Natural Law/Virtue Ethics

Morality and Human Nature Natural Law Theory

Based upon assumption that the good is consistent with fundamental design

Not the laws of nature, those laws are descriptive Moral laws – prescriptive in that they tell us how we

ought to behave

Historical Origins: Aristotle (through Aquinas) An observer of Nature His teleological view provides a conclusion about

human good

Aquinas’ Hierarchy Eternal Law

The law of God’s regulative reason Natural Law

That part of God’s Law that is incorporated into human nature

Divine Law The Law that man receives by special

revelation from God

Human Law Law devised by man for specific purposes

Natural Inclinations Life

Natural inclination to self-preservation

Procreation Natural inclination to reproduce

Knowledge Natural inclination to learn

Sociability Natural inclination to love and seek

affection

Qualifying Principles Principle of Forfeiture

A person who threatens the life of an innocent person forfeits his own right to life

Principle or Doctrine of Double Effect Distinguishes between the intended and

the foreseen but unintended consequences of actions

Doctrine of Double-Effect

It is permissible to perform an act that will have bad effects only if:

The act is good in itself The bad effect is unavoidable The intention of the actor is good The bad effect(s) are not part of the purpose The good effect is sufficiently good to compensate for

the bad effect

Key point are: “intentions” and “avoidability”

Applying Double-Effect

Is the actpermissible?

Is the actpermissible?

Not permissible - Forbidden

Yes YesIntended

PassesPassesIs the bad effectavoidable?

Is the bad effectavoidable?

Is the bad effectthe means ofproducing thegood effect?

Is the bad effectthe means ofproducing thegood effect?

Is the bad effectproportionate?

Is the bad effectproportionate?

YesNot

IntendedNoYes

NoNo

Evaluating Natural Law Theory Determination of actions is a result of seeing

moral law in human nature

Can the way things are by nature provide a basis for knowing how they ought to be?

Chance, direction, and the purpose of life

Virtue Ethics• Focuses on the character of the moral

agent performing the action

Intentions will be an important consideration but will not be the only consideration

Consequences may also be important Principles may also be important

• According to virtue ethics, an action is right if and only if it is what a moral agent with a virtuous character would do in those circumstances

Aristotle on the Virtues Believed that the ultimate good for man was

eudaimonia (i.e., living a fulfilling, satisfying life)

Believed a person had to develop in themself certain virtues of character, in order to achieve eudaimonia

Virtues included courage, self-restraint, justice, temperance, honesty, benevolence, love of knowledge, generosity, etc.

Most important virtue was phronesis, practical wisdom, which guided one as to when particular virtues were appropriately displayed

Two Types of Virtue Intellectual virtues represent

excellences in reasoning skills that can be taught through inquiry and study.

Moral virtues, by contrast, are products of habit that begin in childhood and are strengthened in adult life.

The Golden Mean• Aristotle also spoke of the importance of

“The Golden Mean”

• Essentially states that each virtue should be displayed at an appropriate level: not too little, not too much

Too little courage is cowardice, too much courage is recklessness

Lack of honesty is a vice, but being too honest is also a vice

Every science, investigation or action aims at some good. Such good exists in a hierarchy, with the lesser goods being instrumental in the seeking of higher goods, but many things are good in and of themselves.

The highest good will be the final goal of purposeful striving, something good for its own sake. For humans this good is eudaimonia (happiness/flourishing), which is always an end in itself.

The arête (excellence/virtue) of anything resides in its proper function.

The proper function of human beings, and therefore their moral excellence (arête), resides in the “active life of the rational element.”

Therefore, the good for human beings is “an activity of the soul in conformity with excellence/virtue.” Such a life necessarily involves acting in accordance with reason.

To act in accordance with reason is a matter of observing the principle of the mean relative to us, i.e. finding the appropriate response between excess and deficiency in a particular situation.

The traditional virtues, e.g. courage, all fit within this scheme

Virtue ethics is not concerned so much with actions or duties as with the development of character.

The development of a proper character is what will lead to proper action, not simply conformity to some rule or duty.

Thus virtue ethics concerns itself more with being the type of individual who will make proper moral decisions rather than with defining rules/duties which will direct action independent of the individual who is faced with a moral decision.

Contemporary Virtue Ethics Virtue Theory revived in late 20th century due

to dissatisfaction with consequentialist and deontological theories

Universalizes virtue as the basis of the theory All moral agents should seek to develop a virtuous

character Right action is based upon what a person with a

virtuous character would do in those circumstances

Correct answers to moral problems can only be obtained through understanding of the virtues Consequences and principles are merely tools to aid

the moral agent

William Frankena – “A Critique of Virtue-Based Ethics” “principles without traits are impotent

and traits without principles are blind”

Virtue ethics defines traits of character that we admire, but cannot provide a satisfactory explanation for why we should admire those specific traits over others.

Continued. Principles without dispositions toward

action are likewise without teeth.

Frankena sees the two approaches as complementary, rather than competitive