Is Thomas Aquinas' Natural Law a viable method of ethical decision making?

Natural Law is an intriguing form of ethics, as it is a combination of deontological ethics and teleological ethics. Deontological ethics are ethics that use laws and are absolutist in their thinking, and teleological allow the decision-maker to think for themselves by stating key ideas that should go through the decision-makers head, when making a decision. Thomas Aquinas was influenced by Aristotle, as he studied at Paris University, where the original works of Aristotle's virtue theory were found in the thirteenth century. Unlike virtue theory, that seemed to ignore religion, Aquinas incorporates religion. This was particularly necessary due to the fact that he was studying during a period of general dwindling faith, and he felt it was necessary to reboot the popularity of Christian in thirteenth century England.

The purpose of Thomas Aquinas' natural law is to enable humans to reach their purpose. While Aristotle (who's works I explain in this blog ) believed that a humans purpose was to achieve eudamonia (fully-flourishing happiness) Thomas Aquinas was a religious man, and believed that a humans purpose was to achieve imago dei. He believed that one should try to live in the image of God and that, if one follows natural law, one would achieve imago dei. He also believed that one should follow eternal law, the law of the universe, which is far beyond humankinds understanding, and divine law, the law that God has given us. However, those concepts are to be explained at another time.

Natural law is based on five laws which everyone who wants to live in imago dei should follow. These five laws are known as the primary precepts and are as follows: to preserve innocent life, to keep orderly living in society, to worship god, to educate children and to reproduce. These laws are constant and unchanging and absolutist and any other word that you can think of that means that they are to be adhered to by all. This is the deontological aspect of natural law. From these five precepts there are subjective laws that we can deduce from them . These are known as the secondary precepts and are not listed, but are to be worked out by the decision-maker themselves. For example, from the primary precept, preserve innocent life, we can extrapolate the secondary precept do not kill. From the primary precept, procreate, a we can deduce the secondary precept, have children, but within marriage. These are subjective and can be hypothesised by using our unique human ability to reason.

Another parallel that can be seen between Aquinas and Aristotle is that they both believe that the human ability to reason is unique and is what is used to make us better people and is what allows us to function at their highest quality. Something that Aristotle said, which is a quote that I very much overuse however, is very appropriate in this situation is "the utter servility of the masses comes out in their preference for a bovine existence". This means that humankind live a poor quality of life when they seek low-level pleasures such as food, sex and money.

Like Aristotle, Aquinas used virtues in his form of ethical decision making yet he simplified the virtues somewhat. He trisected the amount of virtues from twenty-one into seven. He split these seven into three theological virtues and four cardinal virtues. The three theological virtues are faith, hope and love. Faith is the belief that God exists and absolute certainty that he exists. Hope is the belief that there is a better future ahead if we adhere to the rules. Aquinas' view on love is similar to the concept of agapeic love, in that he views love as being charitable and mutual. As Soren Kierkegaard said, "agapeic love has no favourites". These are the three theological virtues, as they are to do with religion.

The remaining four virtues are known as the cardinal virtues they are temperance, prudence, fortitude and justice. These are more powerful adjectives and perhaps provide more insight into how Aquinas thinks we should live our life. Temperance is similar to restraint in that we should restrict ourselves to moderation in all things and have the ability to differentiate between our desires and the things we actually require to survive and better ourselves intellectually and to come closer to imago dei. The difference between desires and requirements Aquinas calls real and apparent needs. The real needs are the things that are vital to us and the apparent needs, as can be deduced from the name, are the things that we value that don't actually have value. An example of a real need is shelter, but an apparent need is a palace. An example of a real need is a bible, but an apparent need is the Gutenberg edition, which you can get your hands on for sweet 5.39 mill. Another cardinal virtue is prudence and this can be related to caution. It tells us that we should think before we act and use our unique ability to reason when we make decisions. Fortitude is similar to courage, yet it focuses more on the resilience and robustness aspect as Jesus made, probably the most robust act of all time, when he sacrificed himself on the cross, yet appeared three days later only vaguely scathed. Jesus was able to stay strong in difficult times and it is vital for humans to do this, in order to achieve imago dei. The final cardinal virtue is justice and this differs from the modern view of justice. Modern justice is seen as doing what's right and standing up for an appropriate cause. What Aquinas means is that one should get what they deserve, in accordance of how they think an act. This links into the primary precept of keeping orderly living within society, as the justice that a criminal receives should be appropriate to their crime. These four cardinal virtues are vital for us getting ever closer to imago dei.

One thing Aquinas believed was essential was the distinguishing of the difference between internal intention and external consequences. He believed that the internal intentions were far more important than the acts that go with them. He believed that the inner belief that the actions were good was fundamentally more important than acting and perhaps showing off these good intentions. This is known as the doctrine of double effect and shows how intentions are vital to becoming a good person. This is also visible in Islam where greater Jihad is internal intentions and lesser Jihad is external acts.

Now we know what Natural law is and how it works, we can work out whether it is a viable method of ethical decision making. One of the great strengths of natural law is the fact that it is based on the universal human ability to reason. It is accessible to all humans as all humans can reason. However, the end goal perhaps isn't desirable for the non-religious. While society in the thirteenth century was overwhelmingly religious, nowadays most people don't believe there is a God, and therefore, they wouldn't want to live in his image. Human nature typically evolves and it now seems that they have outgrown ethical theories. It is ineffective with dealing with ethical issues due to the fact that, in the face of refined and progressive human laws, and in the light of social and ethical changes and an increase in the appreciation for the complexity of ethical issues. In this way it could be seen as a poor method of ethical decision making.

Despite this, followers of natural law would argue that it provides clear-cut rules when approaching ethical issues, such as the view that abortion is wrong as it breaks the primary precept to reproduce. The five primary precepts cover nearly all dillemas and therefore nothing is much more straightforward. The succinct nature, in comparison to virtue theory, also appeals to the uneducated, due to the fact that they don't have to revise and recite twenty-one of Aristotle's virtues. It doesn't rely on unpredictable consequence and emotions and is very much in line with the way that humans operate. It is rational and therefore is a viable method of ethical decision making.

However, unlike many other ethical theories, it is inflexible and fails to consider the potential consequences of so called "right actions. Take euthanasia for example. It is not allowed, however, it could lead to greater pain for the person involved and their family. On its own terms, a consideration of real and apparent needs needs to be ctested against the cold application of single ruling. Continuing on from this, the lack of consideration for consequences of actions is the main downfall of natural law. It fails to consider the situation one would find oneself in when applying the primary precept. For example, it doesn't allow abortion even in the case of rape. There is no get out clause, unlike other ethical theories such as situation ethics. One of the famous quotes that relates to Joseph Fletcher's situation ethics is that "some people are so full of what's right they don't know what's good". This certainly can be applied to natural law and in this way, the rigidness of natural law is its downfall.

To conclude, while natural law seems robust at first, the fact that it lacks consideration for the consequences of applying it to everyday life allows us to understand that it is not a viable theory for ethical decision making.