It is very important that our senior students receive a well-rounded curriculum in morality, and this includes some of the fundamentals of natural law. A great deal of work in the 20th century has been done on natural law theory by Germain Grisez, Joseph Boyle, and John Finnis. I spent my first 15 years as a teacher finding ways to make this intelligible for high school students, for they like structure, and these theorists do a very good job gathering all the best moral insights from the greatest moral thinkers of the past and bringing them into a systematic order.
Before I begin, I'd like to call attention to an interesting insight by Robert Farrar Capon, from his masterpiece Between Noon and Three. He writes:
Morality helps most when it has the least to object to. If it is a guide at all, it is a guide to the perfecting of one's virtues, not to the reform of one's vices. It keeps non-gamblers from being foolish at the racetrack. It does not keep child abusers from beating children, compulsive liars from lying, or lechers from leching. For those in the front trenches of their faults, it is just a lovely, cruel vision of a home they cannot get to. Life, at their extremity, is luck or lumps. The law only makes sin exceeding sinful; it never saved anybody who really needed help.
And this is true: it never saved anybody who really needed help. The study of natural law is important in that it allows us to determine that what we believe about certain choices is not contrary to reason, but is in fact in accordance with the principles of practical reasonableness. It is in some ways like a GPS with a limited range that indicates where not to turn, but it is hardly anything that is going to move us to get out of bed and on the road in the first place, towards our proper destination. There are certain moral issues that are very subtle and the proscription against them can be puzzling. Understanding the basic principles of practical reason and the fundamental precepts that derive from them goes a long way in showing that the moral impermissibility of certain actions is not simply a matter of scrupulosity or blind obedience to certain customs or traditions but in fact has a basis in reason.
The natural moral law is a participation in the divine law, and both of these laws govern morally good choices. Natural law is not the same as the civil law; for the civil law is man made and changes, but natural law is universal and unchanging. Of course, our understanding of it develops over time, but natural law itself does not really change. Cicero understood this in the first century BC. He wrote:
True law is right reason in agreement with Nature...it is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting.... we need not look outside ourselves for an expounder or interpreter of it. And there will not be different laws at Rome and at Athens, or different laws now and in the future, but one eternal and unchangeable law will be valid for all nations and for all times, and there will be one master and one rule, that is, God, over us all, for He is the author of this law, its promulgator, and its enforcing judge.
And in 1963, Martin Luther King Jr. wrote the following from the Birmingham Jail:
Now what is the difference between the two? How does one determine when a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of Saint Thomas Aquinas, an unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority, and the segregated a false sense of inferiority. ...
Natural law begins with natural inclinations or propensities. A law is a regularity, a patterned behavior. To behave according to a law is to behave regularly. The word regular comes from the Latin regulus, from which are derived the words regulate, regulation, regularity, regus (king), regur (rules), etc. All these words imply government or governing. Natural law is a law that governs naturally the morally right choices to make. But all this proceeds from goods to which all human persons are naturally inclined. Human beings are naturally inclined to certain ends, and these ends are the motivating principles or reasons for the actions we perform, that is, they are the ultimate reasons why we do anything at all. These ends are intelligible (apprehended by the intellect), we see them as good (desirable), they are sought for their own sake, not for the sake of some other end (basic, not instrumental), and they perfect us as human persons.
At this level, we are not in the moral sphere, which only begins with human choice, and at this level, there is no choice. Here we are dealing only with natural inclinations. For example, someone attacks us and we are naturally inclined to defend ourselves. The reason is we see our own human life as basically good, that is, desirable, and so we naturally see human life as basically and intelligibly good. If someone offers us a piece of cake that looks wonderful but then tells us that there is arsenic in it, we wouldn't eat it, because we naturally understand, by virtue of a certain inclination, that human life is basically good.
But human life is not the only good we pursue. We are inclined to ask certain kinds of questions, and so we see knowledge for its own sake (i.e., history, philosophy, astrophysics, etc.,) as humanly good. But human life and knowledge are not the only goods. We are also inclined to play, and so we invent sports and games. Thus, leisure is a basic intelligible human good. But there are other ways to leisure besides play; we also like to contemplate beauty, and so we visit art museums, or listen to music, watch the sunset, etc. We are naturally inclined to enjoy, behold, and contemplate beauty.
These, however, are not the only goods that we pursue as ultimate ends. We also are inclined to fellowship, sociability, friendships. In other words, we naturally seek harmony between ourselves and others, either individuals, or the civil community as a whole, or the earth (nature). We know from within that a significant difference exists between my own private good and the common good of the whole. Just as a hockey player has his own private scoring record, his end as a player is a common good, namely victory for the whole team. The common good of the civil community or nation is a good in which everyone can participate without diminishing any other member's share in it.
