Thoughts on Natural Law

Observation and reason allow us to know about the natural world.

Some people believe that morality follows the same pattern. Good and evil follow Natural Law.

One could argue that God puts these rules in place – or one could believe that they are just part of the total scheme of order.

Natural Law is independent of public opinion.

This is an absolutist or universal unchanging approach to ethics. It may be compared to the Hindu understanding of dharma, which deals with standards and the right way to behave.

THOMAS AQUINAS 1224 – 1275

Hewas influenced by the rediscovery of Aristotle’s teachings…

St Thomas Aquinas

He encountered opposition from the church because many believed that he was trying to replace faith with reason. Aquinas tried to show that reason come from God.He assumed that mankind was created on purpose by God.

People have to work out what that purpose is and then aim to fit it. Humans must behave appropriately and do what we are put into the world to do.

PURPOSE OF HUMAN LIFE

The starting point of Natural Law is to work out the purpose of human life

Aquinas worked out that the first priority laid down by Natural Law was that the immortal self should be preserved. In order to achieve this mankind had to live to reproduce, to learn to have an ordered society and to worship God.

• The preservation of life
• To reproduce
• To live in an ordered society
• To worship God

These could be discovered by using reason

WHY SHOULD PEOPLE WANT TO DO THIS?

Aquinas, like Aristotle before him believed that all people wanted to be good.

The fact that they looked for the good urged Aquinas to state that there were things called

Cardinal Virtues.

Guess what – Aristotle had listed Natural Cardinal Virtues of prudence, temperance, fortitude and justice.

To these Aquinas added faith, hope and charity from the writings of St Paul

So Aquinas’ list of virtues looked like this

• Prudence
• Temperance
• Fortitude
• Justice
• Faith
• Hope
• Charity

All worked out in accordance with reason.

The importance of these virtues will be seen later on – for the moment, back to Natural Law.

Aquinas believed law worked on four levels

1. ETERNAL LAW Order which is in the mid of God.
2. DIVINE LAW Given to people by God through the Bible and the Church.
3. NATURAL LAW Our sense of right and wrong discovered by conscience.
4. HUMAN LAW Rules made by human choices.

Higher levels take priority

SO WHAT ACTUALLY IS NATURAL LAW?

1. It is the law which can be detected by mankind through reason. It is in accordance with the will of God. It is supported by God’s eternal law and by the teachings of the Bible and the church.
2. Because humans wish to fulfil their purpose and do good, they try to act in accordance with Natural Law. We tend to call this process our conscience.
3. When humans fall short of the good – that is sin. If a person does something that is morally wrong, he or she will do this because they think that they will benefit – it will do them good. Their mistake means that they are less than they are intended to be by God and that is sin. Sin is falling short of one’s real potential.
4. Aquinas also made the distinction between Exterior and Interior acts. For Aquinas both the act and the intention are important. Both have to be good. To do a good act for a bad reason is wrong and to do a bad act for a good reason is equally wrong.
5. On each ethical issue there is a general statement which aims to show that good is the intention and that evil should be avoided. Sometimes though we may feel that life isn’t as simple as that and there may be more than one issue at stake. So he talked about Primary and Secondary precepts.
6. Aquinas believed that humans have a fixed uniform nature and this led him to believe that there was a fixed Natural Law.
7. Natural Law is based on the action alone and takes no account of the consequences.

Utilitarian Stories Criticisms of Utilitarianism

1 The argument from duty

It may be right for a Utilitarian to break a promise, frame an innocent individual or justify telling a lie. 

