This essay received 36/40 and so is an A* essay.
Question; 'Natural Law is not convincing'
Obviously the essay is not perfect, but hopefully it can still be used as a demonstration of structure and ability to argue points.
Natural Law is not convincing because of the idea of cultural relativism. Our nature is a product of culture and
society and different cultures have different views on right and wrong. Nielsen questions the unchanging nature of
the primary precepts in Natural Law as there are flaws. For example, the primary precept of having to reproduce
cannot be unchanging. There are some women who have fertility issues and cannot reproduce showing that not all
people are able to follow all the primary precepts. Aquinas believed that the primary precepts were the five rules in
which humans have to follow to promote human flourishing and that if we follow these rules, we will get to heaven.
However, the fact that there are problems with the primary precepts suggests that Natural Law is reductionist and
too simplistic as it doesn’t consider the problem of infertility. Aquinas’ version of Natural Law is unconvincing as he
relies too much in a belief in God. The fact that Aquinas says that the reason we follow the primary precepts is to get
to heaven gives atheist’s the option not to follow them.
Aquinas would disagree with my argument as they believe that Natural Law is flexible and that humans follow the
rule of synderesis – the most fundamental is to do good and avoid evil. Aquinas believes that all humans naturally
have good instincts. Therefore, a belief in God is not necessary because Natural Law has the secondary precepts
which allows the individual to work out for themselves what is objectively right and true, not relying on religious
authority, scripture or tradition. Aristotle would also argue that Natural Law allows the secondary precepts to vary
according to culture because they are the practical working out of the universal primary precepts. For example, the
primary precept ‘to preserve life’ is a key rule which promotes human flourishing. If someone was in a situation in
which they had built up anger and felt like taking away life in the moment, they could use the secondary precepts to
work out what is the moral thing to do, with knowledge of the primary precepts. On the other hand, this argument is
not entirely convincing as it causes uncertainty. Another of the primary precepts is ‘to worship god’ therefore, you
cannot create an ethical theory which derives only from religion otherwise the reliability of the theory is limited. In
addition, Gareth Moore would argue that humans are not born with a ‘tendency to do good’ but argues that natural
selfishness becomes moralised by upbringing, culture and socialisation.
Another reason for Natural Law being unconvincing is that in some ways Natural Law can have immoral outcomes. In
terms of sexual ethics – in the primary precepts it rules out contraception, this removal has led to more and more
cases of AIDS across the globe. In terms of business ethics also, following the precept of education, could lead to
other areas of business being severely neglected. The unchanging nature of the primary precepts is flawed because it
doesn’t take into account that there are some exceptions. This indicates that Natural Law is not convincing because
it the five primary precepts are not fixed and differ for different individuals. Pope Paul VI condemned the use of
artificial contraception as intrinsic evil. The Cairo Conference highlighted the problems of overpopulation and that
the availability of artificial contraception has revolutionised women’s rights. This further shows how unconvincing
Natural Law is because it denies women’s autonomy to control their fertility.
In contrast, Rachels 2006:50 would disagree as he believes Natural Law has an exalted view of human beings.
Humans are capable of using their reason to work out how to live. So, we are not slaves to our passions or our genes.
Natural Law has a purpose, a flourishing society and happiness being fulfilled. It is not ultimately about restricting us
by rules but setting us free to fulfil our proper purpose. If we can agree on our purpose, we can agree on what
morality is for. ‘The natural world is not to be regarded merely as a realm of facts…Instead, the world is conceived to
be a rational order with value and purpose built into its very nature.’ This quote shows that Natural Law values
human life highly and shows that the world has meaning, purpose and values, making Natural Law convincing
because it thrives on bringing about happiness to our lives in order to fulfil our purpose. Nevertheless, the doctrine
of the double effect says that if doing something morally good has a morally bad side-effect, it is ethically OK to do it
– providing the bad side-effect wasn’t intended. This brings about consequentialism and allows you to do some
terrible things. Moreover, not everything found in nature is good. For example, natural disasters or cancerous
tumours. These things are good at fulfilling their purpose but not good at the traditional notion of goodness,
showing that Natural Law is not convincing because not everything that is natural provides good outcomes –
disregarding the argument that everything is naturally good.
There is some confusion as to what our purpose really is. How do we know that our purpose is to reproduce? The
existence of the male G-spot suggests that homosexuality may not be totally immoral. Certain body parts such as the
clitoris suggest that our purpose may be pleasure instead of reproduction. This clearly opposes the primary precept
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller laurajevans004. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for £5.96. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
