Religion Natural Law

Human laws as a tool for teaching, clarifying & motivating us

"Thomas [Aquinas] does not think that the natural law alone can tell us everything we need to know about our moral obligations. It can show us 'the acts to which nature immediately inclines us,' but there are [specific] good acts that we can only learn about by a process of rational investigation. Human laws can develop the natural law by spelling out the conclusions that follow from its premises or specifying in more detail what the natural law requires in particular circumstances." (Messer, 47) It's said that well-crafted human-made laws of government, church, families, employers, etc. should harmonize with natural law and virtue. (Aquinas calls these 'positive law'—Messer p. 45) Wise laws should get us in the habit of practicing behavior that is beneficial rather than harmful. (Note the link with the lesson on virtue.) They should also be tools for clarifying what is helpful/ harmful. They will often use incentives and/or punishments to motivate good behavior.

Primary Precepts

3 Basic Truths 1. All creatures, including humans, have a natural inclination to preserve their own life/being (=self-preservation). 2. All living creatures, including humans, have a natural inclination to procreate and/or nurture children/future generations (progeny). 3. . Humans, unlike other less-rational creatures, have a natural inclination to seek intellectual, spiritual, and social fulfillment.  We fulfill our potential by seeking the truth and living in an orderly community, or as Messer puts it, "avoiding ignorance and not offending those we live with" (p. 46)

Absolute Relativism

A more radical variation is absolute relativism, where each individual is free to choose his or her moral standards and there is no place for critiquing ANYONE's behavior.

3 basic human needs

According to natural law thinkers, there are 3 basic truths regarding human nature and human needs (also called primary precepts or first premises). Other shared moral standards ought to be based on these needs. 1. All creatures, including humans, have a natural inclination to preserve their own life/being (=self-preservation). 2. All living creatures, including humans, have a natural inclination to procreate and/or nurture children/future generations (progeny). 3. . Humans, unlike other less-rational creatures, have a natural inclination to seek intellectual, spiritual, and social fulfillment.  We fulfill our potential by seeking the truth and living in an orderly community, or as Messer puts it, "avoiding ignorance and not offending those we live with" (p. 46)

General religious thought on natural law

According to religious N.L. perspectives, if there's one God who created us all, and if humans are all members of the same species, then, it makes sense that certain behaviors benefit humans of all times and places, and others always harm or threaten core human needs.

Reproductive Technologies

According to the Catholic magisterial documents Donum Vitae (1987) and Dignitas Personae (2009), reproductive techniques are considered unacceptable if they destroy or harm human embryos, involve fertilization outside the mother's body, donors/surrogates, or masturbation. The magisterium has also warned that the infertility industry creates a mindset which treats children as commercial products, as something we have a 'right to obtain,' or even to 'design,' rather than as persons received as guests, with hospitality and unconditional love. Some procedures, like adoption and gestation of 'excess' embryos stored in laboratories/clinics, are the subject of lively ethical conversation. Thus far, the Catholic magisterium has not commented extensively on these newly-developed practices.

Human Reason, Experience, & Scripture

All Christians believe that scripture helps compensate for human weaknesses in understanding what is 'natural' and good for us. But how much help is needed? Some Christians, particularly in the Protestant traditions, emphasize scripture primarily, or even 'scripture alone,' as a reliable authority. They assume human reason is seriously flawed by sin, and it isn't reliable on its own. So, they give less explicit attention to the idea of natural law (but they may assume it implicitly). Other Christians—Catholics in particular—assume that human reason is damaged by sin, but a well-educated conscience can still can give us some/much reliable insight about what's good, even if we have never read scripture. These Christians more often refer to natural law (Example: Pope Francis' view on an atheist following his/her conscience). Christians who embrace N.L. theory believe God's will is revealed not only in scripture (=special revelation), but also in patterns and order of creation (=general revelation). General revelation is knowable not only for Christians, but for all humans who observe God's creation and reflect on it reasonably, with their consciences, together with other humans who are trying to do the same.

Are we ready for the challenge?

