PHIL-101, Ethics. HW 6 Study Guide

5. What is the difference between Aristotle and Aquinas on the theistic basis of natural laws?

Aristotle's god was not a creator god. Aquinas believed that God created the universe according to a plan and thus, so to speak, put into the natures of things their natural orientation. Their good is to fulfill their natures as this was intended by their creator.

8. Give examples of natural rights tradition.

John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, and Thomas Aquinas provide examples of natural rights theory. One can also find many contemporary examples, often in discussions of a philosophy of law.

1. Give the basic definition of natural law theory.

Natural law theory is a moral theory that holds that there is an objective moral good and bad, right and wrong, that this is knowable by natural human reason, and is derived from human nature and its inherent orientation to its fulfillment and well functioning.

3. In what way is natural law theory teleological?

Natural law theory is teleological in that it is based on human nature and its directedness to an end. Human nature has an inherent orientation to right functioning, its end. Thus the theory is teleological or goal-oriented.

7. Describe the basis of rights according to the natural rights theorists.

Natural rights theorists rely on notions about human nature and what is essential for it to function well as a basis for determining what should be considered a basis natural right. Thus if being able to speak one's mind is an essential requirement for fulfilling one's human nature, then freedom of speech defined in some way should be considered a natural right.

9. Explain one of the things that a natural rights theorist must show to prove that we ground right in human nature.

Natural rights theorists, like natural law theorists, must show why human nature is the basis for moral good and rights. They must also distinguish those things that are essential for human nature and those which are less essential or that are more individual interests or desires than nature's needs.

6. Explain one area of concern or criticism of natural law theory.

One criticism has to do with the issue of whether an ought can be derived from an is. In other words whether the way things are naturally is a good basis for what they ought to be, whether the way things are is good. Related to this is the question of whether natural law theory requires a theistic basis in a belief in a good creator God. Another is how to determine natural species capacities.

2. What is the difference between the scientific laws of nature and the natural law?

Scientific laws of nature are descriptive laws. They tell how we believe nature does behave. The natural law is a prescriptive law. It tells us how we ought to behave.

4. What specific natural or human species capacities are singled out by natural law theorists? How do these determine what we ought to do, according to the theory?

Various natural law theorists will describe human nature and its essential characteristics differently. Some, however, have stressed the biological characteristics of nutrition and growth, the sentient characteristics of feeling and sense knowledge, the cognitive characteristics of knowing and reasoning, and social characteristics that concern how we relate to each other. What we ought to do is develop these capacities, act in ways characteristic of our species or human nature, and function well humanly.