beings,
because of the greater degree of insight they can acquire. To understand which
things are good and why they are good we must investigate the form of good.
Can be traced that strand of natural law thinking that regards values as having
an eternal existence and eternal veracity. Each had a permanent and unvarying
existence, an existence that is independent of the fact that certain things or
actions in the world as we know it reflect the qualities themselves. (Doctrine of
forms).
Plato’s forms are transcendental archetypes that exist independently of the
physical world, independently of the human mind. Independently of space and
time.
Qualities such as justice and truth exist in their own right, all men can do is to
attempt to reproduce them. To reproduce these qualities men must seek
knowledge of the eternal truths, a quest that is man’s finest endeavour.
Plato’s theory of the ideal form may provide a metaphysical explanation of law.
This philosophy explains the need to strive to attain the true ideal of anything
that exists in the human world (law included).

Plato with a few central doctrines that are advocated in his writings. populated
by entities (called “forms” or “ideas”) that are eternal, changeless, and in some
sense paradigmatic for the structure and character of the world presented to
our senses.
the forms are sometimes described as hypotheses (see for example Phaedo).
The form of good in particular is described as something of a mystery whose
real nature is elusive and as yet unknown to anyone at all (Republic)
For Plato, justice is a spirit, a habit of life that animates man's action; the inner
sense of justice, which is felt by the conscience, is something much higher in
spiritual truth and content than the law of the State; natural law is eternal, like
the gods who have given it to mankind.
Plato believed that philosophers would be the best rulers of society because
they’re able to understand true goodness and justice in a way that other
people cannot. Because they would understand that the greatest self-benefit is
living virtuously, they would act out morally and not out of self-interest.
Because they would have the best thinking capabilities and education, they
would be more equipped for making policy decisions than ordinary people.
Plato proposed a controversial system how his philosopher governed republic
would function. Although his work cannot be used as guidelines for good
governance, it illustrates the implications of rule by “experts” rather than rule
by the people. It also and offers some ideas for thought, such as the potential
of meritocracy, a system where advancement of individual is based on his/her
merit.
philosopher king, idea according to which the best form of government is that
in which philosophers rule. The ideal of a philosopher king was born in Plato’s
dialogue Republic as part of the vision of a just city
We start with the root meaning of the word "philosophy"; the philosopher is
the lover of wisdom. The philosopher is in pursuit of wisdom in all its forms, in
love with learning. But people seek to learn many different kinds of things, are
all of them philosophers? No, the philosopher is distinct from the others in that
the philosopher wants to learn "the truth " as distinct from the false illusions
(being sold by sophists in the marketplace). The learning of the philosopher is
therefore the acquisition of true infallible knowledge , whereas others, those
who follow the sophists. learn merely fallible "opinions" (in Greek: doxa)
So now the original question about justice, an ethical question, is transformed
into an epistemological question: how do we distinguish true genuine
knowledge (the real thing the philosopher seeks) from fallible opinions (the
phony, "counterfeit" beliefs of the "lovers of opinions," the sophists). In
answer Plato presents his most famous exposition of his "Theory of Forms"
which extends all the way to 521b. Many crucial distinctions on which this
theory is based appear in this discussion
For our purpose of understanding Plato's theory of knowledge (epistemology )
as presented in the Theory of Forms, it is not necessary to go into the details of
Plato's ideal state; suffice it to say that as we would expect, the perfectly just
state will be one ruled by the perfectly just ruler(s) . In the analogy to the soul,
the ruler in the polis is the parallel to the "mind" (in Greek: nous) in the soul .
As the eyeball is the organ with which the body is able to see , so the "mind"
may be thought of as the "organ" with which the soul acquires knowledge. The
perfectly just soul would then be a soul "ruled" by a mind which had perfect
knowledge , complete wisdom. This use of "perfect" is intended to mean no
possibility of error or mistake; the perfectly just ruler(s) will necessarily do
what is right, for if an error was made, one could imagine a better ruler who
didn't make that error. Obviously such an "ideal" may very well be humanly
impossible, but, Socrates insists, it is still essential to have such a perfect ideal
as a kind of "yardstick" against which to measure the degree of justice or
injustice in actually existing states and people.
Thus, the key to the notion of the “philosopher king” is that the philosopher is
the only person who can be trusted to rule well. Philosophers are both morally
and intellectually suited to rule: morally because it is in their nature to love
truth and learning so much that they are free from the greed and lust that
tempts others to abuse power and intellectually because they alone can gain
full knowledge of reality, which in Books V through VII of the Republic is argued
to culminate in knowledge of the forms of Virtue, Beauty, and, above all, the
Good. The city can foster such knowledge by putting aspiring philosophers
through a demanding education, and the philosophers will use their knowledge
of goodness and virtue to help other citizens achieve these so far as possible.
According to Plato, justice would exist in a society where individuals would
perform duties according to each ability as given by God. Plato accepting of
inequality of men (his own caste system).
Aristotle
Aristotle (384–322 BCE) is considered by many to be the father of natural law
—argued that what is “just by nature” is not always the same as what is “just
by law.” Aristotle believed that there is a natural justice that is valid
everywhere with the same force; that this natural justice is positive, and does
not exist ..
Aristotle (384–322 BCE) held that what was “just by nature” was not always
the same as what was “just by law,” that there was a natural justice valid
everywhere with the same force and “not existing by people’s thinking this or
that,” and that appeal could be made to it from positive law. However, he
drew his examples of natural law primarily from his observation of the Greeks
in their city-states, who subordinated women to men, slaves to citizens, and
“barbarians” to Hellenes. In contrast, the Stoics conceived of an entirely
egalitarian law of nature in conformity with the logos (reason) inherent in the
human mind. Roman jurists paid lip service to this notion, which was reflected
in the writings of St. Paul (c. 10–67 CE), who described a law “written in the
hearts” of the Gentiles (Romans 2:14–15).
Aristotle’s teleological analysis provides the foundation for his view on the
existence and importance of natural law. Proposes the law should be enable
human being to achieve the good that is natural to him and (correlatively) laws
should not prevent human being from achieving those good.
Two tier law
i) conventional (are those created by human) – apply to specific classes of
persons.
ii) Universal – that are universal in character, not written and readily
recognizable by human beings across time and space.
Nichomachean Ethics
Man when perfected is the best of animals, but if he is isolated from law and
justice is the worst of all.
Proposing an idea that there are higher moral values which supersede ordinary
law. Argued that any person, through reasoning, could access higher moral
values. Use of rational thinking in order to know and understand values that
are important to human affairs.
Aristotle concerned with the world as he saw it existing around him. As marine
zoologist an acute observation he studied of the natural world he became
conscious of the fact that natural phenomena were in a state of perpetual
change- always progress. (Acorn developed into oak tree)
The fulfilment of the progression is into predetermined end. Earlier stages
always lead up to final development. This process is constant. There is always
potential for further change, in everything there has predetermined end, its
named as teleology.
Aristotle teleology extended beyond the individual phenomena of natural
world to the activities of creatures within it(humans). The highest form of
human society in the Greek is polis (Greek city state).
The polis that provided the society lay in which man could achieve his
culminating fulfilment. (Human society – primitive(agricultural) – cities –
political society) Mankind was progressing towards that which had been its
end from the beginning. Because it the completion od associations existing by
nature.
Nichomachean Ethics – discuss the nature of justice
There are two sorts of political justice
Natural justice – has the same validity everywhere and does not depend upon
acceptance
Legal justice – which in the first place can take one form or another
indifferently but which once laid down is decisive.
All regulations are of this kind on the ground that whereas natural laws are
immutable and have the same validity everywhere. They can see the notions of
justice are variable but justice presumably never change at all.
Similarly laws that are not natural but man made are not the same
everywhere, because forms of governments are not the same as well.

