Natural Law Theory & Moral Egoism

INTRODUCTION

This week we're going to finish the examination of moral objectivism. Last week covered one of the sub-groups (Divine Command Theory) and this week will cover the remaining two: Natural Law Theory and Moral Egoism.

NATURAL LAW THEORY EXPLANATION

To help us understand this theory, it's helpful to consider natural physical laws or the laws of nature. Consider gravity, water freezing at 32 degrees Fahrenheit, warm air rising, etc. These are consistent laws that the physical world "obeys."

St. Thomas Aquinas described the Natural Law theory as similar to laws of nature in that they're inherently true and all humans have an understanding of them and an obligation to obey them.

Here's an official definition: a body of principles that are considered to be inherent in nature and have universal application in determining whether human conduct is right or wrong.

Aquinas said this about the idea: "under the divine lawgiver, various creatures have various natural inclinations, so that what is, as it were, a law for one is against the law for another; thus I might say that fierceness is, in a way, the law of a dog but against the law of a sheep or another meek animal. And so the law of man, which, by the divine ordinance, is allotted to him according to his proper condition, is that he should act in accordance with reason."

So Aquinas' argument is that we all have a sense of morality and ought to abide by it. To support this claim, we could point to ideas such as that you shouldn't kill the innocent, you shouldn't commit adultery, and you shouldn't steal. These are pretty general moral issues that we could argue everyone agrees with even though people come from different backgrounds and cultures and religions.

NATURAL LAW THEORY PROBLEMS

However, there are problems with this idea. It may sound good and simple, but if you think about it, there may not be this "universal agreement" that we may be tempted to at first believe. During our Dinner and Dialogue discussion, people pointed out that different people WILL have different opinions. They'll differ on what or who qualifies as "innocent." They'll differ on whether or not there are exceptions to "don't steal." And as you move away from generic moral ideas, you'll have even more disagreement. For example, even though the question of homosexuality is a critical issue, there is vast disagreement on whether it's moral or not and people will claim that their "natural inclinations" either approve or disapprove of it.

NATURAL LAW THEORY CONCLUSIONS

So you can't use Natural Law Theory as your overarching standard of morality because there's not enough agreement to validate it.

However, I think this idea does point to God. Humans have consciences and basic moral understandings and I think they point to God's law. Our agreed upon respect for other human beings didn't just get wired into us for no reason. It points to God's moral law and the fact that we were created in His image.

MORAL EGOISM EXPLANATION

Now moral egoism is kind of a weird ideology in that it's hard to place it in one of the two families of moral philosophy and also because it's simply dangerous.

We can define moral egoism as "the belief that it's always morally acceptable to do what one believes to be in one's own self interest."

Therefore, whatever you perceive to be beneficial to you is fair game.

Now, even though this may seem like it should go in the morally relativistic family of moral nonobjectivism, moral egoism still qualifies as a morally objective theory because it applies across the board. It's a moral "rule" that applies to everyone. Now, the "rule" says that you there can be relativity, but it's still the "rule." It's difficult to explain, but hopefully you get it.

MORAL EGOISM PROBLEMS

The problems with this idea are pretty obvious. If murder, rape, stealing, torture, or anything are in your best interest, it's all okay. Clearly we're repulsed by those ideas. Additionally, it ignores people and it ignores God.

But how can we prove that moral egoism is invalid? Just because we don't like something doesn't mean it's false. First, there's basically no evidence to suggest that moral egoism IS valid. Secondly, it goes against what people conclude to be reasonable. Third, it contradicts conscience. Fourth, you could argue that because it's against the Bible and the Bible's true, then moral egoism is false. Fifth, the idea doesn't work. If you live solely for your benefit, you could end up going to prison, being killed, starving to death, etc. Lots of things could go wrong that end up in your extermination and thus, not benefiting you. You could probably devise other reasons as well.

MORAL EGOISM CONCLUSIONS

But moral egoism is a very dangerous idea with very little going for it.

CONCLUSION

In the end, neither Natural Law Theory nor Moral Egoism prove to be completely valid forms of determining morality. At this point, Divine Command Theory is our best bet.