A Conflict Within The Natural Law Theory

Natural Law Theory of morality originates from the Romans and ancient Greek. Philosopher and theologian Thomas Aquinas introduced this theory to the Catholic Church’s. Natural Law Theory is still used in the Catholic Church’s today when it comes controversial-issues such as homosexuality, abortion, euthanasia, and many other issues. Although, belief in God is not required it is often affiliated. A person’s effective use of reason is the only requirement. Humans have a gift of reason and reason is the underlying basis of morality. This theory advocates for universality, objectivity, rationality and adds intention behind actions. If a person does not act according to its natural purpose, it fails to be as it should be, departing from its true course in natural law for humanity. According to the Natural Law Theory, our duties as humans is to act in accordance with nature as the universe has natural laws, we are accountable to. 

Natural law has several exceptionless rules also known as absolute moral principles such as, never kill someone, impede procreation in any way and never lie. Conflicts between duties are common, but we utilize the double doctrine effect to resolve these issues. The double doctrine effect is often used to help us find the right actions when the action has both good and bad effects. It states that performing a good action may be permissible if it has bad effects. However, performing a bad action to achieve good effects is never permissible. An action is permissible if all four of these conditions are met failing to meet one means the action is prohibited. 

1. Action must be either naturally morally good or morally neutral. 
2. The bad effect is not used to produce a good effect. 
3. The good effect is required to be the intentional effect. 
4. The bad effect cannot be more important than a good effect. 

Let’s apply the Natural law Theory to this scenario: 'Dr. Jack Kevorkian (also called ‘Dr. Death’) achieved notoriety and a prison sentence by assisting terminally ill people in committing suicide. He provided them with a specially designed machine that allowed them to push a button and release a fatal dose of anesthesia into their bloodstream. Kevorkian believed that what he did was not immoral. 

Applying the Natural Law Theory Dr. Kevorkian’s actions are morally impermissible. As the natural law theory says that killing is always wrong, therefore his actions would be disregarding an absolute moral principle; never kill someone. However, utilizing the double doctrine affect the act of providing terminally ill people with a machine that released a fatal dose of anesthesia in which assisted them in committing suicide meets conditions 1, 2, 3 & 4 of the double doctrine effect. As the action is morally neutral, the bad effect (pain) is not the means to the good effect (death), the good effect(death) is the intended effect, and the bad effect (pain) is not more important than the good effect (death.) The good effect for these patients would be death and the bad effect is their pain. This brings us to the objections of the Natural Law Theory. This scenario encounters a problem with the exception-less rules (absolute moral principles). 

Natural Law Theory says it is never okay to kill someone, even if it takes them out of their misery but, this scenario meets all four conditions of the double doctrine effect. This theory also fails due to the is/ought to be a problem. This naturalistic fallacy states what is dictated is what ought to be. Even though something is, does not mean it should be. The reasoning is supposed to show us the right action to take but, in this scenario, we cannot resolve this moral dilemma with the Natural Law Theory as there is a conflict within the theory. 

Bibliography

• Vaughn, Lewis. Beginning Ethics: An Introduction to Moral Philosophy. W.W. Norton & Company, 2015.