1	Natural Law & Moral Norms By James T. Bretzke, S.J., S.T.D. University of San Francisco E-mail: bretzkesj@usfca.edu
2	Distinctions Between Natural Law And Law of Nature Natural law deals with morality and character, e.g. right/wrong Natural law depends for its existence on human beings AND God Natural law’s “objectivity” needs careful understanding and can only be discovered within the realm of human moral being (conscience) Laws of nature deal with the physical universe, e.g. gravity Laws of nature are “objective” and bind irrespective of human beings (e.g. gravity binds even without humans Law of nature can be discovered by scientific analysis of the world outside of us.
3	Location of the Law Natural Law Location is primarily within the human person(s) in their relation to God It is not “out there” in the sense of the chemical periodic table of elements Thomas says it is “inscribed” on the human heart (Lex indita non scripta) Law of Nature Location is primarily outside in the operations of the physical universe Thus, the law of nature is discovered through science and/or observation of the physical universe and its properties A morally bad person could be a gifted chemist, etc.
4	Examples of {Im}Possibility Natural Law Going to confession = possible for many; difficult for some Confessing to one’s son (a priest) = difficult for some; “morally impossible” for others One set of rules does not necessarily fit all (cf. ST 1-II, Q. 94, art. 4) Law of Nature NaCl + H2O = Possible Au + H2O = Very difficult Au + NaCl = Impossible? One set of rules fits all
5	{IM}POSSIBILITY Natural Law Impossibility refers primarily to moral impossibility, which is necessarily subjective (i.e., related to an individual subject) Thus what is morally “possible” for one individual may be morally impossible for another Moral possibility/impossibility is more difficult to determine, since it is necessarily subjective. Law of Nature Impossibility refers to the basic laws of physics, chemistry, biology, etc. which are “objective” and apply to all What is physically impossible is fairly easy to determine. Thus birds can fly under their own power, but humans cannot
6	6 Claims of the Natural Law Ontological Claim Normative Claim Universalist Claim Epistemological Claim Normable Claim Universalizable Claim
7
8	The Ontological Claim There is, in some sense, an objective moral order Grounded in a human nature Which indicates a certain way of being And activities consonant with that being As well as actions and ways of being not in accord with that nature
9
10	The Epistemological Claim Not only does this order exist, but we can in some real and significant sense “know” it I.e., we can know both the nature of human being And those actions which are consistent with human flourishing As well as those which are incompatible with human flourishing
11
12	The Normable Claim This claim builds on the epistemological claim It asserts that our moral knowledge can be formulated in a certain way, in terms of moral norms I.e., that certain actions or behaviors are fashioned in terms of prescriptions and proscriptions
13	The Normative Claim This claim is a further specification of the ontological claim (the objective moral order) And this claim flows from the “normable” claim grounded in the epistemological claim I.e., that the moral order “is” in a certain way, that we can norm our knowledge, and that these norms in fact are binding on us.
14
15	The Universalizable Claim This builds on the epistemological and normable claims I.e., not only can we “know” the moral order in some real sense, and that we can fashion this knowledge in terms of moral norms But these norms can be expressed as universal claims, thus these norms are “universalizable” I.e., norms expressed as binding on all peoples and in all times and in all places
16	The Universalist Claim If the moral order actually exists (ontological claim) and is normative on us And if we can both know it and norm moral actions in this order in terms of universalizable norms Then at least some of these moral norms will in fact be universal They will be applicable to us and to all others
17	Natural Law Claims Summary
18	The Natural Law in St. Thomas Principle of exitus et reditus (all comes from and returns to God) Notion of law in general: ordinance of reason promulgated by a competent ruler for the common good) Human participation in God’s eternal law A lex indita non scripta (inscribed on the human heart) Distinctions of speculative and practical reason
19	Right Reason (Recta Ratio) in Thomas Aquinas Speculative Reason Abstract, “logical” truth “Necessarily” true Universally true for all Exercise of logical wisdom and reasoning Some examples… Practical Reason Reason put into concrete practice Affected by “contingency” Affected by “fallibility Not universally true for all in the same way Exercise of prudential wisdom Some examples…
20	Translating the Natural Law Into Action: Moral Norms Universal principles {Speculative Reason} Middle Axioms {Speculative & Practical Reason combined} Concrete Material Norms {Primarily practical reason}
21	Universal Moral Principles Bonum est faciendum et prosequendum et malum vitandum (ST I-II, q. 94) The good is to be done and fostered, and evil avoided Look carefully at the grammar… Knowable by all as principles of truth, according to speculative reason E.g., Drive safely, as in the following?!
