Phi202

Natural law theory.

One of the hardest sorts to pin down. Particularly on the issue of what makes a number of different theories, natural law theories. E.g Aquinas (paradigm case), Stoics like Cicero and the likes of Hobbes are all in the category, even though Cicero is not a conventional theorist and Hobbes has a very harsh view of human existence. The common thread is to do with the role of reason.
Popularly, Natural Law theory is contrasted to relativism and nihilism, as holding that there is an objective moral law superseding mere human law and custom/convention.
But this characterisation doesn't make clear why, e.g., Kant, who also believes in an objective moral law to a our conv may or may not conform,[illegible text] isn't a Natural Law theorist. So what more is required to render a theorist a natural law theorist?

Consider another popular slogan. Natural Law theory says that there is an objective moral order discernible by right natural reason. Why doesn't Kant fall under this description? Clue: Kant speaks 'pure' rather than 'natural' reason. He has, that is, a different view about the nature of the moral truths that reason can establish.For him,the only truths deducible from pure reason (if so the onlygenuinelymoralones) are 'neutral' with respect to conceptions of true good 'i.e neutral with respect to different views of what would constitute a good outcome.

They tell yo only what your duty is, i.e what you are morally obligated to do and not do, i.e what is never morally permissible to not do or do irrespective of what constitutes a good outcome. Most importantly, it's your duty not to violate anyon'es rights, even if it would make sense to a good outcome to do so. It's never right (permissible) to violate someone's rights.

E.g for Kant, everyone has a right not to be lied to. I.e it is your duty not to do so, i.e it is never right/permissible to do so.

(don't confuse what it is right to do with the rights someone has).

Also, everyone has a right to a fair trial, regardless of the convenience of (good outcomes) violating that right.

So for Kant, moral truths discernible by reason are 'procedural/formal' in flavour, rather than substance.

Natural Law theorists in contrast, hold that one can rationally deduce truths about what would constitute a good outcome.

Why use the word 'natural' to mark this point, rather than e.g 'teleological'. Because for Kant the moral facts deducible by reason are facts about the right course of action for all rational beings. For Natural Law theorists, we deduce facts about what constitutes a good life for creatures of our nature, which includes more than our rational nature.