‘Is Natural Law A Helpful Method In Moral Decision Making?’- Discuss
Cicero in De Re Publica voiced that ‘True law is right reason in agreement with nature’. Aquinas is
the philosopher who followed this very concept, through his system of natural law, a deontological
theory based on the behaviour that accords with given laws or moral principles that exist
independently of human societies and systems. Aquinas, who was heavily influenced by Aristotle,
believed that every human being has a telos, which they achieve through following Natural Moral
Law. The question as to whether this concept is helpful in moral decision making is a great debate,
with the system providing both strengths and weaknesses. However, this essay will support the notion
that Natural Law is not a helpful method in moral decision making, as well as including the scholars
Aristotle, Aquinas, as well as Neilson.
One could argue that natural law is a helpful method of moral decision making due to the fact it is a
deontological theory. It is a logical, rational basis for the purpose of our lives, and supplies us with an
objective and universal set of rules for humanity to follow in order to achieve Eudaimonia.
Eudaimonia was used by Aristotle as a broad concept to describe the highest good humans could
strive towards. Additionally, for Aristotle, Eudaimonia was achieved universally through synderesis,
the principle to do good and avoid evil, the rule which all precepts follow. Therefore the fact that this
theory created is deontological provides it to be a good method of moral decision making because of
its simplicity, thus making it easy to follow and the rule-based primary precepts do not require
interpretation. In addition to this, some scholars argue that this is applicable to non Christians, as it
uses reason. It allows humans to understand right and wrong and what our purpose is as humans,
therefore it could be argued it provides fulfilment. A scholar who criticises the deontological theory, is
Kai Neilson, who’s counter argument is based on cultural relativism. The scholar argues against
Aquinas’ belief in a single human nature common to all societies. Differing moral standards and
cultural relativism challenge the idea of natural law. For example many people have changeable
natures, human beings can have different sexual preferences, and thus Natural Law is more complex
than Aquinas initially thought. Therefore, a rigid, deontological approach, although simple to follow
and thus helpful in moral decision making, has other weaknesses in relation to its pragmatism and
effectiveness.
Aquinas proposed the four tiers of law, which allow all humans to fundamentally understand whether
their actions are morally right or wrong. The first of these is eternal law, the principles by which God
created and controls the universe, it can only truly be known to God as it is his intentions and will.
Divine Law is the revelation of Eternal Law, knowing the law of God through the Bible and the
Church. However, this law does not acknowledge that not everyone may not have access to a Bible or
a Church and thus Aquinas believed that it was Natural Law which allowed us to do good and avoid
evil, and it is believed humans have a natural sense to follow this rule. Finally, Human Laws are the
everyday laws of a nation in order to maintain an ordered society. In some ways, it therefore can be
said that natural law is the most accessible law, due to the fact that it is already within us, the
unconscious decision to follow synderesis. However, the idea that there is an inbuilt sense to follow
this concept is fundamentally flawed, as one may argue that it cannot be proven that all humans have
this, and in some cases it is clear they do not. An example to support that not all humans obtain this
intrinsic goodness, is psychopaths, who have no inherent feeling to do good and thus it is questionable
as to whether Natural law is in all our humanity. Therefore, although Aquinas believed that everyone
had shared a built-in synderesis rule, it is too broad to assume that everyone has this and therefore if
there are some people who inherently do bad things, it cannot be considered as a universal law that is
a helpful method in moral decision making.
Cicero in De Re Publica voiced that ‘True law is right reason in agreement with nature’. Aquinas is
the philosopher who followed this very concept, through his system of natural law, a deontological
theory based on the behaviour that accords with given laws or moral principles that exist
independently of human societies and systems. Aquinas, who was heavily influenced by Aristotle,
believed that every human being has a telos, which they achieve through following Natural Moral
Law. The question as to whether this concept is helpful in moral decision making is a great debate,
with the system providing both strengths and weaknesses. However, this essay will support the notion
that Natural Law is not a helpful method in moral decision making, as well as including the scholars
Aristotle, Aquinas, as well as Neilson.
One could argue that natural law is a helpful method of moral decision making due to the fact it is a
deontological theory. It is a logical, rational basis for the purpose of our lives, and supplies us with an
objective and universal set of rules for humanity to follow in order to achieve Eudaimonia.
Eudaimonia was used by Aristotle as a broad concept to describe the highest good humans could
strive towards. Additionally, for Aristotle, Eudaimonia was achieved universally through synderesis,
the principle to do good and avoid evil, the rule which all precepts follow. Therefore the fact that this
theory created is deontological provides it to be a good method of moral decision making because of
its simplicity, thus making it easy to follow and the rule-based primary precepts do not require
interpretation. In addition to this, some scholars argue that this is applicable to non Christians, as it
uses reason. It allows humans to understand right and wrong and what our purpose is as humans,
therefore it could be argued it provides fulfilment. A scholar who criticises the deontological theory, is
Kai Neilson, who’s counter argument is based on cultural relativism. The scholar argues against
Aquinas’ belief in a single human nature common to all societies. Differing moral standards and
cultural relativism challenge the idea of natural law. For example many people have changeable
natures, human beings can have different sexual preferences, and thus Natural Law is more complex
than Aquinas initially thought. Therefore, a rigid, deontological approach, although simple to follow
and thus helpful in moral decision making, has other weaknesses in relation to its pragmatism and
effectiveness.
Aquinas proposed the four tiers of law, which allow all humans to fundamentally understand whether
their actions are morally right or wrong. The first of these is eternal law, the principles by which God
created and controls the universe, it can only truly be known to God as it is his intentions and will.
Divine Law is the revelation of Eternal Law, knowing the law of God through the Bible and the
Church. However, this law does not acknowledge that not everyone may not have access to a Bible or
a Church and thus Aquinas believed that it was Natural Law which allowed us to do good and avoid
evil, and it is believed humans have a natural sense to follow this rule. Finally, Human Laws are the
everyday laws of a nation in order to maintain an ordered society. In some ways, it therefore can be
said that natural law is the most accessible law, due to the fact that it is already within us, the
unconscious decision to follow synderesis. However, the idea that there is an inbuilt sense to follow
this concept is fundamentally flawed, as one may argue that it cannot be proven that all humans have
this, and in some cases it is clear they do not. An example to support that not all humans obtain this
intrinsic goodness, is psychopaths, who have no inherent feeling to do good and thus it is questionable
as to whether Natural law is in all our humanity. Therefore, although Aquinas believed that everyone
had shared a built-in synderesis rule, it is too broad to assume that everyone has this and therefore if
there are some people who inherently do bad things, it cannot be considered as a universal law that is
a helpful method in moral decision making.
