Explain Finnis’ Natural Law Theory Essay

The ethical teachings and values of utilitarianism and Christian ethics are similar in some aspects, yet however are diverse in others. Utilitarianism is a generally teleological ethical system, where the outcome is said to justify the act. The act is considered ‘good’ if it brings about the greatest good for the greatest number. Christian Ethics, however, can be quite different. Many aspects of its ethics are deontological, for example, the Decalogue and Natural Law. There are other differences and indeed some similarities which will be considered throughout this essay.

Kant elucidate the meaning of human good by talking about three qualities: power, pleasure and dignity. By reading each of the philosopher’s text individually, the reader is able to recognize which quality is most imperative to each philosopher. Additionally, each philosopher illuminates the importance of that certain good and provides a feasible reason for their choosing by presenting general ideas that enables the reader to gain a meticulous understanding of their subjective meaning of each good and its importance.

Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative is a theory that basically relays the same message that most mothers teach their kids, and that is to do the right thing. The categorical imperative could be easily explained by the Golden Rule about treating others as you would like to be treated. Kant dives a little deep with his theory, however, and breaks the categorical imperative into three formulations. The first formulation is about essentially removing yourself from a situation and doing what is best for everyone. Kant is basically saying that it is unethical to make decisions that affect everyone, but only benefits you. The second formulation is about making sure that

Classical utilitarianism is a normative ethical theory which holds that an action can only be considered as morally right where its consequences bring about the greatest amount of good to the greatest number (where 'good' is equal to pleasure minus pain). Likewise, an action is morally wrong where it fails to maximise good. Since it was first articulated in the late 19th Century by the likes of Jeremy Bentham and later John Stewart Mill, the classical approach to utilitarianism has since become the basis for many other consequentialist theories such as rule-utilitarianism and act-utilitarianism upon which this essay will focus (Driver, 2009). Though birthed from the same

Kant’s philosophy was based around the theory that we have a moral unconditional obligation and duty that he calls the “Categorical Imperative.” He believes that an action must be done with a motive of this moral obligation, and if not done with this intention then the action would hold no moral value. Under this umbrella of the “Categorical Imperative” he presents three formulations that he believes to be about equal in importance, relevance, and could be tested towards any case. The first formulation known as the Formula of Universal Law consists of a methodical way to find out morality of actions. The second formulation is known as

In Kant’s book, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant talks about the three formulations of the categorical imperative. By these formulations, he describes his idea of organizing the moral principle for all rational beings. Kant also talks about the principles of humanity, rational ends, and the “realm of ends” which are constituted by the autonomous freedom of rational beings.

Therefore, doing the right thing is not driven by the pursuit of individual desires or interests, but by the need to follow a maxim that is acceptable to all rational individuals. Kant calls this the categorical imperative, and he described it thus, “act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” (Kant, 2008). This basic condition through which the moral principles guiding the relations between human beings is expected of all rational individuals, and determines how they express their moral autonomy and equality. All rational individuals who are morally autonomous willingly comply with the categorical imperative. They then use it to determine the form and scope of the laws which they will institute in order to safeguard these important conditions that form the basis of human rights (Denise, Peterfreund & White, 1999). According to Kant, human beings have the capacity to exercise reason, and this is what forms the basis for protecting human dignity. This exercise of reason must meet the standards of universality, in that the laws formulated must be capable of being accepted universally by all equally rational individuals (Doyle, 1983). Various accounts documenting the historical development of human rights overlook Kant’s moral philosophy, but it is very clear that, through the categorical imperative, he provides the ideals of moral autonomy and equality

Kant’s first formula: “The Formula of Universal Law: ‘Act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law’ [Groundworks 4:421; cf. 4:402].” (Wood, A.W. 2005, p.135) This formula states that one should act in such a way that other people will learn from this action. That one is not to act in a way in which one would not be willing to allow others to act, for example expecting others not to lie, then one is required to do the same. Kant’s second formula: “The Formula of Humanity as End in Itself: “So act that you use humanity, whether in your own person or that of another, always at the same time as an end, never as a means’ [Groundworks 4:429; cf. 4:436].” (Wood, A.W. 2005, p.135) In other words this formula means that “Human beings have absolute worth, and every maxim we adopt should lead only to actions that always treat humanity, whether ourselves or others, as ends in themselves, and never simply as means to achieving our own ends.” (Mills Daniel, D., Mills Daniel. D.E. & Daniel, M. 2011, p.161) This categorical imperative simply states that people should always treat others with dignity, as an end and never use them as simple instruments. Kant believes that the consequences of an action are not what make it right or wrong, but that when doing

In James Rachels’ book, The Elements of Moral Philosophy, he expresses ideas within the concluding chapter, “What Would a Satisfactory Moral Theory be like?” that lay an silhouette of every moral approach we have discussed so far and compounding it into a final discussion with a couple of final contentions towards a comprehensive understanding of morality and the approaches we can make as moral guides to make decisions that are virtuous for each class without exception. Rachels’ gives thoughtful perspective on all subjects that we have learned about and makes final accumulations for the way we can decide to use these for our own benefit. While then expressing the virtues we must value for ourselves to have a best plan, and the ways our choices can help others in a positive aspect.

People have an intrinsic worth above mere things or possessions. In order for people to cohabitate peacefully and respectively, there’s a need for universal laws based on good will and absolute moral beliefs. It is this moral belief which is based on reason and must be uniformly abided by. This allows humanity to function as an amicable society; an amicable society that is achieved by treating ourselves and others with respect and dignity. Immanuel Kant’s theory known as the categorical imperative expressed an absolute belief in universal moral laws which enables humanity to be treated well. (Rachels EMP 129 & 139)

The next stage involves a critical analysis of the just described theoretical systems. We will explore the factors and influences involved in a chosen Case Study where personal influences are involved. Thereafter, we will look into different approaches a Kantian and a Utilitarian would address the issue and the reasons behind. It will be imperative to understand the actual factors influencing decisions under each of the moral systems identified (Lukas 22).

*Never treat people simply as means to an end but always at the same time as ends in themselves

The challenges Christianity faces are always changing. From Church order, justice, life issues, and science. These changes create a chain reaction in Christianity and traditionalist have a difficult time accepting this. With all the lectures and readings that we learned about this last seven weeks, I see that Christians are adapting to society 's views by my fellow classmate’s discussions and posts. The specific challenges that I will discuss are: Birth control, cloning, genetic engineering, and homosexuality. Hopefully by the end of this paper I would have given you enough explanation to why I agree or disagree with these scientific enhancements that are occurring in the world today. In order to get my point across I will discuss the challenges in a different view, why they are considered moral in today’s society, and why they are acceptable to Christianity.

In Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, every point, every major idea, and every argument made, is all connected back to the concept that every action seeks an ultimate good. Aristotle felt that there is an intrinsic good that humans aim for and that there is this "good life" we all mean to have. However, what does it mean to be good? That means something different to everyone; we all inhabit many different roles in our day to day lives, whether we strive to be a good parent, a good sibling, a good student, a good citizen, or a good leader. All emphasize the importance of our own well-being, as well as that of others, and the greater community as a whole. For the purpose of this paper, the focus will

JohnFinnis work is urging us to return to more classical as well as individual richer notion of natural law espoused by St. Thomas Acquinas that builds on the work of Aristotile and Cicero. This means an idea of natural law which is basically focused on achievement of good and ultimately on achievement on what, from social perspective by which we came to a conclusion of common goods. This creates an idea of although law and morality are not exactly the same but it is almost impossible to separate law completely from morality. All rights either legal or natural are aimed at enhancing some good. Some of the goods may be said to be intermediate or that is to say