is Natural Law Theory
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
University of New South Wales *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
SOR11
Subject
Law
Date
Apr 3, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
3
Uploaded by AgentAntelopePerson3922
What is Natural Law Theory?
Have you ever told a lie? Or taken something that didn't belong to you? If so, you probably weren't proud of how you acted in those moments. But why? What was it about doing something 'wrong' that made you feel bad deep, down inside?
Natural law theory
is a legal theory that recognizes law and morality as deeply connected, if not one and the same. Morality relates to what is right and wrong and what is good and bad. Natural law theorists believe that human laws are defined by morality, and not by an authority figure, like a king or a government. Therefore, we humans are guided by our
human nature
to figure out what the laws are, and to act in conformity with those laws.
The term 'natural law' is derived from the belief that human morality comes from nature. Everything in nature has a purpose, including humans. Our purpose, according to natural law theorists, is to live a good, happy life. Therefore, actions that work against that purpose -- that is, actions that would prevent a fellow human from living a good, happy life -- are considered 'unnatural', or 'immoral'.
The connection between natural law and the common good indeed lies in the understanding that human beings, by nature, are oriented towards certain ends or purposes — chiefly among these is the pursuit of a good and fulfilling life. This purposeful orientation is what forms the basis of natural law theory.
From a philosophical standpoint, the common good refers to the conditions that allow individuals in a society to reach their fulfillment more fully and easily. When we talk about the common good, we are talking about the collective flourishing of individuals in a community, ensuring that each member of society has what they need to lead a good, happy life. It's not merely about the sum of individual goods, but rather about creating social conditions that benefit everyone and contribute to the overall well-being of the community.
Natural law theory's premise is that there are objective moral principles, known through the natural light of reason, by which human conduct should be governed. These principles are derived from the very nature of humans and the world. They include principles like preserving one's own life, procreating and educating offspring, seeking knowledge, and living in society.
These principles, when adhered to, are believed to facilitate the achievement of the common good. For instance, respecting each other's lives contributes to a peaceful society, a condition necessary for the common good. Procreation and education, on the other hand, ensure the continuity and growth of society, another aspect of the common good. Seeking knowledge leads to progress and innovation, benefiting society as a whole. Living in society necessitates the creation of just laws and structures, contributing to order and harmony, which are also elements of the common good.
In this way, natural law and the common good are intrinsically linked. The moral framework provided by natural law guides individual and communal actions towards the promotion and protection of the common good. Furthermore, in a society where the common good is upheld, individuals find it easier to live according to natural law principles, creating a positive feedback loop reinforcing both natural law adherence and the common good.
In essence, natural law theory provides the moral underpinning to strive for the common good. By understanding and acting in accordance with our natural inclinations and purposes, we not only achieve personal fulfillment but also contribute to the collective well-being of our community — the common good.
Laws have a purpose too: to provide justice. From a natural law perspective, a law that doesn't provide justice (an unjust law) is considered 'not a law at all.' Therefore, a law that is flawed is one that no one should follow. In short, any law that is good is moral, and any moral law is good.
Legal positivism
is a legal theory that is the opposite of the natural law theory. Legal positivists believe that a law can be deeply flawed, and yet still be considered a law.
Laws have a purpose too: to provide justice. From a natural law perspective, a law that doesn't provide justice (an unjust law) is considered 'not a law at all.' Therefore, a law that is flawed is one that no one should follow. In short, any law that is good is moral, and any moral law is good.
Legal positivism
is a legal theory that is the opposite of the natural law theory. Legal positivists believe that a law can be deeply flawed, and yet still be considered a law.
Ethics
The concept of morality under the natural law theory is not
subjective
. This means that the definition of what is 'right' and what is 'wrong' is the same for everyone, everywhere.
The natural law approach to solving ethical dilemmas begins with the basic belief that everyone has the
right to live their life
. From there, natural law theorists draw a line between an innocent
life and the life of an 'unjust aggressor.' The natural law theory recognizes the legal and moral concept of self-defense, which is often used to justify acts of war.
Natural law theory is not always a simple school of thought. It should come as no surprise that the ethics associated with natural law are equally complicated. The idea that the definition of what is 'right' and what is 'wrong' is the same for 'every person' is sometimes difficult to apply to complex ethical dilemmas.
Examples
Consider the following examples… in groups of 3 discuss each dilemma and record your findings. Example 1:
You are a passenger on a ship sailing across the ocean. Suddenly, your ship is overtaken in a powerful storm. You escape to a lifeboat with 25 other passengers. You notice that four of the passengers are badly injured, and unlikely to survive for more than a week. You also know that the lifeboat only has enough food and water to sustain 22 passengers. Some of the other passengers are considering throwing the four injured passengers overboard in order to save the
other survivors. If you were a natural law theorist, how would you solve this ethical dilemma?
As a natural law theorist facing this ethical dilemma, the following principles would guide my decision-making:
Respect human dignity and the sanctity of life.
Minimize harm and prioritize the preservation of all lives.
Ration and conserve resources to sustain as many passengers as possible.
Explore options for external assistance or rescue.
Encourage cooperation and mutual aid among passengers.
Consider long-term consequences of sacrificing lives.
In summary, a natural law theorist would prioritize preserving life, minimizing harm, and seeking
alternative solutions while upholding human dignity and the sanctity of life.
Example 2 : You are an economist advising a government on economic policy. There's a proposal to increase taxes on the wealthy to fund social programs for the poor. However, some argue this could discourage investment and economic growth. As a natural law theorist, how would you approach this issue?
As a natural law theorist advising on economic policy, my approach to the issue of increasing taxes
on the wealthy to fund social programs for the poor would prioritize justice, fairness, and addressing societal inequalities.
Example 3 : You are a policy maker considering the implementation of autonomous weapons in warfare. These weapons can potentially save soldiers' lives but also raise concerns about accountability and the potential for misuse. As a policy maker guided by natural law, how would you handle this ethical dilemma?
As a natural law-guided policy maker, I would prioritize human dignity, accountability, proportional use of force, public discourse, and international cooperation when considering the implementation of autonomous weapons in warfare.
Example 4 : You are an environmental scientist advising a government on climate policy. The country is heavily dependent on coal for energy, and while transitioning to renewable sources would significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions, it would also lead to job losses in the coal industry and increase energy costs in the short term. As a scientist who follows natural law theory, how do you approach this ethical dilemma?
As an environmental scientist following natural law theory, I would prioritize environmental stewardship, human well-being, a just transition, economic viability, and public participation when
advising the government on transitioning from coal to renewable energy in climate policy.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help