Natural Law Ethics and Moral Theology

The general view that the rightness of actions is something determined by nature itself, rather than by the laws and customs of societies or the preferences of individuals, is called “natural law theory.” Moral truths that can be discovered in the nature of things by reason and reflection.

The natural law theory originated in classical Greek and Roman philosophy and has immensely influenced the development of moral and political theories.

The natural law theory of Roman Catholicism was given its most influential formulation in the thirteenth century by St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274). Thus an understanding view of Aquinas’s views is important for grasping the philosophical principles that underlie the Roman Catholic position on such issues as abortion.

Aquinas philosophical theories incorporated many of Aristotle’s principles. A fundamental notion borrowed by Aquinas is the view that the universe is organized in teleological way. That is, the universe is structure in such a way that each thing in it has a goal or purpose. Thus, when conditions are right, a tadpole will develop into a frog. The tadpole is basically following “the law of its nature.” It is achieving its goal.

Humans have a material nature, just as a tadpole does, but Aquinas also stresses that humans possess a trait that no other creature does – reason. Thus, the full development of human potentialities – the fulfilment of human purpose – requires that we follow the direction of the law of reason, as well as being subjected to the laws of material human nature.

The development of reason is one of our ends as human beings, but we also rely upon reason to determine what our ends are and how we can achieve them.

Aquinas says that reason cannot arbitrarily set goals for us, reason directs us toward our good as the goal of our action, and what that good is, is discoverable within our nature. Thus reason recognizes the basic principle “Good is to be done and evil avoided.” So much so that the human good is that which is suitable or proper to human nature. It is what is “built into” human nature.

Like other creatures, we have a natural inclination to preserve our lives; consequently, reason imposes on us an obligation to care for our health, not to kill ourselves and not to put ourselves in positions in which we might be killed.

For example, as we have a natural inclination to propagate our species(viewed as “natural good”), reason places on us an obligation

not to thwart or pervert this inclination. As a consequence, to fulfill this obligation within society, reason supports the institution of marriage.

Another is, because everyone has an inclination to preserve life and well-being, no one should be forced to testify against himself. Similarly, because all individuals are self-interested, no one should be permitted to be a judge in his own case.

Since the natural law is founded on human nature which is regard as unchangeable, Aquinas regards natural law itself as unchangeable, applicable for all people, at all times and in all societies. Even those without knowledge of God can, through the operation of reason, recognize their natural obligations.

Furthermore, although natural law is discoverable in the universe, its ultimate source is divine wisdoms and God’s eternal law. Everyone who is rational id capable of grasping natural law. But because passions and irrational inclinations may corrupt human nature and because some people lack the abilities or time to work our the demands of natural law, God also chose to reveal our duties to in explicit ways. The major source of revelation, of course, is taken to be the Biblical Scriptures, also the interpretation of the scriptures by the Church, Church tradition, and the teachings of the Church are regarded in Roman Catholicism as the sources of moral ideals and principles.

Two Important Principles

The Principle of Double Effect

A particular kind of moral conflict arises when the performance of an action will produce both good and bad effects. On the basis of the good effect, it seems it is our duty to perform the action; but on the basis of the bad effect, it seems our duty not to perform it.

For example, a woman who is three months pregnant is found to have a cancerous uterus. If the woman’s life is to be saved, the uterus must be removed at once. But if the uterus is removed, then the life of the unborn child will be lost. Should the operation be performed?

The principle of double effect holds that such an action should be performed only if the intention is to bring about the good effect and the bad effect will be an unintended or indirect consequence. More specifically, four conditions must be satisfied:

o The action itself must be morally indifferent or morally good.

o The bad effect must not be the means by which the good effect is achieved.

o The motive must be the achievement of the good effect only.

o The good effect must be at least equivalent in important to the bad effect.

Using the case above, the operation itself, if this is considered to be the action, is at least morally indifferent. That is in itself it is neither good or bad. That takes care of the first condition. If the mother’s life is to be saved, it will not be by means of killing the fetus. It will be by means of removing the cancerous uterus. Thus the second condition is met. The motive of the surgeon, we may suppose, is not the death of the fetus but saving the life of the woman. If so, then the third condition is satisfied. Finally, since two lives are at stake, the good effect (saving the life of the woman) is at leat equal to the bad effect (the death of the fetus). The fourth condition is thus met. Under ordinary conditions, then these conditions would be considered, then, these conditions would be considered satisfied and such an operation would be morally justified.

The Principle of Totality

An individual has a right to dispose of his organs or to destroy their capacity to function only to the extent that the general well-being of the whole body demands it. Thus, it is clear that we have a natural obligation to preserve our lives, but by the Roman Catholic view, we also have a duty to preserve the integrity of our bodies. As we our the custodians of our bodies, not their owners, it is our duty to care for them as a trust.

Strictly speaking, cosmetic surgery is morally right only when it is required to maintain or assure the normal functioning of the rest of the body. Vasectomies and tubal ligations are ruled out.

Application to the Medical Context

First, the application of the principle of double effect and the principle of totality have definite consequences in the area of medical experimentation. Since we hold our bodies in trust, we are responsible for assessing the degree of risk present in an experiment in which we are asked to be a subject.

Because human experimentation carries with it the possibility of injury and death, the principle of double effect and its four strictures apply.

A second medical topic addressed by Roman Catholic theologians is whether “ordinary” or “extraordinary” measures are to be taken in the preservation of human life. Meaning, we rely upon only ordinary means. In the medical profession, the phrase “ordinary means” is used to refer to medical procedures that are standard or orthodox, in

contrast with those that are untried or experimental. In Catholic ethics, “ordinary” used in the medical context applies to “all medicines, treatments, and operations which offer a reasonable hope of benefit for the patient and which can be obtained and used without excessive expense, pain or other inconvenience.”

By contrast, extraordinary means are those that offer the patient no reasonable hope or whose use causes serious hardship for the patient or others.

Medical measures that would save the life of a patient but subject her to years of pain or would produce in her severe physical or mental incapacities are considered extraordinary. A patient or her family are under no obligation to choose them, and the physicians are under a positive obligation not to encourage their choice.

The third medical topic for consideration is euthanasia. Euthanasia in any form is considered immoral. It is presumed to be a direct violation of God’s dominion over creation and the human obligation to preserve life.

“The direct killing of any innocent person, even at his own request, is always morally wrong. Any procedures whose sole immediate effect is the death of a human being is a direct killing….Euthanasia (“mercy killing”) in all its forms is forbidden….The failure to supply the ordinary means of preserving life is equivalent to euthanasia.” The Ethical Directives for Catholic Hospitals.

It is wrong to allow babies suffering from serious birth defects to die. If they can be saved by ordinary means, there is an obligation to do so. It is also wrong to act to terminate the lives of those hopelessly ill, either by taking steps to bring about their deaths of failing to take steps to maintain their lives by ordinary means.

It is never permissible to hasten the death of a person as a direct intention. It is however, permissible to administer drugs that alleviate pain. The principle of double effect suggests that giving such drugs is a morally justifiable action even though the drugs may indirectly hasten the death of a person.

Last, about abortion. According to the Roman Catholic view, from the moment of conception the conceptus (later, the fetus) is considered to be a person with the rights of person. For this reason, direct abortion at any stage of pregnancy is regard as morally wrong. Abortion is “direct” when it results from a procedure “whose sole immediate effects if the termination of pregnancy.” This means that what is generally referred to as therapeutic abortion, in which an abortion is performed to safeguard the life of health of the woman is considered wrong.