Aquinas said that as we apply basic premises of N.L. to specific cases, we may encounter instances where an established law does not seem to fit. He said human laws sometimes need to be revised--for instance, when situations arise that original lawmakers did not foresee. As humanity becomes increasingly connected by technology, travel, and business, we can expect unforeseen situations. We will be challenged to clarify specific moral standards that ought to be upheld universally.

Do nature and reason give us clear enough signals?

Can lack of consensus about what's 'natural' be overcome? Sometimes we disagree about more than specific applications; sometimes we seem to disagree about more basic premises. Ex: natural-law language has been used to argue both for and against women's equality, slavery and homosexuality. This, in turn, raises the question of how to distinguish what is natural from what is merely traditional or culturally customary.

What counts as direct?

Can we distinguish 'directly choosing' evil actions from 'indirectly causing' them or 'tolerating' them? An extensive body of literature has developed around the 'double effect principle,' which is intended to provide criteria for making this distinction, particularly in medical ethics and ethics of war. (These will be covered during 2nd semester.) In condemning 'direct' abortion, at least one high-level magisterial source indicates that an unborn child should not be classified as an aggressor in cases of life-threatening pregnancy. (John Paul II, EV #58) Although his statement is posed as a rhetorical question, JPII seems to be critiquing ethicists who argue that the 'material aggression' precedent can be applied in this case, to distinguish it from a direct abortion. This topic remains debated even among Catholic ethical scholars, even among conservative ones, as in the much-publicized 'Phoenix case.'

Specifics/Secondary Precepts

Communities which have a sense of natural law infer specific applications of these basic human needs, such as obligations to tell the truth and to refrain from adultery called secondary precepts or secondary injunctions. Humans are rational and social creatures. Reason tells us that humanity cannot survive and flourish unless we enable each other to fulfill our human needs. Therefore, it is presumed that we have a duty to protect each other's ability to pursue the purposes for which God created it, for the common good. However, humans are not always mature or well-educated by wise mentors. And so, unlike creatures which pursue their natural purposes primarily or solely by instinct, humans often choose to behave unreasonably. (Notice the link between nature & virtue—we have an inborn capacity for good habits, but it needs to be trained.) Messer says, "Although the first premises of natural law are self-evident, the secondary injunctions are not, so there are rules required by natural law that are not recognized by everyone." (p. 47)

Secondary Precepts

Communities which have a sense of natural law infer specific applications of these basic human needs, such as obligations to tell the truth and to refrain from adultery called secondary precepts or secondary injunctions. - More specific laws to follow

Other specific applications

Directives for U.S. Catholic hospitals say employees should be paid a just wage or living wage, adequate to support the life of the worker (premise #1) AND dependent family members (premise #2). A just wage should provide necessities such as food and shelter (#1), but also a modest amount of intellectual, spiritual, and social pursuits (premise #3). Traditional N.L. ethicists say abortion is direct killing of innocent human life (which opposes premise #1). It rejects the procreative outcome of sexual intercourse and the duty of parents to care for their children (which opposes premise #2). If society fails to provide women facing crisis pregnancies viable alternatives to abortion, we fail in our duty to promote the common good (which opposes premise #3).

Sometimes communities and teaching authorities reclassify particular actions, in light of knowledge, intentions, or circumstances which didn't exist in the past, or weren't fully appreciated in the past.

Examples: In the 19th century, some Christian churches split as a portion of members became convinced that slavery was intrinsically evil. Eventually, this view became (virtually) unanimous among Christians, even though previously, slavery was (virtually) unanimously accepted.

Long-term, community-minded—A tough sell

First premises of NL (and secondary precepts) are assumed to be understandable to all humans—but in practice, NL-based ideas may seem counterintuitive, depending on the culture. Some efforts to apply NL to specific situations can be a "tough sell" in terms of popularity. N.L. tradition presumes we always keep the good of the entire human community (or species) in mind, and it has a long-term perspective. "We're all in this together. Let's do what's good for ourselves and the human community in the long run, including future generations, even if it's not easy in the short term." Some cultures, such as the contemporary U.S. culture, tend to think in terms of individual fulfillment, often from a short-term perspective. This individualistic emphasis is not necessarily good for us, but it's a reality we have to reckon with, if we want to be persuasive in moral conversations.

