but how do you get from “this is an X” to “this has a moral obligation to be true to its X-ness?” (which can’t be distinguished from “this has a moral obligation to be true to my particular conception of how an X ought to be so as to be a true X.”). we transcend what natural selection evolved us to do in order to create and pursue purposes all our own. Natural law is the law written in our hearts by our Creator. In essence, what that says is that, we can make so many statements about “this give the largest amount of people the largest amount pleasure”, but in no way can we derive from that statement that we ought to do something. In other words, everyone desires what is good. given that the concept of species is what you appear to mean by man’s nature, why exactly should we feel any duty to be true to our current state of biological adaptation to the current state of nature given that the current state of nature is constantly changing as species continuously adapt to compete with other species? University of San Diego. Abortion and the Utilitarian Law. I’m not sure what you mean. So, there can be many cases where the ends do not justify the means, contra consequentialism. the categories of species are certainly no more or less than “human constructs that assist in classification of objects which would help facilitate the communication and comprehension of information pertaining to the observable world,” and defining what a species is and whether two individuals are of the same or different species is not as cut and dried as some people think. b. (Natural Law and Natural Rights. a. instead, as i see it, those people who are obsessed with homosexuals having anal sex tend to cling to natural law and avoid more reasonable ways of thinking about ethics since natural law ethics is the only somewhat accepted moral view that can find a way to condemn the practice that they are so obsessed with. Women decide to abort in order to postpone childbearing, cannot afford a baby, too young, will disrupt education or career, risk to fetal health, and risk to maternal health. Ruse, M. (1993). Homosexuality is illegal in 80 countries, 42 of these outlaw male-to-male sex. More non sequitur. https://phdessay.com/natural-law-versus-utilitarian-law/. Thus we get this principle: “I ought to do whatever fulfills my nature, because I desire what fulfills my nature.” Highly plausible principles here, and the so-called naturalistic fallacy doesn’t occur. The death of the child is not a mean to cure the illness. C) utilitarianism holds that the moral worth of actions or practices is determined by their consequences, whereas rights theories recognize that human beings have fundamental rights and privileges. People with same sex attraction are said to have personality problems and deserve to be treated. Reproductive freedom is a basic right. what everyone has always thought is not necessarily right. Would abortion be allowed to women who are victims of rape or incest? custom paper from our expert writers, Natural Law versus Utilitarian Law. we aren’t bound by our biology in the way other animals are. Abortion is legal in 54 countries while it is illegal in 97 countries. Retrieve May 9, 2006, from http://faculty.msmary.edu/Conway/PHIL%20400x/Grisez%20Toward%20A%20Consistent.pdf#search='the%20utilitarian%20law%20on%20abortion', Alstad, D. Abortion and The Morality Wars: Taking The Moral Offensive. There is no logical inconsistency in this set of propositions: This is just a sample. Homosexuality was never the natural condition of men, and history has proven it time and again. (if natural law ethics can rest on such an axiom, then certainly consequentialism can. I think you may be referring to transitional species, but that’s really not a problem. the other issue with natural law is that in practice it is entirely based on what different people already think god’s purpose is rather than trying to learn god’s purpose from studying nature. (1980). Get Your Custom Essay Their bodies are intended for that purpose. Nominalists do not deny the existence of categories; they insist that categories are human constructs that assist in classification of objects which would help facilitate the communication and comprehension of information pertaining to the observable world and intangible subjective ideas. Retrieved from https://phdessay.com/natural-law-versus-utilitarian-law/, We use cookies to give you the best experience possible. What is superior to “natural law” morality when compared to utilitarian ethics? If a woman aborts her child to avoid embarrassment or maintain a shapely figure, this is not a reason of unintentional death but a planned one. The rights only belong to the woman who can decide if she wants the baby or not. Natural law ethics is verboten to homosexuals because they believe it doesn’t apply to them, and no amount of sound reasoning can make it apply. (1973). [Electronic version]. Abortion should not be used for family planning or prevent birth defects. Preference Utilitarianism is when an act is judged based on what the preferences of the people involved are. Reply With Quote. In spite of the fact that her arguments were simple minded in the extreme, she persisted in holding to her views. Bentham considered only quantity of pleasure, but Mill considered both quantity and quality of pleasure. National Abortion Rights Action League, 1997. therefore the ought-conclusion “X ought to be avoided” does follow logically from the is-statement “X causes the worst possible misery for everyone.”. Moral considerations in abortion include: Is the fetus a person? pleasure is the goal of hedonism. I can understand why you don’t want this topic interjected, but I can’t understand where you would place the homosexual act if not in natural law or utilitarian ethics. PhDessay is an educational resource where over 1,000,000 free essays are collected. rather than seeing homosexuals avoiding natural law ethics because it prohibits what they do, i think people in general avoid natural law ethics because it is a lousy system of ethics. Thanks. You are going to indict every civilization that has ever existed for their condemnation of a clearly unnatural and odious act? We could get into a long criticism of nominalism here as well. Finnis, J. my experience is very different. I’m not sure what you mean. There’s no “imperative” present, nothing obligating us. Are laws controlling abortion violates privacy? So ultimately the morality and “oughtness” of the action is going to rest upon whether it actually fulfills our nature (again, you accepted our axiom), not how much pleasure it derives. Toward A Consistent Natural Law: Ethics of Killing. the same fallacy applies to evolutionary psychology for prescribing morals. In this set up, the act imposes bad effects for the children. At some point in time the differences between species are very minute and imperceptible.