Analysis on Natural Law

Critically Assess the View that Natural Law Allows for Clear Moral Decision-Making

Natural Law, as formulated by Thomas Aquinas and influenced by Aristotelian thought, claims to offer a universal and rational basis for morality. Rooted in deontological absolutism, it asserts that certain actions are intrinsically right or wrong regardless of circumstance, providing a framework for moral clarity. My essay will argue that, despite criticisms and complexities, Natural Law offers a clear and systematic guide to moral decision-making due to its universal principles, structured hierarchy of laws, and reliance on reason. However, as this analysis will show, while Natural Law is clear in its application, its rigidity and reliance on metaphysical assumptions may limit its practicality in a pluralistic, modern world. Nevertheless, its clarity as a cohesive and rational ethical system will be consistently demonstrated.

---

Aquinas’ Natural Law is absolutist and deontological, asserting that moral rules are fixed and universal, determined by the purpose or telos of human nature. This approach establishes clear moral boundaries, unaffected by cultural, temporal, or situational variations. For instance, the primary precepts—preserve life, reproduce, live in an ordered society, worship God, and seek knowledge—are non-negotiable truths derived from the principle of synderesis: “Good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided.” The clarity of Natural Law lies in its ability to provide a definitive answer to moral dilemmas. Actions are judged against an objective standard derived from reason and the natural order. As Aquinas argues, moral laws are discernible through reason alone, making them accessible even to non-believers. This universality is demonstrative of its clarity, as it eliminates subjective interpretation or relativism.

The deontological nature of Natural Law ensures consistency and eliminates moral ambiguity. As scholar Peter Vardy highlights, “Natural Law offers a fixed framework for resolving moral issues without the variability of emotions or outcomes.” However, critics argue that such rigidity may oversimplify complex moral situations. Yet, even in its rigidity, the clarity of its framework cannot be denied, aligning with the thesis that Natural Law provides clear moral decision-making.

Aquinas’ concept of the Four Tiers of Law is significant to the clarity of Natural Law, establishing a hierarchical framework that ensures consistent and rational moral decision-making. At its foundation lies Eternal Law, the absolute, unchanging reason of God that governs the universe. Aquinas describes this as “the type of Divine Wisdom as moving all things to their due end”, underscoring its universality and immutability. From this flows Divine Law, revealed through scripture and church teachings, which Aquinas believed corrects human fallibility by providing clear directives. For instance, the Ten Commandments exemplify Divine Law, offering explicit guidance on moral conduct. Jean Porter highlights how Divine Law ensures “accessibility to divine reason for those who might otherwise falter,” emphasizing its role in addressing human limitations.

Next is Natural Law, which Aquinas sees as humanity’s rational participation in Eternal Law, discernible through reason. He famously asserts, “Natural Law is the participation of the eternal law in the rational creature” (Summa Theologica), making it universally applicable irrespective of cultural or religious context. Natural Law bridges divine reasoning and human understanding, allowing even non-believers to determine moral truths through rational reflection. Finally, Human Law represents society’s enactment of these principles, translating them into specific legal codes. While valid only when aligned with higher laws, it provides practical order within communities. Aquinas notes, “Human law has the character of law to the extent that it accords with right reason.” However, as scholars like John Finnis argue, Human Law’s dependency on rationality means its validity can be undermined by subjective interpretations, a potential weakness of the system.Critics, such as Karl Barth, question the universality of Natural Law, arguing that reliance on human reason undermines divine authority, especially given humanity’s fallen nature. Alternatively, defenders like Hugo Grotius contend that the tiered structure highlights the clarity of Natural Law by ensuring that all laws are interconnected, guiding moral reasoning from divine wisdom to everyday societal norms. This interplay between eternal, divine, natural, and human law provides what I think is a coherent, unified framework that reinforces the clarity and accessibility of moral principles within Aquinas’ system, even when navigating complex ethical scenarios.

Aquinas also goes so far as to distinguish between apparent goods (misguided desires) and real goods (actions aligned with human flourishing and divine purpose). This distinction highlights the importance of reason in moral decision-making. For instance, adultery may appear to bring happiness but ultimately undermines the precept of living in an ordered society. Aquinas argues that through reason, individuals can overcome apparent goods and pursue real goods, cultivating the cardinal, aristoliean virtues of prudence, justice, fortitude, and temperance. This distinction enhances the clarity of Natural Law by providing a method to evaluate human actions and intentions. As Germain Grisez observes, “The concept of apparent and real goods reinforces the objective moral order, guiding individuals away from subjective error.” ALthough some critics argue that this framework may underestimate human fallibility and the complexity of moral psychology, I would argue that the clear differentiation between real and apparent goods strengthens the argument that Natural Law offers a rational and cohesive guide to morality as it adds an extra element to the judgment of actions by looking at intentions and deriving people from what are merely misguided desires..

