Natural moral law

Created by: Stevie117
Created on: 12-10-15 20:40


	Natural moral law
	Advantages As it can be seen as absolutist, NML provides a firm moral foundation to rules with clear guidance at all times NML is flexible enough to accommodate different cultures because the secondary precepts are reasoned by the society, who can interpret the primary precepts with their time and practices Grotius argues that NML holds even if there were no God because it can be reasoned alongside nature (eg. we get our reason from nature) Offers a universal moral code because most people beliee in preserving life, building a good society, educating the young etc Judges the intrinsic value of actions, regarless of the consequences Possible problems can be overcome by the doctrine of double effects Because code is based on reason, it is open to everyone, religious or not NML is based on what it means to be human	Disadvantages Can sometimes be difficult to relate complex decisions to basic principles NML relies heavily on reason, implying that human beings are capable of reasoning accurately on complex matters Mullen stated that in extreme circumstances it may be necessary to go against NML in order to achieve a better end result. He argues once the principle of NML is broken once, it is vunerable in all cases The fact that all cultures have different values challenged the fact that there is a common nature Barth thought that NML relies too much on reason- the human nature is too corrupt to be trusted and there is not enough on the grace and forgiveness of God and the importance of the Bible Deontological so doesn't always consider the consequences, so might be viewed as unfair Primary precepts can be seen as too general
	Evaluation In conclusion, i think that natural moral law is a valid method for moral decision making as it is absolutist and focuses soley on the actions. This is important because, though striving to create ultimate goal of eudamonia, NML doesn't rely on knowing the outcome of actions, which are impossible to predict. Secondary precepts make NML more flexible as it means reason can be used to apply them to different circumstances. Furthermore it doesn't rely on the foundations of God because it can easily be argued that the theory is based on reason (that could have easily been a result of nature rather than God) Finally the argument that the human nature is too corrupt to be trusted is weak because if we can't trust the human nature, then we cannot trust any of the human laws we have made either. To some extent we have to trust human nature and our ability to use reason to come to sound decisions. NML is based on what it means to be human and, as a human, I believe it is a valid method for moral decision making.

Natural moral law

Advantages

As it can be seen as absolutist, NML provides a firm moral foundation to rules with clear guidance at all times
NML is flexible enough to accommodate different cultures because the secondary precepts are reasoned by the society, who can interpret the primary precepts with their time and practices
Grotius argues that NML holds even if there were no God because it can be reasoned alongside nature (eg. we get our reason from nature)
Offers a universal moral code because most people beliee in preserving life, building a good society, educating the young etc
Judges the intrinsic value of actions, regarless of the consequences
Possible problems can be overcome by the doctrine of double effects
Because code is based on reason, it is open to everyone, religious or not
NML is based on what it means to be human

Disadvantages

Can sometimes be difficult to relate complex decisions to basic principles
NML relies heavily on reason, implying that human beings are capable of reasoning accurately on complex matters
Mullen stated that in extreme circumstances it may be necessary to go against NML in order to achieve a better end result. He argues once the principle of NML is broken once, it is vunerable in all cases
The fact that all cultures have different values challenged the fact that there is a common nature
Barth thought that NML relies too much on reason- the human nature is too corrupt to be trusted and there is not enough on the grace and forgiveness of God and the importance of the Bible
Deontological so doesn't always consider the consequences, so might be viewed as unfair
Primary precepts can be seen as too general

Evaluation

In conclusion, i think that natural moral law is a valid method for moral decision making as it is absolutist and focuses soley on the actions. This is important because, though striving to create ultimate goal of eudamonia, NML doesn't rely on knowing the outcome of actions, which are impossible to predict. Secondary precepts make NML more flexible as it means reason can be used to apply them to different circumstances. Furthermore it doesn't rely on the foundations of God because it can easily be argued that the theory is based on reason (that could have easily been a result of nature rather than God) Finally the argument that the human nature is too corrupt to be trusted is weak because if we can't trust the human nature, then we cannot trust any of the human laws we have made either. To some extent we have to trust human nature and our ability to use reason to come to sound decisions. NML is based on what it means to be human and, as a human, I believe it is a valid method for moral decision making.

Get Revising

Natural moral law