You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
Natural moral law (NML) is an absolutist, deontological ethical theory built on the conviction that there is an objective moral order woven into the nature of human beings and the cosmos, and that human reason can read off our moral obligations from the purposes built into that nature. Its classic formulation is the work of St Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274), the Dominican friar and theologian who fused the philosophy of Aristotle with Christian doctrine. Aquinas held that God created human nature with a built-in purpose or end (telos), and that by reflecting rationally on that purpose we can discover universal, unchanging moral principles. Within AQA A-Level Religious Studies (7062), natural moral law — together with the principle of double effect and its modern revision, proportionalism — is the named deontological normative theory, set against the teleological situation ethics and the character-based virtue ethics.
The appeal of the theory is that it promises a morality that is at once objective (grounded in the way things really are, not in opinion or feeling), universal (the same for all people in all times and places) and accessible to reason (so that, in principle, even a non-believer can grasp its core through reflection on human nature). The price of these strengths, as we shall see, is a set of difficulties about whether human nature really has fixed purposes at all, about the leap from facts to values, and about the conservative practical conclusions the theory has been used to defend.
The phrase "natural law" can mislead, so it is worth a word of clarification at the outset. It does not mean the descriptive laws of nature studied by science (gravity, thermodynamics), which describe how things do behave; it means a moral law that prescribes how rational creatures ought to behave in order to fulfil their nature. The word "natural" signals that this moral law is grounded in nature (specifically, the nature and purposes of human beings) and is in principle knowable by the "natural light" of reason, as opposed to being known only through special divine revelation. Keeping this distinction clear avoids a common confusion and is itself worth a mark or two in an answer.
Key term: Natural moral law is an absolute, deontological theory holding that morality is grounded in the God-given purposes (telos) of human nature and discoverable by reason. An action is right if it fulfils, and wrong if it frustrates, those natural purposes.
Aquinas builds on the Greek philosopher Aristotle (384–322 BCE), for whom everything in nature has a telos — a goal or function towards which it naturally tends, as an acorn tends towards becoming an oak. The telos of a human being, Aristotle argued, is eudaimonia, usually translated "flourishing" or "happiness," achieved through a life of reason and virtue. To be a good human is to fulfil one's function as a rational animal excellently, just as a good knife is one that cuts well.
Aquinas takes over this purposive view of nature but transforms it theologically. For Aristotle, purpose is grounded in nature itself; for Aquinas, nature's purposes are grounded in the creative will of God, who designed everything with its end in view. The ultimate telos of human life is therefore not merely earthly flourishing but the beatific vision — eternal union with, and the knowledge and love of, God. Earthly virtue and the natural law orient us towards that supernatural end. This is why Aquinas can say that the natural law is the way the rational creature participates in God's own eternal law: by using reason to discern and follow our God-given purposes, we share, at our own level, in God's ordering of the universe.
There is a further important difference. Aristotle's ethics is primarily an ethics of virtue and character — the cultivation of stable dispositions (courage, temperance, justice, practical wisdom) that constitute flourishing. Aquinas preserves all of this; indeed he is one of the great virtue theorists, distinguishing the cardinal virtues, knowable by reason, from the theological virtues of faith, hope and love (charity), which are infused by grace. But he embeds the virtues within the law-and-precept structure described below, so that natural law in Aquinas is simultaneously an ethics of law (precepts to be followed) and an ethics of virtue (character to be formed). This dual character is easy to miss but matters for the synoptic links the specification draws between natural law and virtue ethics: they are not simply rivals, since the founding text of natural law is itself deeply virtue-shaped.
Key term: Telos (Greek τέλος) means end, goal or purpose. In natural moral law the telos of human life is to fulfil the purposes for which God created human nature, culminating in union with God.
Aquinas sets the natural law within a fourfold scheme that locates human morality in the wider order of God's governance.
| Type of law | What it is |
|---|---|
| Eternal law | God's perfect, rational plan for the whole of creation — the divine wisdom by which everything is ordered to its end. It is known fully only to God. |
| Divine law | The portion of God's plan revealed directly to humanity through scripture (e.g. the Decalogue, the Beatitudes, the Sermon on the Mount). It supplements reason where reason alone is insufficient and directs us to our supernatural end. |
| Natural law | The moral law as discoverable by unaided human reason; the rational creature's participation in the eternal law. |
| Human law | The particular laws framed by human communities. To be genuinely binding they must be derived from, and consistent with, the natural law; a "law" that contradicts the natural law is, in Aquinas's striking phrase, "a corruption of law" rather than true law. |
The relationship between these is hierarchical and unified: human law should rest on natural law, natural law is our access to eternal law, and divine law completes what reason cannot reach alone. This scheme also grounds a theory of just and unjust law that influenced figures as late as Martin Luther King.
At the foundation of Aquinas's account lies a single, self-evident first principle of practical reason, grasped by what he calls synderesis: bonum est faciendum et prosequendum, et malum vitandum — "good is to be done and pursued, and evil avoided." This is not itself a detailed rule but the basic orientation of any rational agent towards the good, the bedrock on which all further moral reasoning is built.
Key term: Synderesis is the innate disposition of practical reason to pursue good and avoid evil — the self-evident first principle ("do good, avoid evil") from which the precepts of the natural law are worked out.
