Phi202

Natural law and rules of conduct

Recall that Natural Law Ethics affirms that one can by natural reason discern certain basic moral actions, among them that certain things, (e.g knowledge, life, sociability) are basic forms of human good and that the good is to be pursued.

On the face, there seems to be a considerable gap between such basic principles and say judgement as to what to do in particular siutation, especially since
(a) Natural ethis does seek to provide such rules (In this it is in contrast to a certain prominent sort of virtue ehtics, which emphasises the impossibility of formulating universally valid general ethical rules and the necessity of situation judgement via phronesis. These features are often taken in such a way as to give the impression that virtue, character, is something above the rules. See Machieavelli for an extreme version of this attitude towards virtue.

(b) the guidance that the general principles are supposed to supply is not that you should maximise the total amount of good, in some sense.

So what guidance do these principles supply?

Part of it is that, so far as acts positiely promoting the good are convenient, you do have to rely on situational judgement. E.g go out and promote sociability or stay in and promote knowledge?

Where exceptionless rules come in is in prohibitience. The general rough idea is never the following: intentionally commit an act taht goes against one of the basic forms of human good.

There is a certain amount to unpack here.
Suppose you are contacted by an invincible serial killer who you know will kill 4 innocents unless you kill one.

The utilitarian answer is that, to the extent that you are certain of the extreme outcomes, you should kill the one. Our intuitions and Natural Law Theory, say otherwise. TO kill the one is for you to intentionally commit an act that goes against the good of life. To allow the 4 to be killed by the madman is not to commit any such act. So Natural law theory counsels the latter.

Note also that Natural law theory does not allow one to intentionally commit acts going against the basic goods even if the outcome against those goods are not your ultimatel goal, but merely a means for a goal (that may well be good.) I.e

Pauline principle: One maynot do evil that good may come.
Also: the ends do not justify the means.
Also: He who wills the ends wills the means.