Many belief systems recognize intrinsically evil acts, but they sometimes disagree as to which acts fall into this category. Behaviors considered intrinsically evil by some, but morally neutral by others, include:

For Jehovah's Witnesses, blood transfusions fall in this category; for Christian scientists, immunizations do; for Catholicism, some artificial reproductive techniques are considered intrinsically illicit. Several religious traditions classify homoerotic activity as objectively disordered/intrinsically evil. For some Christians, any use of alcohol/tobacco or gambling is considered wrong. For some animal rights advocates, any killing of animals for food, clothing, or medical research is objectively evil. For strict pacifists, any direct killing of humans, and sometimes other animals (including war, death penalty, self-defense) is considered intrinsically evil. Once a category of 'intrinsically evil acts' is identified, there remains a challenge of clearly describing which behaviors fit that category, and which don't.

Example: NATURAL LAW TRADITION REGARDING MARRIAGE AND SEX

For many centuries, natural law tradition (particularly in Western cultures) has presumed marriage and sexual relations should follow the moral standards described below. Historically, this area of NL tradition has strongly influenced Catholic magisterial teaching. Sex and marriage are a public/communal concern, since they're meant to raise children and thus preserve human society. People who have sex should be willing to accept children who are the natural outcome of sex. Marriage should be permanent & monogamous, for the well-being of children and spouses, and orderliness in society. For the same reasons, sexual relations are appropriate only within marriage. Only heterosexual activity is natural. Sexual pleasure is in harmony with human nature if spouses are willing to procreate (or, at least, open to procreation) and willing to nurture any children who may be conceived. Aquinas called this "proportionate" pleasure that was "ordered" to its natural purpose. Marriage and sex should be respectful of gender roles --For much of history, including Christian history, women have been described as naturally subordinate to men, who have been considered the 'head' of their families. Recently, N.L. thinkers such as Pope John Paul II have said the two genders have distinct but 'complementary' and equally important roles. In particular, JPII's writings presume mothers have a 'natural' role as primary caretaker of young children.

Evolving Developments On Contraception

For much of Catholic/Christian history, procreation was called the 'primary' purpose of marriage/sex; any other purpose was called 'secondary.' Vatican II and later magisterial sources have treated procreation and union/mutual self-giving as 'inseparable' natural purposes which are equally important; both should be respected in all sexual relations. In the mid-20th century, the Catholic Magisterium began to accept 'natural' methods of family planning based on awareness of women's fertility cycles. Pope Pius XII's Casti Connubii (1930) said it was not "against nature" for spouses to "use their [sexual] right in the proper manner although on account of natural reasons either of time or of certain defects, new life cannot be brought forth." It is said that NFP (Natural Family Planning) respects natural law because it does not attempt to artificially separate sex from procreation. In recent decades, Catholicism has enthusiastically promoted NFP not only as a means for 'responsible parenthood' but also to promote spouses' unity. This is a recent development of the Catholic Tradition. By the mid 20th c., most other Christian traditions came to accept both NFP and 'artificial' contraception, but some of these people clarify that there is a crucial moral distinction between unacceptable methods which may disrupt embryos after fertilization, compared to those which prevent fertilization, which they consider acceptable.

At the root of debates about intrinsically evil and morally neutral acts is that people don't immediately recognize the same behaviors as beneficial or harmful.

However, sometimes differences of opinion can be resolved through open-minded investigation and sharing of evidence. Ex: attitudes toward left-handedness and intoxicated driving have evolved within recent history.

Human nature & natural law

Humans have common physical needs based on our genetic similarity. But is there more to 'human nature' than our physical traits? Our appreciation of literature, art, music, sports, philosophy, engineering, cuisine, etc. from many cultures, times, and places supports the premise that some core needs and values--besides physical ones--are shared by all humans, regardless of where or when they live. Do these include shared moral values, and shared moral duties? The ethical tradition based on natural law says: YES Natural law-based thought can be secular/humanistic (ex: United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights; it can be minimally or implicitly religious (ex: Aristotle, U.S. Declaration of Independence) or thoroughly and explicitly religious (ex: Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologiae).