The human person aspires after what is higher than himself because he is aware of another type of thirst, and it begins with an awareness of his own finitude and the finitude of creation. He aspires to what is beyond the temporal to the eternal, yet he cannot transcend the limits of his nature--but he dreams about it. He knows intuitively that he has a received existence, and he seeks to know the giver behind the gift of that existence. As a spiritual nature, he is open to the whole of reality, the whole of being (universal being), and so he seeks to know the "whole of reality", that is, to possess the bonum universale. We know from revelation that he is not going to attain it on his own; Scripture reveals that this can only happen through God's initiative (divine grace). Although the human person can reason to the existence of a First Cause, man cannot, of his own nature, actually attain God. If he is to attain the bonum universale, it can only be through another gratuitous giving, distinct from creation, namely divine grace. We depend upon the divine initiative. In fact, even our own natural happiness is dependent upon the gratuitous self-giving of others; for we cannot force people to be our friends. And so, this dependency upon the divine initiative is not incongruent at all with our nature, for man knows already that an element of his own happiness is the feeling of having a debt that cannot be paid (Joseph Pieper). Hence, religion is a basic intelligible human good.
Now the good of religion also includes a relationship to all that God the creator has created, namely the earth, the environment, the cosmos. Indifference to the environment is really a kind of indifference to the good of natural religion. Moreover, it has been well argued that man's irreverence for the earth is rooted in a matter/spirit dualism, which in turn spawns an irreverence and the oppression of women. Within this dualistic framework, women are analogous to matter (instrument), the passive principle in things (mater = Latin for 'mother'), while males are associated with spirit, reason, or intellect, the principle of rational activity. We even refer to nature as "mother", and so there is a real parallel between the way men relate to women and the way they relate to the earth. Ultimately, however, this has everything to do with the way we see God; for if God is regarded as a distant monarch, fundamentally male or even masculine and creation as profane, passive, and female, our relationship with creation will be affected accordingly.
There is, however, one more harmony we naturally seek. The human person is inclined to seek integration within himself, an integration of the complex elements of himself. This is because he seeks to be most fully, and one (along with good, beauty, and true) is a property of being. The human person is inclined to bring about a more intense unity within himself, namely 1) an integration between truth and his acts, 2) his actions and his character, as well as 3) his will and his emotions. Bringing order to the passions (cultivating temperance and fortitude) is good in itself, but is also a means to a higher end. A person aims to be temperate and brave for the sake of possessing the highest good (God), the possession of which is threatened by excessive sensuality and/or by inordinate fear and daring.
All these intelligible human goods are the fundamental aspects of human flourishing. Human well-being is the integration of all these goods in a person's life:
Life
Knowledge of truth
Leisure (play and contemplation)
Sociability (relationship with others individuals, the social whole, the earth or nature)
Religion
Integrity
Morality begins from this point onwards. The first principle of morality is: good is to be done, and evil is to be avoided. Everyone knows this principle and agrees with it, but not everyone agrees on what constitutes good and evil. But from first principle seen in the light of the basic intelligible human goods we can infer more specific precepts, moral precepts, which in turn will govern, in a general way, the choices that promote the fullness of our nature. We can think of the first principle of morality (good is to be done, evil is to be avoided) as a beam of light, and the entire network of basic intelligible human goods as a single prism. As the light passes through the prism, it breaks up into the more specific color spectrum, which correspond to the more specific and secondary (intermediate) moral precepts.
The first and obvious precept is that one ought not to willingly destroy, or neglect, or impede, an instance of an intelligible human good for the sake of some other intelligible or sensible good. The reason is that an intelligible human good is intrinsically good, and the will to destroy a good is not a good will. In other words, if good is to be done, then destroying what is good is not to be done. We determine the kind of person that we are (character) by the freely willed choices that we make, so if I willingly do evil, I become evil, at least in part. If I choose to kill, I become a killer. If I choose to lie, I become a liar. By doing evil to achieve good, I still become evil to the degree that I will it.
Another precept derived from these prior principles is that one ought not to treat another human person as a means to an end. Treat humanity as an end, never as a means, said Immanuel Kant. All the human goods exist in the human person; they are aspects of human persons. For example, friendship exists in human persons, so too does knowledge, life, and the appreciation of beauty. The human person is thus the human good, to be loved for his own sake. The human person should not be treated merely as an instrumental good, but revered as intrinsically good; to use a person is to treat him or her as an instrumental good, something loved for what he or she can do for me.