Synderesis should be distinguished from conscientia (conscience), which Aquinas treats as the application of this innate moral knowledge to particular cases — the act of practical reasoning by which we judge what to do here and now. Synderesis, the grasp of the first principle, cannot err; conscientia, the working-out, can, because we may reason badly or be misinformed. (This distinction is developed in detail in the Conscience topic, and it is worth cross-referencing: it shows that natural law already contains a sophisticated account of how moral knowledge can be both universal and fallibly applied.)
Everything depends, then, on what counts as the human "good." Aquinas's answer is that the good is what fulfils the natural inclinations God has implanted in human nature — and reflection on those inclinations yields the primary precepts.
Aquinas identifies the fundamental goods that all human beings, by their nature, are inclined to pursue. These are the primary precepts — universal, exceptionless, and self-evident to reason. They are commonly summarised by the mnemonic POWER (or "Preserve / Order / Worship / Educate / Reproduce):
Key term: The primary precepts are the fundamental, self-evident purposes of human nature (preserve life; reproduce; educate the young; live in ordered society; worship God). They are universal and unchanging.
The secondary precepts are the more specific rules that reason derives from the primary precepts by working out what they require in concrete circumstances. Unlike the primary precepts, they are not self-evident and can, Aquinas allows, admit of exceptions and vary with circumstances; they are conclusions of reasoning, not first principles.
For example, from "preservation of life" reason derives such secondary precepts as "do not murder," "do not commit suicide," "care for the sick" and "do not take excessive risks." From "reproduction" the tradition derives "do not use artificial contraception" (because it frustrates the procreative purpose of sex) and "do not abort." From "ordered society" come precepts such as "do not steal," "keep your promises" and "obey just laws."
Key term: Secondary precepts are specific moral rules derived by reason from the primary precepts. They are not self-evident and may vary in application according to circumstances.
A crucial implication is that two people who agree on the primary precepts may disagree on the secondary precepts, because they reason differently about what the primary good requires. This is why the framework can be shared by people who reach very different practical conclusions, and it is one of the main places where the theory is contested.
The specification names theft and lying as test issues, and natural law handles them cleanly. Stealing offends against the primary precept of living in an ordered society: a community in which property is not respected cannot sustain the trust and cooperation on which social life depends, so reason derives the secondary precept "do not steal." Lying offends against the same precept and also, in the tradition, against the proper purpose of speech, which is to communicate truth; hence "do not bear false witness." Because these are secondary precepts derived from a primary good, natural law treats them with great seriousness yet can, through careful reasoning, recognise hard cases — for instance whether taking bread to save a starving child is truly "theft" in the morally culpable sense, given that Aquinas himself held that in extreme necessity the use of another's surplus goods is not, strictly, theft at all. This shows the theory reasoning its way through complexity rather than applying rules blindly, and it gives candidates a concrete illustration to deploy against the charge of mere rigidity.
Aquinas needs to explain how, if we are all oriented towards the good by synderesis, anyone ever acts wrongly. His answer is the distinction between real and apparent goods. Nobody pursues evil as evil; wrongdoers always pursue something under the appearance of good. But they may be mistaken: an apparent good seems desirable yet does not in fact fulfil human nature, whereas a real good genuinely does.
Key term: A real good genuinely fulfils human nature and accords with the primary precepts; an apparent good merely seems desirable but in fact leads away from human flourishing.
For example, a person committing adultery pursues the apparent good of pleasure or excitement, but this damages the real goods of marriage, family and the ordered society the primary precepts protect. An addict pursues the apparent good of the drug while undermining the real goods of health and relationship. Moral failure, on this account, is fundamentally a failure of reason — an error of judgement in which an apparent good has been mistaken for a real one. This intellectualist view of sin (wrongdoing as a kind of ignorance or misjudgement) is itself debated, since it seems to under-rate weakness of will and deliberate malice.
Aquinas further distinguishes the interior act (the intention or motive) from the exterior act (the deed performed). For an act to be fully good, both must be good: a good deed done from a bad motive is corrupted, and a good motive cannot make a wrong deed right.
| Component | Meaning | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Interior act | The intention behind the action | Helping someone out of genuine charity |
| Exterior act | The physical deed itself | The act of helping |
So giving to charity in order to be admired (good exterior act, bad interior act) lacks full moral worth; and one may not do an intrinsically wrong exterior act (such as stealing) even from a good interior intention (such as relieving poverty). This is a recognisably deontological feature: some acts are wrong in themselves, whatever the good they might bring about — which is exactly where natural law clashes most sharply with consequentialism.
It is illuminating to set this beside the other theories on the course. For natural law, a good intention is necessary but not sufficient: it cannot redeem an intrinsically wrong deed. For Kant, by contrast, the good will (the right intention, acting from duty) is the only thing good without qualification, so the weight falls overwhelmingly on the interior act. For the utilitarian, intention is largely beside the point — what matters is the consequences the exterior act produces. Mapping where each theory locates moral worth (intention, act, or outcome) is one of the clearest ways to organise a comparative evaluation, and natural law's insistence that both intention and act must be good is a genuinely distinctive position.
The principle (or doctrine) of double effect is among the most practically important and examinable parts of natural moral law. It governs cases where a single act has two effects, one good and one bad. The bad effect may be permitted, even though it could never be directly intended, provided a set of conditions is met. The act is permissible only if:
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.