Aristotle’s philosophical approach, teleological analysis, emphasizes the

outcome rather than the process. Teleological analysis is an approach that is
based on ethical behavior by the result of the action whether it has good or
bad consequences. Aristotle believes unethical behavior could be justified if
the result were greatest good for the greatest number of people. The teleology
approach is an utilitarianism which believes that a good morality act would
result in the greatest happiness of the greatest number of people. Aristotle
approach is more to an observational approach which is to observe the result
of an action before concluding the action’s nature. This is because Aristotle is a
keen observer as he is a marine zoologist he became aware that the natural
phenomena were in a state of never ending change. All that exists in this world
has a predetermined end and life is just a process of progression to fulfill the
predetermined end. The earlier stage will progress to final development and
this process is in a constant state. Thus, Aristotle believed the universe always
in a process of moving towards an immanent end within itself from the start
therefore teleology analysis believes that humans are progressing towards its
predetermined end from the beginning.

As a Greek citizen, Aristotle believes that ‘polis’(Greek city) as the highest form
of human society can achieve, ‘polis’ can provide the human society their
culminating fulfillment they can possibly achieve. Humans as primitive
creatures have agricultural beginnings, then progress towards cities and then
towards political societies. In Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle discusses the
nature of justice and labels two types of law one is natural justice and the
other as legal justice. Aristotle stated that natural justice has the same validity
everywhere and does not need an acceptance to be considered a valid law,
and the legal justice, is a system of justice can take various forms depending on
the place the justice applied but once its applied the justice system became
decisive. Legal justice is considered as man made and it's not the same
everywhere and it needs acceptance before it takes effect. Here the natural
law’s notion can be detected as natural justice where it is immutable and
universality in nature. Aristotle does not expend his philosophical thoughts
more on natural law as the notion of natural law always regarded as part of
justice and justice without natural law accordance, is not regarded as justice at
all. The reason for natural law to be accepted as immutable and universality in
nature is natural law is being as just as what law ought to be rather than what
it is. Aristotle recognised that there is natural and universal law that ought to
be superior from any human law, ordinance or conventions.