(i)The story of the dying millionaire  ( Pojman  Ethics, discovering right and wrong)

Suppose you are on an island with a dying millionaire. As he lies dying he entreats you for one final favour. “I’ve dedicated my whole life to baseball and for 50 years have gotten endless pleasure and some pain rooting for the New York Yankees. Now that I am dying I want to give all my assets $2 million to the Yankees. Would you take all this money (he indicates a small box containing some money in large bills)” back to New York and give it to the Yankees so that they can buy better players?” You agree to carry out this wish, at which point a huge smile of relief and gratitude breaks out on his face as he expires in your arms. After travelling to New York, you see a newspaper advertisement placed by your favourite charity. World Hunger Relief Organisation (whose integrity you do not doubt), pleading for $2 million to be used to save 100,000 people dying of starvation in East Africa. Not only will $2 million save their lives, but it will also purchase equipment and kinds of fertilizers necessary to build a sustainable economy. You decide to reconsider your promise to the dying millionaire in the light of the advertisement. What should you do with the money?

(ii)The sheriff           (Pojman, Philosophy: The Pursuit of Wisdom)

Suppose that a rape and murder is committed in a racially volatile community. As the sheriff of the town you have spent a lifetime working for racial harmony. Now just when your goal is being realized this incident occurs. The crime is thought to be racially motivated and a riot is about to break out that will very likely result in the death of several people and create long-lasting racial antagonism. You see that you could frame a down and out tramp that you already have in your cells for the crime so that the trial will find him guilty and he will be executed. There is every reason to believe that a speedy trial and execution will head off the riot and save community harmony. Only you (and the real criminal, who will keep quiet about it) will know that the innocent man has been tried and executed. What is the morally right thing to do?

(iii)The criminal

For years Bert committed crimes all over the town. Police and judges knew that he was the culprit of the crimes but he always had a good alibi and the Police never had sufficient evidence either to arrest him or charge him with any offences. One day he happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. A bank robbery took place while he was in the bank making waiting to see the manager. When the Police arrived they interviewed everyone who had been at the bank including Bert. At last they had found him at the scene of a crime when it occurred and they wrongly assumed that he was part of the gang who robbed the bank. Bert was taken to court and the judge realizing that there was no evidence against Bert, still convicted him because on so many other occasions Bert had just got away with it. The judge felt that although he was acting unjustly, it was in the interests of public safety to find some way of getting Bert into prison so that the public at large could feel safer because a criminal had been put away.

In the case of the millionaire’s helper, a utilitarian would not give the money to the Yankees, but despite his promise, he would give it to the World Hunger Relief Organisation.The utilitarian sheriff would execute one innocent man     in order to save the lives of rioters and preserve racial harmony.  He would argue that it is worth killing one innocent man in order to save many lives and the social harmony in the town. The utilitarian judge would put a man in prison despite a lack of evidence, but would do so in order to allow ordinary citizens peace of mind that a known, rather than a proven criminal was no long walking the streets.

Point 2 revolves around how we can know what the consequences might be ultimately.

Story (iv)  The drowning man

I see a man drowning in the river. Should I jump into the river and save him? The utilitarian would say yes because he would be grateful and so would his family and so would his friends and so would the generations of people who become descendants of this man.

But how can you know what the consequences will be? Suppose the man turns out to be a murderer or a paedophile or a suicide bomber. How can you truly know the consequences of your actions?

Story (v) The story “Genesis and catastrophe by Roald Dahl

This is the story of a doctor who saves both a mother and child in a difficult birth. The mother has had several miscarriages and a number of her children have been either still-born or have died in infancy. The latest baby does not look strong but the doctor assures the worrying woman that all will be well despite appearances. The child will be well and will flourish and bring her great credit. The doctor’s final words to the mother are, “You’ll be all right now, Mrs Hitler.”

How can anyone know what the consequences of an action will be?

Third Objection a utilitarian may abandon moral integrity. – there is a need to do the right thing.