This precept also includes a rejection of all forms of misogyny, chauvinism, patriarchy, etc. Although in theory one may very well hold that man and woman are equal, in practice it is often another thing altogether. Treating a woman as an inferior, as a kind of instrument to be used by men, is a failure to regard women as human goods, equals, to be revered for their own sake. Attitudes ingrained from centuries of misogyny and patriarchy are very hard to change, and patriarchy is ugly, but just as a person working in a smelly environment (i.e., a pig farm, fish market, etc.) gets used to the odor and is not even aware of it after a time, so too many people are not aware of the existence and rottenness of their own misogyny, either individual or systemic. This is especially true in the Church, among many clergy and prelates of the Latin rite. In this, there is great irony: "For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free person, there is not male and female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal 3, 27-28).
Another precept naturally known is that one ought not to treat certain others with a preference, unless the preferential treatment is required by basic intelligible human goods. Treating certain persons with a preference is often a violation of fairness. Equals should be treated equally. Familiarity with a person is not a rational ground for treating him or her with a preference over someone else. For example, if a person has been waiting in line longer than me, he ought to be served before me regardless of the fact that I know the person behind the counter. But sometimes preferential treatment does not violate fairness and is actually required. For example, I might have been waiting six hours in the emergency room with a broken arm, but it is not a violation of fairness that a person suffering a heart attack was not required to wait, but was attended to before me. Life is a basic intelligible human good, and this good demanded that he be treated before me. It was a rationally grounded decision, and not an emotionally grounded one.
Another precept is that one ought not to willingly act individualistically for human goods. The human person is a social animal, and many goods can only be achieved through cooperation with others. It is realistic to recognize our limits and need for others, but acting individualistically for human goods will fail to instantiate them as fully as they would be had we been acting collaboratively. Think of the egocentric priest who chooses to do everything on his own, neglecting to tap in to all the talent there is in the parish. The result is a parish that achieves very little.
This leads to another important precept, namely, one ought not to act purely on the basis of emotion, either on the basis of fear, aversion, hostility, or desire, but on the basis of practical reasonableness. A specifically human action is one that pursues intelligible goods, for man is specifically an intelligent creature. To act purely on the basis of emotion is to act animalistically, not humanly. Examples of acting merely on the basis of emotion, rather than on the basis of reason, might include eating out of habit, or having sex merely because a person feels like it, or having another drink merely in response to the emotional desire for a drink outside of a larger context of sociability, or running merely because you are afraid, or ceasing to act merely because you experience aversion, or hitting merely because you are angry, etc. Children tend to act primarily on the basis of emotion, but moral maturity is about learning to behave rationally, on the basis of reason's demands. A morally mature person does not merely respond to emotion, but rationally considers the course of action to which his emotions are propelling him. In this way, he allows his emotions to move him, but not determine him. Emotion can help in the execution of reason's command, but only brute animals are determined by their sense appetites. The human person ought to determine himself via reason.
Also, engaging in a mood-altering behavior because one wants to experience certain feelings, such as the feeling of having my life in order when it isn't, or the feeling of having all my problems behind him when they aren't, is also a less than human way of acting and thus a violation of this precept. And so, drug use, or excessive use of alcohol is morally deficient or evil.
Other precepts include the obligation to love God above all things, to render due honor to one's parents, to reverence the marriage bond, the obligation not to lie (an immediate violation of one's integrity), and the obligation not to take what rightfully belongs to another. These are natural precepts, and they are naturally known by most people who have reached the age of reason. Every criminal knows for example that we ought not to treat others with a preference, unless the preference is required by human goods; it is only important to him, however, when it concerns others and their relationship to him; he is indifferent to that principle for himself when it comes to his relationship to others.
A specifically human act is one that is willed. Breathing, sneezing, scratching an itch, etc., are not specifically human actions - monkeys and kittens breathe, sneeze and scratch as well. Applying to a university, studying for a test, visiting an art museum, calling up a friend, etc., are specifically human actions. A human action is constituted by three elements, and these are 1) the moral object, 2) the motive, and 3) the circumstances.
The moral object of an action answers to the question: "What is being done?" or "What are you doing?" For example, I am exercising, or I am telling you something that I know to be false, or I am shooting a gun, or helping an old lady cross the street, etc.
The motive of an act answers to the question: "Why is it being done?" or "Why are you doing that?" For example, I am working out so that I can run the Boston Marathon, or I'm lying so that you won't be upset with me, or I am practicing my shot to improve my aim and accuracy, or I am hoping that this old lady will slip me a five-dollar bill for helping her cross the street, etc.
The circumstances are the conditions that accompany a choice or an event; the when, where, how, and other possibly relevant factors. For example, target practicing with a gun in a populated urban area; or I am 40 years old, unemployed, and have a family that depends on me; or I am in a court of law and have just taken an oath; or it is winter, the roads are icy, and this 80 year old woman is trying to cross a busy intersection, etc.
