Natural Theory of Morality

1) What is the Theory?

According to natural law, a just society should be built around the universal moral principles that are ingrained in all human beings and have existed throughout time. Natural law is not explicitly taught to humans; rather, we “discover” it by continuously choosing good over evil.

2) Main thinkers of the Theory:

Aristotle and Plato were two of the early Greek philosophers to define natural law. Although Plato did not have a theory of natural law, some of his theories contained elements of it. Aristotle, on the other hand, emphasised the contrast between law and nature. The Stoics are responsible for the development of natural justice as a result of this.

Then Cicero contrasted positive law, which would contribute to society’s safety, with natural law, which may contribute to society’s overall well-being. Natural law theory was nevertheless the subject of numerous contributions, such as those made in the Renaissance and Age of Enlightenment. Modern natural law theories were developed as a result, fusing social contract theory and other philosophical tenets with natural law. Ancient Greeks were aware of the principle of natural law, which was later developed by other philosophers. Aristotle, Plato, and Thomas Aquinas are three significant philosophers who helped shape natural law.

3) Its Criticisms:

People’s varying interpretations of nature pose one challenge for the natural law hypothesis. Should this be the case if, as the natural law theory claims, human reason can understand the moral code that governs human nature? How do we identify the fundamental or morally admirable aspects of human nature? Very favourable characteristics have been highlighted by traditional natural law theory, including the desire to know the truth, to choose the good, and to develop as healthy adult human beings.

But some philosophers, like Hobbes, have concluded that people are fundamentally selfish. The idea that morally acceptable behaviour is consistent with human nature and morally wrong behaviour is inconsistent with human nature is debatable. For instance, should we conclude that war and fighting are morally just if it turns out that humans (at least the males) are inherently aggressive? Are we justified in arguing that certain inherent tendencies or propensities should be developed, even if we inherit them? What justifications exist for choosing the good, for instance? According to Aquinas, God placed the order in nature so that it would exist.

Others, like Aristotle, disagreed with the notion that this order was inspired by God. Does accepting the existence of a Creator God make sense in light of the purported natural moral order? The idea that there is a moral natural order has been questioned by evolutionary theory in large part because, according to this view, species have evolved to meet their survival demands.

It is unlikely that one can deduce moral rules prohibiting adultery, rape, homosexuality, and other behaviours from biological information about human nature or from information about the fundamental characteristics of Homo sapiens. However, opponents of the natural law hypothesis argue that it is unlikely that Homo sapiens’ fundamental nature generates norms of behaviour for people in the same way that it might establish laws of behaviour for cats, lions, and polar bears. It is particularly challenging since the environment, or deliberate and unintentional conditioning, training, and education, shapes so much of human behaviour.

The question is complicated, especially when attempting to determine if the theory is predicated on the existence of god, because two philosophers who are essential to the theory—Aquinas and Aristotle—have conflicting perspectives on the place of god in nature. The intrinsic essence of humans may not be the same for animals in terms of establishing laws of behaviour, which poses challenges for the idea. This goes against the notion and suggests that human conduct may be primarily influenced by the environment to which one is exposed, including socioeconomic classes, education, and upbringing.