Story (vi) The story of Jim                   (Smart and Williams, Utilitarianism: For and Against)

Jim is a botanist working deep in a jungle in a South American country when he gets separated from the rest of his group. Fortunately for him, he happens upon a village. Unfortunately, he also happens on an execution about to be carried out by a captain, Pedro, and a group of soldiers. Pedro sees Jim and soon discovers that he is a famous botanist working alongside the South American country’s government to discover plant medicines to help the ill people of that country. Jim in turn discovers that Pedro has orders to execute 20 people from the village as a reprisal for the shooting of a soldier in the village the previous day. Pedro explains that he chose the 20 by getting all 200 people in the village to line up in any order they liked. He then simply picked out every 10th person. And now these 20 are to be shot. Jim is appalled and argues that, in his country, this is not just – perhaps it might be fair for one life to be taken to compensate for the lost life of the soldier, but not an innocent life, and certainly not 20 lives. Pedro replies that this is how things are done in his country. But wait, he has a solution. Since Jim is an honoured guest and helping his country, Pedro says that he can persuade his superiors that, in this case, he can avoid killing all 20 people by saying that he is honouring Jim by adopting his (Jim’s) country’s type of justice. But, in return, Jim must adopt a bit of the South American country’s justice: Jim must choose one of the 20 people for execution and then shoot that person himself. The other 19 will then go free. Jim is in a moral dilemma

The utilitarian approach (with its appealing simplicity) to this dilemma is that Jim chooses the one of the 20 potential victims with least utility (perhaps the oldest, the least healthy, the baby?) and then shoots him/her. The utilitarian approach (with its appalling simplicity) is then to say that Jim has done a good thing. What this example demonstrates more than anything else is that utilitarianism is not enough to fully cope with human behaviour. What we would like to say is that Jim may have done what was best in the circumstances, but we would not call the killing of an innocent individual good as utilitarianism insists.

Utilitarianism at a glance

Utilitarianism is a normative ethical theory. It is an easily identifiable method of looking at a problem. It rests on the principle of maximising happiness or pleasure and minimising pain. It is sometimes described as the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people and the avoidance of pain for as many as possible.

Utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory (teleological) it looks at the likely consequences of an action rather than the action of doing. So in essence any action that provides good results for most people could be classed as utilitarian. It gives rise to the saying that the end justifies the means.

Utilitarianism is a relativist ethic. There are no absolute moral truths in utilitarianism. The only thing that is important is the consequence. Over a period of time the views of society may change, if 21^st century society is happy about the result of a moral decision then utilitarianism will support it. That may well be despite the fact that previous generations found the same situation unacceptable.

Utilitarianism is an empirical theory. Consequences are observed or anticipated before moral decisions are made.

Utilitarianism is not a religious ethic. God’s commands or the expectations of the church are usually absolute in character and do not depend upon the will of the majority of people.

Jeremy Bentham 1748-1832

He worked on legal reform and wrote “Principles of Morals and Legislation” 1789.
His theory
His view on what drove human beings and what goodness and badness was all about.
His principle of “Utility” – his moral rule.
Hedonic calculus – a means for measuring how good or bad a consequence is.
Nature has placed mankind under two sovereign masters – pain and pleasure.
They determine how a person acts.
Humans seek pleasure and try to avoid pain.
He believed that pleasure was the sole good and pain was the sole evil in the world.
The rightness or wrongness of an action is determined by its utility or usefulness. Usefulness refers to the amount of pleasure caused by the action. Hence Benthamite Utilitarianism is sometimes called Quantitative Utilitarianism.

An action is right if it produces the greatest good for the greatest number and the least pain or sadness.
His theory is democratic – pleasure can’t be for one person alone.
One strives to obtain the greatest happiness for the most people and the Hedonic calculus did the measuring.

Hedonic Calculus

This weighs up the pain and pleasure generated by the available moral actions to find the best option. There are 7 components.

1. Its intensity
2. Its duration
3. Its certainty or uncertainty
4. Its nearness or remoteness how wide ranging is it?
5. Its ability to continue. How continuous is the pleasure?
6. Its purity – the chance it has of not producing the opposite of 5.
7. Who is affected by it?

The balance of pleasures and pains is compared with those of other options.
The action that leads to the best consequences is accepted.

