Alex Erebor
2/1/10

An Analysis of Natural Law and Morality
Human beings are undoubtedly the most sophisticated life forms on Earth. We are capable of many remarkable feats, but the one attribute that separates from other life on Earth is the ability to rationalize and reason. Because of this, humans have been able to form a society in which our activities are judged to be right or wrong. This phenomenon is known as morality and is only existent in human society. As expected, when dealing with such advanced life forms, it becomes quite difficult to determine what actions are just and which are immoral. Also often there are exceptions to each rule, which further clouds our ability to differentiate between the two sides of the spectrum. Therefore, a closer analysis of natural law and its protocols is needed in order to gain a better understanding of the unwritten rules and logic behind them that form our society.

According to Dr. Alfonso Gomez-Lobo of Georgetown University, there is a list of basic goods by which we live. These commodities, more or less, are intended to be universal to all human beings, as they are essential for healthy human function. This list includes life, family, friendship, work and play, experience of beauty, theoretical knowledge, integrity, and depending on who follows this list, religion often appears as a disputed, subjective good. Perhaps one of the more intriguing questions discussed concerning this compilation of goods is what exactly makes these goods “basic?” There have also been questions of how to prioritize these goods and whether or not some of them are more negligible than others. If one were to look at why and how these goods are basic, as described by Gomez-Lobo, one can easily see the dilemma this situation entails.
Life, as defined by Gomez-Lobo, is a basic human good in the basic biological sense. It comes to be through natural phenomena such as feeding, growing, etc. As dictated by human morality, death, or the conclusion of life, is something that is absolutely undesirable and completely incompatible with the human condition. Thus, to remain consistent with this conclusion, the taking of life is unacceptable. On the other hand, it is also part of the human condition to celebrate and honor life. In fact, it is the good of life which allows us to utilize and enjoy the other basic goods. As a result, it is easy for one to prioritize the basic good of life above all others.

Family is also considered a basic good for human beings. Society dictates that one should be close with his or her parents, siblings, and other relatives, and later marry and continue the tradition of close-knit family ties. However, it is clear that this is not the case for some people. Some may find happiness without starting a family. As a result, it is possible for the basic good of family to be viewed subjectively.

The third basic good is friendship. It essentially follows the same protocol as family, as it is perpetuated throughout human society that it is vital for human health to be social and have at least good, if not close, friends. Friends are intended to be a second family of sorts, people that we can be with and consult if for any reason the family is unavailable.

Another basic good is work and play. By the definition of work, this means doing what is necessary to produce goods and services for each other. Of course, the ultimate goal of work is to make money and use that income to provide for our respective. Because of this, work is unquestionably important for a healthy human condition. Just as important however, is the good of play. From an initial standpoint, one would often be inclined to say that play is nowhere near as important as old fashioned hard work. But on the contrary, rest and relaxation is needed in order to relieve the stress that work creates and cleanse the mind. Overall, a fair balance between the two is necessary.

One of the more unique basic goods is experience of beauty. This involves the observation and acknowledgement of all things beautiful in life. What makes the experience of beauty unique as a basic good is that beauty can come in multiple forms which include nature, art and music. Thus, it does the mind and spirit good to recognize sights of exquisiteness.

The good of theoretical knowledge refers to the acknowledgement of various kinds of knowledge. These kinds of knowledge can be common facts or the most sophisticated scientific theories. Theoretical knowledge allows for awareness, so we can make sound decisions and judgments void of ignorance. While on the topic of making sound judgments, the basic good of integrity can also go hand in hand with theoretical knowledge. By definition, integrity is a human being’s inner harmony, not allowing his or her emotions, desires, or any outside influence fall outside consistency.

Overall this list of basic goods does serve its purpose, although truthfully it is impossible to create guidelines that will accommodate every unique case that human beings face. When it comes to this list, it appears that in order to live in accordance with these goods, rhythm and balance is key. For instance, a businessman who is too involved in his work does not spend time with family, friends, and chooses to ignore any health issues that arise due to his stanchness. As a result, the businessman is neglecting the basic goods of family, friendship, and life. It is possible for one to exercise all of the basic goods listed, if a solid balance is struck between them. Perhaps the most important characteristic about this list is the degree of vagueness it possesses. Goods such as life, family, work and play are defaults, but there are other necessities such as love that some argue should be included. However, goods like that can be easily categorized under the preexisting goods such as experience of beauty, friendship, or family. Thus, we can see the versatility and flexibility of this list of basic goods. Not every arbitrary good must be defined and categorized, subjectively speaking.

