Extract: James Rachels Friendliness and Natural Law

 Elements of Moral Philosophy (McGraw-Hill 1993:50)

By linking goodness to natural purpose (something which is observable as a common feature of the behaviour of rational beings), natural law theorists connect a moral statement (with ought in it) to a descriptive statement (with an “is” in it).  They either commit the naturalistic fallacy or present a plausible case for naturalism, depending on your perspective. PB

 A corollary of this way of thinking is that “the laws of nature” not only describe how things are, they specify how things ought to be as well. Things are as they ought to be when they are serving their natural purposes. When they do not, or cannot, serve these purposes, things have gone wrong.  Eyes that cannot see are defective, and drought is a natural evil – the badness of both is explained by reference to natural law.  But there are also implications for human action.  Moral laws are now viewed as deriving from laws of nature.  Some ways of behaving are said to be “natural” and some are “unnatural”; the “unnatural” acts are said to be morally wrong.

Consider, for example the duty of beneficence (literally doing good).  We are morally required to be concerned for our neighbour’s welfare as well as for our own. Why?  A natural law theorist would say that beneficence is natural for us, considering the kind of creatures we are. We are by our very nature social creatures who want and need the company of other people, and it is part of our natural make-up that we care about others.  Someone who does not care- who really  does not care , through and through – is seen as socially deranged, in the terms of modern psychology- a sociopath.  His personality is defective, just as the eye is defective that cannot see.  And, it may be added, this is true because we were created by God, with a specific human nature, as part of his overall plan for the world.