Strengths
It is a very straightforward means of deciding whether or not an act is moral.
It is popular with people because they seek pleasure.
It is up to date and in tune with public opinion. People seek pleasure and no one wants to prolong pain.
It can be followed by people with any religious belief or those with none.

Weaknesses
It is very rough and ready and may be seen to be supporting fads rather than sound consequences.
Bentham does not distinguish between one sort of pleasure and another.
It assumes that all pain and hardship, wherever possible should be avoided.
The Hedonic Calculus is cumbersome and hard to apply on some moral issues.
Following the will of the majority may be a dubious ethical procedure.
The view of pleasure might not be shared by someone else. Think of a noisy party at 2am. You might enjoy it, but the neighbours would hate it.

 
John Stuart Mill 1806 – 1873
Mill was something of a child genius. His father was a follower of Jeremy Bentham, so the young Stuart grew up with a good working knowledge of Utilitarianism.He worked for the East India Company and at one time was also an MP.
He was the inspiration behind the modern feminist movement.
He admired Bentham’s work but was concerned about quantitative pleasure

Mill’s contribution
Mill rejected Bentham’s use of the Hedonic Calculus. In his view some pleasures are of a higher quality than others. This he felt was an entirely human affair. Humans could distinguish between pursuits that required a measure of intelligence and those that did not. The former Mill referred to as Higher Pleasures and the latter as Lower Pleasures. This gives rise to the name Qualitative Utilitarianism.

In detail Mill would say that pleasure of the mind are higher pleasures – intellectual
But pleasures of the body are lower pleasures – appetite.
That works all right as far as it goes, but it does mean that the classification of higher and lower is rather subjective.
Nevertheless Mill felt that the main points of Bentham’s work were correct.
Happiness is much sought after by people.
Like Immanuel Kant, he felt that everyone looked for it.
A happy well cared for population would flourish.

Strengths
Many of the strengths of quantitative Utilitarianism of Bentham are also seen in Mill’s work
His form of Utilitarianism catered more adequately for minority groups.
He was trying to encourage less damaging pleasures.

Weaknesses
Some people argue that his approach was elitist.
How could one compare and contrast two different sorts of pleasures?
If pleasures because classified, what was a consequentialist theory would become a deontological theory.

Daisy Daisy give me your answer moo!

Scientists in New Zealand have created a cow, called Daisy, through the same cloning procedure that was used for creating Dolly the sheep in 1996.The researchers genetically engineered the cow so that it would produce milk free of beta-lactoglobulin (BLG) protein which can cause an allergic reaction in infants. This protein is not present in human milk so babies only show signs of a reaction when they move on to bottled cow’s milk. Approximately one in twelve babies develop an allergic reaction to whey. Most however overcome this but a few remain lactose intolerant for the remainder of their lives.

To make Daisy scientists took a cow skin cell and genetically modified it to produce molecules that block the manufacture of the BLG protein. The nucleus of this cell was then transferred into a cow egg that had its own nucleus removed. The reconstituted egg was cultivated in the laboratory until it formed a blastocyst which was then transplanted into the womb of the foster cow.

Reports suggest that the cloning technique was highly inefficient. Out of around 100 implanted blastocysts only one calf, Daisy, has been born.

One troubling side effect of this experiment is that Daisy was born without a tail. It seems likely that the cloning procedure was responsible for this defect. If the cow is missing a tail, is there any other organ missing from the animal. Although the milk Daisy produces is free of BLG, the overall effect of this on her milk yield is unknown.  Another uncertainty is whether any calves produced by Daisy will naturally produce milk free of BLG.

Under European law food products, including milk from cloned animals, must be assessed for safety and approved for sale before they can be marketed.

From an ethical standpoint how do people feel about genetically modifying animals to combat diseases or to make available products that are free from nasties? In 2011 it was rumoured that the Roslyn Institute was working on a technique to create chickens that cannot spread avian flu. What are the advantages and what are the dangers of such experiments?