The Natural Law Theory Essay Example

As the philosopher John Locke describes, “all mankind... being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions” (“John Locke Quote”). The philosophical theory of Natural Law claims that humans have the responsibility to preserve the natural world and reject anything that harms it. Natural Law’s foundation strongly alludes to essential moral values, its Doctrine of Double Effect provides a rational process to solve moral dilemmas, and it allows its followers to protect themselves, however the theory is very vague. 

Natural Law theory is founded on the belief that everything has a natural value and humans have the responsibility to upkeep the natural order. This theory implies that people were given rationality to understand the ways of nature and protect them. These things that humans ought to protect are the foundational values of this theory, which include–life, health, procreation, knowledge, use of reason, and social interaction (Burnor and Raley 178). Humans should not kill, they should maintain a healthy lifestyle, use sex to procreate, learn and research, act rationally, and symbiotically interact with people. Through these foundational values, the morality of specific things can be deduced. For example, any use of contraception, such as condoms, that deliberately interferes with the process of procreation would be wrong, and abstinence for the sole purpose of not having kids would also be immoral. In addition, people who purposely remain ignorant would be committing an immoral act as it interferes with the natural process of knowledge. 

Although it appears as if this theory focuses merely on the action itself, the intention is equally as decisive when there is a moral dilemma. There are instances in which an action might break a foundational value but preserve another one. In these occurrences, the Doctrine of Double Effect allows individuals to discern the morality of particular actions while still sustaining Natural Law. This doctrine has four critical conditions that must be met in order to determine whether an action is immoral or not. The first one is the moral principle condition which states that an “act cannot itself be a kind that [willingly] violates a moral principle” (Burnor and Raley 183). Moral principle condition does not allow to willingly break any foundational value even if it is for the greater good, but it does allow for lying, killing, and ignorance as long as it is not done purposely. Second requisite is the means-end condition that says, “the bad effects cannot itself be the means for achieving the good effect” (Burnor and Raley 183). This focuses on the effect of an action rather than the action itself, so if a person wants to achieve something, it cannot directly depend on a bad effect. For example, if an activist wants to stop the government from passing a harmful bill, they can create a movement that results in national protests, but they cannot hold the senate hostage and kill congress-people to stop them from signing the bill. Third condition that must be met is the right intention condition, which declares “one must intend only the good effect, not the bad effect” (Burnor and Raley 183). A bad effect might be foreseen, but the bad effect must not be intentional. moreover, the proportionality condition asserts that “the good effect must be at least as great as the bad effect” (Burnor and Raley 184). These four conditions to determine the morality of an action can be used to decide whether or not to quit your formal education for the well-being of your mental health. Quitting school would mean that you are purposely rejecting knowledge, but by staying in school you are also willingly sacrificing your mental health. Not continuing your education in a formal environment would meet the moral principle condition, because the act of not attending an institution does not violate any moral value. The means-end condition would also be met as the act of relieving stress does not depend on rejecting knowledge, rather depends on the acquittal of deadlines and exams. The third condition is met too, because while not learning anything new is an expected result, the person is doing it exclusively to salvage their mental stability. Proportionality condition is also met, the person is rejecting knowledge, but they are bettering their health as well as making use of their reason. 

Furthermore, Natural Law theory allows people and nations to protect themselves in deadly situations through the principle of forfeiture. Forfeiture principle delineates that “by deliberately attacking or threatening an innocent, an individual forfeits its own moral claim to live” (Burnor and Raley 182). In the instance of a person being attacked, they have the right to kill in self-defense without going against Natural Law. Though I would add that this principle only applies when the danger is deliberate and imminent. If a person who does not have the means to hurt you in any way, threatens you, they still have the right to live because the threat is not menacing. This would entail that a person regains their claim to live as soon as they stop being an imminent threat. Once a person is in custody or once a nation is depleted, they cannot be hurt despite of any threats they make, without the attacker breaking a foundational value due to their regained claim to live. Under this definition, capital punishment by the government and the forceful disintegration of a depleted nation, are immoral. 

Undoubtedly, Natural Law theory offers a more direct way, compared to approaches such as hedonism, to guide our actions for the good of society; nonetheless, the basis of the theory are dangerously vague. The definition of “natural” is not agreed upon, when does something stop being natural? Are contraceptives wrong and unnatural even though they were developed by a being of nature, the human. Then, the Natural Law theory also leaves space for heinous crimes in extreme situations, such as rape in the name of procreation. This crime would meet all four conditions as long as there is no physical altercation or resistance. Sex would not infringe on the first condition if no one ends up physically hurt or there is no threatening. The second condition would also be met because the emotional damage of the person in itself is not “the means for achieving the good,” which in this case would be procreation. Though the rapist would foresee the emotional damage, as long as they have only procreation in mind, the third condition would be met. Accordingly, the damage of the abused person can be argued to be proportional to life, satisfying the fourth condition. The vagueness of Natural Law theory and the Double Effect Doctrine allows for many dangerous actions to be moral and numerous harmless ones, immoral. 

Despite having a base of moral values, Natural Law’s ambiguity allows for the use of the Double Effect Doctrine to justify wicked crimes. Natural Law forces humans to preserve the natural order, including themselves if necessary. This philosophical theory despite its attractive feature to solve moral dilemmas through a combination of deontological and teleological means, it is not compatible with most current societies. 

Works Cited

Burnor, Richard, and Yvonne Raley. Ethical Choices: an Introduction to Moral Philosophy with Cases. Oxford University Press, 2018. 

“John Locke Quote.” A, www.azquotes.com/quote/177646?ref=natural-law.