The Doctrine of Double Effect (DDE) is a central aspect of Aquinas’ Natural Law theory, providing a method to navigate moral dilemmas where actions have both good and bad outcomes. It permits actions with unintended negative effects if the primary intention is morally good and aligned with Natural Law. For example, if a woman defends herself from an attacker, resulting in his death, her action is justified because her intention was self-preservation, not harm. Similarly, in palliative care, administering pain relief that may hasten death is morally permissible if the primary intent is to alleviate suffering. Aquinas supports this, stating in Summa Theologica: “Nothing hinders one act from having two effects, only one of which is intended, while the other is beside the intention.” Scholars like Philippa Foot argue that DDE rightly distinguishes between direct and oblique intentions, ensuring clarity in complex cases. Joseph Boyle similarly defends the principle for safeguarding moral integrity, emphasizing the agent’s responsibility for their intention rather than unintended outcomes. However, critics such as G.E.M. Anscombe highlight that intentions are often multifaceted and difficult to discern, risking manipulation to justify otherwise impermissible actions. For instance, while life-saving surgery during pregnancy that results in the death of a fetus aligns with DDE, opponents argue this reasoning could be exploited to justify abortion. Kai Nielsen further critiques DDE’s practical application, asserting that human motivations are rarely singular, complicating the separation of intended and foreseen effects. Despite these challenges, Jean Porter defends DDE as a principled framework for addressing morally ambiguous situations, where intent can guide action when outcomes are beyond full control. Ultimately, DDE illustrates the clarity of Natural Law by offering a structured approach to ethical dilemmas, prioritizing rationality and intent while maintaining moral precepts.

Critics such as Karl Barth challenge the universality of Natural Law, arguing that its reliance on human reason diminishes divine authority and overlooks humanity’s fallibility. Barth famously asserts that “natural theology is the invention of the human mind,” rejecting the idea that moral truths can be discerned independently of divine revelation. He emphasizes that human reason is corrupted by sin and incapable of grasping Eternal Law without explicit guidance from God. This critique suggests that Natural Law may not be universally accessible, particularly to non-believers or those without religious grounding. However, defenders such as Hugo Grotius argue that Natural Law’s rational foundation makes it universally applicable. Grotius contends that even if one “were to concede that there is no God,” the principles of Natural Law would still hold because they are rooted in human nature and reason rather than in any particular theological framework. This makes the system inclusive of secular individuals, who can still discern the precepts—such as preserving life or living in an ordered society—through rational reflection. Importantly, the universality of adherence to Natural Law is not the core issue; the question is whether it provides clear moral guidance, and this remains undeniable. The tiered structure ensures clarity by linking eternal, divine, natural, and human laws in a cohesive hierarchy,. Even if some individuals fail to abide by its principles, the system itself remains internally consistent and rationally comprehensible. Jean Porter defends the clarity of Natural Law, stating that its precepts are “accessible to reason and structured in a way that allows human beings to make rational judgments about right and wrong.” Secular critics may argue that reliance on divine tiers such as Eternal and Divine Law limits its universality, but these objections do not diminish the system’s coherence and clarity. As Aquinas himself posited, moral truths are discernible through reason alone, independent of belief in God. Thus, while Natural Law may not compel universal agreement or adherence, it provides an unambiguous and logically sound framework for moral decision-making, fulfilling its purpose as a clear and comprehensive ethical theory.

Natural Law offers a clear and systematic approach to moral decision-making through its absolutist principles, hierarchical framework, and reliance on reason. While criticisms regarding its rigidity and metaphysical assumptions persist, these do not undermine its inherent coherence and clarity. By distinguishing between apparent and real goods, applying the Doctrine of Double Effect, and adapting secondary precepts, Natural Law provides a rational and cohesive guide to morality. Ultimately, despite its limitations, Natural Law’s clarity lies in its ability to offer definitive moral answers grounded in many thoroughly explained principles; regardless of personal agreement with its conclusions, Natural Law stands as a clear and thorough ethical system