As I have mentioned before, natural law is one strategy for those who do not want to descend into relativism or be stuck with authoritative appeals as the basis for ethics. It is a way to get reason into the process of ethics, which many of us think is a good thing. Recall that a natural law appeal believes that moral norms can be discovered by an examination of nature and that these norms are detectable by human reason. As we will see later in the semester, natural law is woven into the fabric of American political theory. The claim that "all men are created equal" is essentially underpinned by natural law.
But natural law does not always assure a satisfying outcome. The argument about homosexuality is one area where many see the appeal to natural law as the basis for longstanding prejudice against a portion of humanity. And if you don't like that example, we can talk about how many of the arguments in support of slavery were in fact based in natural law.
Still, I think we have reason to prefer natural arguments to those based on Divine Command Theory. The person who is opposed to homosexuality because of a couple of verses in the Bible cannot be talked away from this position by reason since there is no reason at the back of his/her position. But at least the person who holds a version of natural law theory needs to defend his/her argument by reason and so must respond to reasoned objections using rational evidence and justification. So all things being equal, I would argue we have a reason to prefer natural law theory to divine command theory as the basis for ethics. These are not the only ethical choices. One can reject ethics in relativism or skepticism or hold a non-natural law form of objectivism (Kant/Mill)or a non-religious form of natural law theory (Aristotle). But for the religious person, it does boil down to a choice of natural law theory or divine command theory
But natural law does not always assure a satisfying outcome. The argument about homosexuality is one area where many see the appeal to natural law as the basis for longstanding prejudice against a portion of humanity. And if you don't like that example, we can talk about how many of the arguments in support of slavery were in fact based in natural law.
Still, I think we have reason to prefer natural arguments to those based on Divine Command Theory. The person who is opposed to homosexuality because of a couple of verses in the Bible cannot be talked away from this position by reason since there is no reason at the back of his/her position. But at least the person who holds a version of natural law theory needs to defend his/her argument by reason and so must respond to reasoned objections using rational evidence and justification. So all things being equal, I would argue we have a reason to prefer natural law theory to divine command theory as the basis for ethics. These are not the only ethical choices. One can reject ethics in relativism or skepticism or hold a non-natural law form of objectivism (Kant/Mill)or a non-religious form of natural law theory (Aristotle). But for the religious person, it does boil down to a choice of natural law theory or divine command theory
No comments:
Post a Comment