Some human laws are not wisely crafted.

If a law does not motivate good behavior, despite lawmakers' good intentions, it may be so ineffective that it should be revised. Sometimes a human law is unjust, or out of harmony with virtue/natural law. For N.L. thinkers, such a law has no true authority and we can justly disobey it (=conscientious objection).

Ordering, cont'd

If we try to procreate with strangers whenever the urge strikes us, as many other species do, we'll undermine our ability to nurture children over a long span of time, as human children need (unlike many other species). We'll also undermine our ability to live in an orderly community, and to foster lasting emotional relationships which seem to be the most fulfilling context for human sexual experience.

Scripture vs. Natural Law

In its religious form, N.L. ethics says scripture doesn't contradict natural law, because both derive from the same God. Yet, scripture does reveal truths about human fulfillment that aren't so readily known by reason—ex: life after earthly death; the value of forgiveness and heroic sacrifice. (Yet, even these beliefs aren't unique to religious people.) Scripture also clarifies that humans can be short-sighted or mistaken about what's truly good for us. Unlike other animals, we can rebel against what God wants for us. Thus, we do need guidance and correction as we try to follow natural law. Painting: Pierre Puvis de Chavannes - The Prodigal Son

How specific can universal moral standards be?

It's usually not so difficult for people to understand and accept the 'first premises' of N.L. But in applying basic premises of natural law to specific situations, there is more likely to be disagreement about what practices best conform with our natural fulfillment. Ex: We may agree that, to flourish as a human community (premise #3), it is important that people tell the truth. But as we develop community expectations for truth-telling, it may be hard to attain consensus about what information people have a right to know. Furthermore, what exactly is a lie, as contrasted to an exaggeration, a bluff, or protecting confidentiality? What specific statements or omissions qualify as "bearing false witness"? Ex: We may agree with the premise that parents are responsible to raise their children (premise #2), but disagree about how to respond in specific cases where parents seem to neglect this responsibility, or about how to prevent irresponsible people from becoming parents.

Intrinsically Evil

Labels like objectively evil, intrinsically evil, and intrinsically illicit are synonyms used to name behaviors considered most risky and hurtful.

Catholic tradition tries to forewarn people with 'warning labels'

Labels like objectively evil, intrinsically evil, and intrinsically illicit are synonyms used to name behaviors considered most risky and hurtful. (This sort of label contrasts with morally indifferent or morally neutral, a label which seems equally important, but tends to get less attention.) Remember: Objective refers to factual aspects of reality which are true regardless of a person's awareness of them—even if people deny them. The objective element or 'object' of behavior is sometimes called the 'matter' or moral category of behavior. Subjective refers to reality as perceived by an individual, a subject. As Dulles explained, ideally, objective and subjective reality will be in sync, but this doesn't always happen because our perception can be distorted. "The fact that a man thinks he ought to commit a murder does not imply the right to carry out such a crime. The state seeks to deter criminal actions, however well intended, and even uses force to restrain criminals from doing what they may feel conscientiously obliged to do."

Evolving developments, cont'd

On reproductive technologies Catholicism teaches that just as sex should take place in marriage and be open to procreation, likewise procreation should occur as a result of marital sexual intercourse. Infertility treatments which "assist, but do not replace" marital intercourse are considered acceptable by the magisterium. Accepted techniques include surgery or medications to correct abnormalities. A few other methods-- LTOT, IUI, GIFT--have been used in Catholic hospitals; for the time being they are officially "neither approved nor disapproved' by the magisterium--see the US Catholic Bishops' website, http://old.usccb.org/prolife/treatment.shtml A developing field of science, Naprotechnology, has shown success in treating underlying causes of infertility while also following the 'assist but do not replace' moral principle. Physicians trained in Naprotechnology attest that their methods have had greater success than IVF in helping couples conceive and carry a pregnancy to term, AND that these babies are generally more healthy and less likely to be born prematurely. See http://www.naprotechnology.com/

HOW DO WE TEACH?