An action is defined as an act that one consciously wills and that may be characterized by physical or mental activity. Thus when an action is performed, there are certain intentions, or goals that accommodate each action. These goals are also known as the “object” of the action. It refers to the actual performance of the action itself. Their purpose is to explain and/or justify why an action was performed. There are two types of goals when it comes to actions. There is the main immediate goal, which is the directly intended reason why the action was performed in the first place. The second type is known as an immediate partial goal. This refers to an ulterior, often more important goal that can be achieved by performing the action that goes hand in hand with the main immediate goal. Although these goals represent the intended actions and their respective consequences, there are also those which exist that are even more remote. An action’s “end” refers to the highest prioritized motives or anticipated consequences of that action. One takes action with an ultimate goal in mind, in addition to the immediate consequences that occur. So we can see that the only significant difference between an action’s “object” and its “end” is the priority that each one is placed.

The main immediate goals of an action are also closely related to what is called moral norms. Moral norms are standards which fall within what is just. They help us assign declarations to various kinds of actions as specified by those main immediate goals. For example, the general norm states that for any action, “X”, if “X” involves an act of murder, then “X” must be wrong. Thus, we are able to determine if our actions or the actions of others are moral or immoral. Norms also help in providing justification as to why certain actions are right, and other actions are wrong. There are positive norms, which state that it would be unacceptable for us not to act. These obligatory actions should be, according to these positive norms, validated by the guideline of care in accordance with the proper basic good or goods. As an example, if a child falls onto a set of train tracks with a train fast approaching, society would dictate that it is a moral obligation to act and prevent that child from being killed by the train. However when looking at positive norms, one can see that there is a large range of actions that apply to them. Care for life can vary from donating blood to feeding a baby. Both of these actions both entail the care for life, but both of these actions also have a different immediate goal in mind. On the other hand, negative norms are more specific when it comes to goods such as life. Negative norms let us determine what actions negatively affect basic goods, whether they are our own or the basic goods of others. Thus, the guideline of respect supports these norms. Respect for life indicates that to take life away is immoral and thus should not be done. Although there are various ways to carry out this task, the immediate goal is ultimately the same. Therefore in order to respect life, it would be the moral decision to refrain from actions that assault basic goods.

It has been stated that negative norms are in place in order to let us know that certain actions are attacks against basic goods, particularly life, and therefore should not be committed. However, varying cases can lead some to a different conclusion when it comes to actions that should not be condoned. The concept of double effect describes a situation in which one takes action in order to reach a specific goal. But along with that goal comes an unavoidable consequence. Perhaps a prominent example of this scenario is a news story out of Kansas, in which antiabortionist Scott Roeder murdered Dr. George Tiller in 1993. Dr. Tiller was one of the few physicians at the time that performed late-term abortions. Roeder, who was sentenced to life in prison for the murder, stated that “if someone didn’t stop him, these babies were going to continue to die.” Thus the situation regarding double effect is as follows: Roeder wanted to keep those babies from being aborted. In order to do this, Roeder proceeded to murder Dr. Tiller. It would seem that there was no way to preserve those infant lives without destroying Tiller’s life. Of course the moral question is whether or not this justifies attacking someone’s basic good in order to promote or protect the goods of someone else. Before this is discussed, there is another question that is asked. We cannot be absolutely sure that murdering Dr. Tiller was the only viable option when it comes to keeping those babies from dying. Perhaps these antiabortionists could have employed a different approach, such as making Dr. Tiller appear unfit as a medical practitioner, thus shutting down his practice. Granted, these types of actions are dishonest and still attack basic goods, but negative norms in our society would dictate that murder would not and should not be even considered. In this case, the basic good of work would be attacked instead of life. In the end, it would seem that both of these men were somehow, from a subjective point of view, in the wrong, and the end result was not favorable for either side.

As stated before, anytime there is discussion regarding highly sophisticated beings such as humans, it is going to very difficult to define what actions should be praised and which actions should be condemned. After this discussion, perhaps now we have a deeper understanding of natural law and the logic behind our moral standards. And also after this discussion, one may recognize that we struggle with these issues because we ultimately desire to exist in a society with no condemnable actions. Thus, we have drawn lines that are encouraged to be acknowledged and not crossed. However, human beings are not so limited as to simply abide by a given set of rules or restrictions. Once those divisive lines have been made, it is a guarantee that it will be crossed and that rule broken. It would seem that the reality is that the world we live in is not one of complete light or complete darkness. Rather a delicate balance between the two exists. And perhaps that is how we should live our lives: with balance. We should still strive to make just, sound decisions, but also realize that there will be negative consequences that will also appear. Although these two sides are contrasting, one cannot exist without the other. If we are able to do this, then we should be able to enjoy all of the basic goods we have been blessed with and not be able to take them for granted.