22
23
24	Concrete Middle Axioms Moral norms which are generally true and not easily altered Lex valet ut in pluribus (the law/norm is valid “in most cases”) Yet, according to circumstance and time these norms might be changed or have “exceptions” E.g., drive according to the speed limit
25
26	Concrete Material Norms Particular and specific, often tied to a particular understanding of time and/or circumstance These may be “incomplete” and/or necessary to alter according to time or place Thus, more “fallible” and more “contingent” E.g., drive 15 mph in a school zone
27	Levels of Moral Norms Summary Universal Precepts Middle Axioms Concrete Material Norms Always binding, expressed as abstract truths, such as “drive safely” Generally true, in most cases (ut in pluribus) but exceptions exist Apply to a specific situation but are more open to both change and fallibility
28
29
30
31
32	Overview of Human Moral Agency Keep in mind that for genuine, human moral action we must never separate the human agent from the actions s/he performs Recall that as humans we are embodied spirit which means we must live in the concrete world Therefore our moral lives must be grounded and evaluated in reference to our real-life situation As Christians we believe that our lived response to our situation is best seen in terms of discipleship
33	“Fonts of Morality” Action in se (“objective” aspect of the act) Intention of the moral agent Circumstances in which the agent’s intention was made and in which the action was performed While in the tradition these aspects were treated “separately,” in reality they exist only together, and “simultaneously”
34	Catechism of the Catholic Church 1755 A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself (such as praying and fasting "in order to be seen by men").
35	The Goal of the Moral Act Finis Operis The “end” (goal) of the act in itself E.g., surgery to remove a tumor Has as its “end” the health of the patient Finis Operantis The “end” of the agent performing the act E.g., doctor who performs the surgery Wishes to remove the tumor And restore the patient to health
36	“Good” and “Right” If both the Finis operis and the Finis operantis are morally correct we have a morally right act which strengthens the moral goodness of the agent However, what happens when one Finis is correct and the other incorrect? E.g., “doing the right thing for the wrong reasons” (or vice versa)? Some illustrative examples…
37	A Historical Moral Debate Peter Lombard: The Finis operis provides the evaluation of the moral act, without reference to the Finis operantis of the agent Counter-position of Thomas Aquinas: Finis operis semper reducitur in finem operantis (The act’s moral end is always found ultimately in the agent’s intention in performing the act)
38	A Note on Thomas’ Position This position focuses moral meaning primarily and essentially in the moral agent We can still evaluate the “effects” of a moral action and call them “right” or beneficial But the judgment about moral goodness can be made only in reference to a human person as moral agent, Therefore, the Finis operantis is absolutely key
39	Or In Other Words… Consideration of the agent’s intention is indispensable to the evaluation of any moral act There are no “free-floating” moral acts whose moral evaluation can be made without reference to the agent, and therefore the agent’s intention and circumstances Cf. Thomas Aquinas: ST I-II q. 18 (On Human Acts)
40	Recall Contra Naturam “Against nature” Not against the “laws of nature” But against the “nature” or purpose of a faculty of the human person Thus, contraception was wrong since it frustrated the “nature” of sexual relations in blocking procreation.
41	Deus impossibilia non iubet "God does not command of humans things which are impossible to do” Thus, God’s grace was understood to always be present to enable people to do the morally correct thing. E.g., as used in 1930 in Casti Connubii by Pope Pius XI to condemn the practice of contraception. Yet, we must keep in mind that if something is impossible then it cannot be commanded by God.
42	The Virtue of Epikeia From the Greek word for “fitting” Source of some debate among medieval theologians, some of which saw it as a grudging “dispensation” But according to Thomas it is “virtue” which ought to become habitual Since it seeks to “perfect” the law
43	3 Applications of Epikeia To correct an impossible law To correct an inhuman law To correct a law which did not foresee this particular set of circumstances (the so-called “reading the mind of the legislator”
44	Epikeia & the Natural Law Traditionally epikeia was applied only to human laws, since being human were often imperfect The natural law, as grounded in God’s eternal law, was seen as “off-limits” for epikeia since God’s laws would not be imperfect Yet it has been debated that since nature itself does change over time this would require changes in the natural law so that it would more truly reflect God’s creative will
45	Moving from Natural Law to Personal Application The natural law is only a “law” by analogy, not by direct apprehension Thus, it functions like a law does, not as a law does The Catholic moral tradition has always recognized that application in the concrete is evaluated primarily in terms of the individual as subjective moral agent
46	Ontological Difference between Abstract & Material Norms Abstract norms arise out of speculative reason These will tend to be universally true Less open to change Though with time there can be refinement E.g. certain human rights Material norms apply practical reason to a concrete situation The concrete situation will always be to some extent unique Therefore, there will necessarily be differences and exceptions with these concrete material norms
47	Epistemological Difference: Abstract & Material Norms Abstract norms since they are based in speculative reason can be universally true and knowable by all with sufficient reflection Material norms since they are exercises of practical reason will be more fallible, less accepted, and more changeable (contingent)
48	Parting Shots…. The preceding is based on Thomas Aquinas Be careful not to confuse abstract norms for concrete material norms, or vice versa Many of the contemporary debates come down to a disagreement over whether a given norm is truly abstract or concrete If abstract it should be universally true If concrete it’s open to fallibility [incompleteness] and contingency [change]
49	Remember St. Augustine… In fide, unitas: in dubiis, libertas; in omnibus, caritas "In faith, unity; in doubt, liberty; in all things, charity." Unity in faith is important, but in cases of doubt a plurality of opinions and practices should be allowed, and the over-riding principle must always be charity towards each other.