One way parents, teachers, pastors, and government officials teach right and wrong is by training us to clarify & classify behaviors--"Do this ... Don't do that." These warnings are meant to predict whether they're beneficial or harmful. If we didn't inherit these moral models & categories from our communities, we'd all have to wake up each day & start from scratch to figure out how to act.

Natural

Reasonable & Good for Us

Utilitarianism

Seek the greatest happiness for the greatest number (of people). Unlike relativism, it tries to guard against subjective, idiosyncratic whims by insisting that results be measurable and observable by everyone, and uses the same standard to evaluate both personal and community/political decisions.

Conscientious Objection

Sometimes a human law is unjust, or out of harmony with virtue/natural law. For N.L. thinkers, such a law has no true authority and we can justly disobey it

Artificial Contraception

The Catholic tradition does not endorse artificial contraception. However, the tradition allows for use of certain drugs and procedures which can have a contraceptive effect, IF they are prescribed as a medical treatment for certain abnormalities, rather than for contraceptive purposes. Health insurance by Catholic employers, including the Archdiocese of New Orleans, has included this coverage (even prior to the 'Affordable Care Act'). "Procedures that induce sterility are permitted when their direct effect is the cure or alleviation of a present and serious pathology and a simpler treatment is not available." [U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Ethical & Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services, 5th ed. (2009), #53] Thus, use of the same drug or procedure is understood as '[direct] artificial contraception or sterilization' in one instance, and as use of a medication or procedure with 'indirect' contraceptive or sterilization effects in another.

Declaration of Independence

The U.S. Declaration of Independence insists we are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights. It speaks of "laws of nature and nature's God" which make humans entitled to equality. It speaks of truths and rights that are given by our creator and self-evident—that all men are created equal and have rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. The United Nations has a declaration of universal human rights, an international criminal court, and a list of 'crimes against humanity.'

How does murder differ from legitimate self-defense, justifiable killing in war, indirect killing, or accidental killing?

The definition of murder Catholicism uses is "direct killing of innocent human life" (Evangelium Vitae #57, CCC ## 2258-2269). This distinguishes 'murder' from justifiable killing in self-defense, if there is no other way to protect oneself against an unjust aggressor. But who qualifies as an unjust aggressor? Traditional Catholic scholars have recognized the idea of 'material' unjust aggression—ex: a drunken man threatening someone with a lethal weapon.  In such case, it has been said that lethal force can be used to protect oneself, even though the aggressor isn't subjectively aware of his actions.

Christian thought on natural law

The idea of a common human nature is reflected in the biblical image of all humans descended from a single couple (even if this passage is understood as a literary metaphor rather than literal scientific history, in our contemporary sense). Messer refers to the 'Wisdom literature' of the Old Testament, such as the Book of Proverbs, which "contains sayings , advice, and instruction that do not appeal to Israel's distinctive traditions ... Instead, they have a markedly international flavour and there are close parallels between them and texts from other ancient Near Eastern nations. In other words, there is teaching and instruction within the canon of scripture itself that does not seem to rely on any special revelation from Israel's God, but is accessible to human reason and experience." (p. 43) St. Paul's letter to the Romans describes Gentles who do not have the Jewish law, but who can instinctively do what it requires because there is a law 'written on their hearts' which is known through conscience. (Romans 2:14-15) The Catechism of the Catholic Church (#1955) says basic precepts of natural law are expressed in the 10 Commandments. John Paul II's Veritatis Splendor says the 'negative precepts' of natural law, prohibitions expressed in the 10 Commandments, have no exceptions (#52). Pope Francis: God's mercy "does not have limits" and therefore it reaches nonbelievers, too, for whom sin would not be the lack of faith in God, but rather, failure to obey one's conscience.