A more specific moral precept regarding the elements of the human action is the following: If any one of the elements of the human act is evil, the entire act is morally evil or deficient. The reason is the following: good means "fullness of being". Evil, on the other hand, is a privation, a lack of something that should be there. Therefore, in order for a specifically human action to be good, it must be good in its entirety, that is, each element must be good, otherwise it is lacking fullness that it ought to possess.
The following are a few simple examples.
Some actions have two effects simultaneously, a good effect and an evil effect. For example, if the police officer shoots, he will free the hostage, but he will also likely kill the perpetrator. Or, if the doctor removes the cancerous uterus, he will save the woman's life, but removing the uterus will also kill the child. Consider that if a soldier launches the missile, he will stop the tank, but he will also kill everyone inside. What does a person do in such a situation? Indeed, good is to be done, and evil is to be avoided, but in these scenarios, it is not possible to avoid evil when good is to be done.
Double effect is a principle that governs such choices. There are four conditions that must be satisfied before a person may proceed with such an action. The conditions are the following:
The more abstract the level of discourse, the greater the certainty we enjoy. That is why mathematics is a more certain area of knowledge than biology or history--mathematics is entirely deductive. As we approach the level of the contingent, factors are multiplied that introduce greater opacity, which in turn makes knowledge acquisition much more difficult. This is especially true with regard to moral science. We enjoy a relatively high level of certainty when dealing with very general moral principles, such as "good is to be done and evil is to be avoided", or "one ought not to treat others with a preference unless demanded by basic goods", etc. But as we approach the concrete level human existence in an attempt to apply those principles, we very often become less certain about what we ought to do, because the concrete level contains so many variables that render decision making much more complex; for there is much more to consider.
This does not mean that there is no truth on the concrete level of moral decision making, or that on this level the moral good is purely subjective or merely relative (i.e., relative to how you feel or social consensus, custom, etc.). It means, rather, that a great deal of experience is required to determine the best course of action for a given situation. This in turn means that a special virtue is required by which one might see and readily make one's way through these murky waters to the right end. Prudence is that virtue; and prudence is, generally speaking, the application of universal principles to particular situations, and so an understanding of universal moral principles is absolutely necessary. Understanding universal moral principles, however, is the easy part. The difficulties begin in the realm of the contingent, and prudence deals in particulars, in the here and now of real situations, and thus a number of other intellectual qualities are necessary if one is to choose rightly, qualities that one does not necessarily acquire in a classroom setting. Aquinas refers to these as integral parts of prudence, without which there is no prudence, just as there is no house without a roof, walls, and a foundation.
The first integral part of prudence is memory, which really implies experience. The world is too complex for morality to be a matter of simple deduction. If a person has a great deal of experience and is the kind of person that can learn from experience--and not everyone does--, he or she readily sees that a myriad of factors needs to be considered before making decisions. Inexperience is the reason for the imprudent decisions made in the past, either on an individual, corporate, or national level.
Experience, which is really information, should pave the way to a deeper awareness of our own cognitive limitations. We only see the world from a very specific angle, and our experience, although extensive, is nonetheless very limited by time and geography. That is why it is so important to seek the advice of others who have had very different experiences and thus see aspects of reality that we do not see. Hence, docility, the ability to learn from others, is an integral part of prudence, for there is no "universal experience", thus no all-comprehensive grasp on reality, contrary to what many believe in their youth--and some never outgrow this illusion.
With experience (memory) comes foresight. I recall a principal who had tremendous foresight; I would put forth a proposal and she would immediately see the many possible repercussions of that proposal and relay them to me. I was very impressed with this ability, and for the most part she was right. She was very cautious, and caution is another integral part of prudence. Of course, a person can be too cautious and end up not doing anything for fear of repercussions that are relatively improbable. Other parts of prudence include shrewdness, circumspection, and the ability to reason by conjecture, that is, inductive reasoning, which includes familiarity with common induction biases. When a person is unfamiliar with the fundamentals of inductive reasoning, he or she tends to speak with a rhetoric of certainty that is simply unwarranted, and this in turn is rooted in a failure to understand that our claims, assumptions, and starting points have only a degree of plausibility, from minimal, moderate, to maximal plausibility. In other words, our starting points are not always as absolute as we might at first believe.
And so, there is a great deal of ambiguity in morality, but it is not an impenetrable ambiguity. It should be said, however, that things are very rarely black and white. Some issues are very simple and achieving certainty is not all that difficult, but other matters require a great deal more thought, more dialogue, more distinctions, and more analysis. And finally, morality is not merely about what one "ought not to do", but is also about what "one ought to do". Those who have a love for moral problem solving tend to focus more on what actions are contrary to the natural moral law, thus leaving the impression that morality is fundamentally negative. But morality is fundamentally positive.