Natural = Reasonable & Good for Us

The religious N.L. perspective attributes laws of nature to God as a wise creator. 'Natural' corresponds to right or good. A creature behaves naturally if it behaves as it was designed to do. Other species follow N.L. entirely instinctively. Humans share some needs & instincts with other species. HOWEVER, unlike other species, humans have unique sort of freedom, which allows us to try to ignore natural law, but this won't make us truly fulfilled in the long run. Ultimately, the natural law is unavoidable. We will either live in harmony with it, which is beneficial—or, when we ignore it, we will live with the negative consequences. The world is set up rationally by God. Our own reason helps us 'read' patterns of creation and act accordingly. Our capacity for reason (if well-trained) allows us to discern at least the basic things our species needs to survive & flourish. In other words, natural law is not always revealed by our initial gut reactions, but our instincts do help signal what is natural for us. For humans, natural= how things ought to be, but not always how they are.

Social Sin

The term social sin originated among Protestant social activists in the late 19th-early 20th century in response to abuses of the Industrial Revolution. It's now used in Catholic teaching too. It means structural sin, or sin of communities, which accumulates from sins of individuals. Effects of individual sin outlive the sinners; they become embedded in social customs, institutions, and laws (ex: racism, materialism). This makes it harder to do what's good, and easier to do what's harmful.

Natural Law = True fulfillment

These truths are called 'laws' because we're bound to them; we can't find true fulfillment unless we pursue the purposes for which we are created. Any 'pleasure' we may get while ignoring natural law will be incomplete. It will not last for the long term, or it will hurt our overall community even while it seems to benefit us individually. Moral laws of the universe are similar to laws of science. If we ignore them, we won't be happy; we'll harm ourselves and/or others. It's part of human nature to breathe oxygen, and to seek personal relationships. If we try to walk off a tall building, or breathe under water, or live without any friends, or habitually lie to the people we live with, we're seeking fulfillment in the wrong way, and we won't be truly happy. From a religious perspective, natural law isn't good only because it's commanded by God; it's commanded because it's good for us.

Morally Neutral

To say certain behaviors are morally 'indifferent' or 'neutral' doesn't mean they're 'irrelevant' or 'unimportant.' It means they may be directed to either good or bad purposes; sometimes they cause harm, and other times they may be beneficial.

Morally neutral acts

To say certain behaviors are morally 'indifferent' or 'neutral' doesn't mean they're 'irrelevant' or 'unimportant.' It means they may be directed to either good or bad purposes; sometimes they cause harm, and other times they may be beneficial. Here—unlike intrinsically evil acts—intentions, circumstances, and consequences DO determine the moral quality of behavior. For example:  In the idol meat dilemma (I Cor. 8-10 & Rom.14), Paul says it isn't always wrong to eat the meat; it is not impure in itself. But eating it could cause harm in some cases, and then Paul says not to eat it. A secret may be kept to surprise a friend for her birthday, or to hide cheating. In the St. Augustine paddling case, Dr. Applewhite's report did not conclude that corporal punishment was intrinsically wrong, whether in homes or at schools. However, she said it should be used at St. Aug only if certain standards and safeguards were established to prevent unjust punishment and injury.

Natural Law

True Fulfillment These truths are called 'laws' because we're bound to them; we can't find true fulfillment unless we pursue the purposes for which we are created. Any 'pleasure' we may get while ignoring natural law will be incomplete. It will not last for the long term, or it will hurt our overall community even while it seems to benefit us individually.

'Ordering' of human inclinations is important.

Unlike other species, humans will be happy only if they steer physical instincts to harmonize with their spiritual, social & intellectual nature. Ex: Our need for self-preservation (#1) doesn't justify threatening unfamiliar humans who enter our personal space, as dogs typically do; this would make it difficult to live in a human community (#3).

Can human nature and 'objective' moral standards evolve? If so, to what extent?

Vatican II states, "The human mind is, in a certain sense, increasing its mastery over time—over the past through the insights of history, over the future by foresight and planning. Advances in biology, psychology, and the social sciences not only lead humanity to greater self-awareness, but provide it with the technical means of molding the lives of whole societies as well ... The accelerated pace of history is such that one can scarcely keep abreast of it ... And so humankind substitutes a dynamic and more evolutionary concept of nature for a static one, and the result is an immense series of new problems calling for a new endeavor of analysis and synthesis." (Gaudium et Spes #5) To some extent, our scientific, theological and moral inquiry about human nature is directed at a moving target. If human nature is shared and timeless, but also dynamic and evolving, we should expect our ethical standards to be similar—evolving, but within certain timeless boundaries that do not change. However, discerning these boundaries can be challenging and controversial. New technologies allow us to create moral dilemmas before we're fully prepared with safeguards to protect against abuse. (Ex: nuclear weapons, reproductive technology, global climate change, computers/internet)

Organ Transplantation

When organ transplantation was developed, respected Catholic thinkers initially considered it objectively evil, a form of mutilation and disrespect to a deceased person. [Dr. Albert Jonsen, "From Mutilation to Donation: The Evolution of Catholic Moral Theology Regarding Organ Transplantation," Lecture, Univ. of San Francisco, Mar. 29, 2005, web.] It was eventually seen as an 'indifferent' or morally neutral act. While it would be wrong to harvest organs from unconscious living persons without their consent, voluntary donation of organs, even at times from living donors, is now accepted in Catholic medical facilities as an expression of generosity. Proxy decision-makers are permitted to make this decision if the donor cannot, unless the patient's advance directives prohibit this. Other practices, such as cremation and conscientious objection from military duty for lay people, have been similarly reassessed.

Positive features

When religious N.L. thinkers translate their ideas into religiously-neutral vocabulary, N.L. presents an opportunity for dialogue and consensus among various religious and non-religious groups. The natural law framework provides a solid basis for the conviction that there are certain universal human rights that must be protected in every culture (ex: the United Nations Charter of Human Rights). If one claims that there is no universal N.L., then that seems to imply that there are no universal human rights. N.L. provides a rationale for rejecting unjust human laws opposed to the moral laws of the universe (ex: during the U.S. anti-slavery movement and civil rights movement). N.L. tradition considers faith and science compatible. NL thinking says that since God made the universe, authentic faith and responsible science both direct us to true and compatible knowledge about what is really good for us. The goal is to keep investigating and learning to understand their compatibility.

To say certain behaviors are objectively or intrinsically evil means they are predicted to always cause harm, objectively speaking.

Whether done intentionally or accidentally, willingly or under duress, they cause harm regardless of the situation. It may be a very large harm ('grave') or a relatively lesser one. It may be an immediate and obvious harm, or it may be delayed and harder to notice. The point is that there is harm done, even if people involved aren't subjectively aware of it. From a religious perspective, these behaviors are not what God desires for anyone. For biblical precedent, it's common to point to the 10 Commandments (the negative ones—you shall not kill, steal, etc.) or lists of vices, or texts like I Cor. 6, where Paul discusses prostitution as if it's never appropriate.

Cultural Relativism

admits that every society needs a common moral structure; otherwise, there would be chaos. For the sake of order, people are obliged to follow the moral norms of their own culture, not because they are 'better' but because they are customary.

Catholic tradition

and other natural-law based traditions, such as UN prosecution of 'war crimes' and 'crimes against humanity'--say certain 'intrinsically evil' behaviors simply cannot be 'justified' by good intentions, exceptional circumstances, or beneficial consequences we might predict. They cause harm even if we don't intend this. This point is that a good end doesn't justify bad means—that is considered a dangerous principle! Similarly, St. Paul says we shouldn't do evil so good may result from it--Romans 3:8. Of course, we can still take account of intentions when we decide how to respond to this sort of behavior. (Ex: All cheating may be considered objectively evil, but we may not respond to all cheating incidents the same way.)

Act Utilitarians

don't feel bound to rules; they assess each action and its majority beneficiaries on a case-by-case basis.

Eminent Domain

is "an exercise of the power of government or quasi-government agencies (such as airport authorities, highway commissions, community development agencies, and utility companies) to take private property for public use." (hud.gov)

Murder

is "direct killing of innocent human life"

Rule Utilitarians

seek to create & follow rules which yield the most happiness for the majority.