JURISPRUDENCE ASSIGNMENT

Modern natural-law theorists appear to be motivated less by reason than by their own view as to what is morally acceptable

Table of Contents

Introduction3

Discussion4

Positivism, morality and Natural-Law7

Law and morality10

Defence of Nature11

John Finnis and Human Nature14

Conclusion20

End Notes22

Bibliography24

Modern natural-law theorists appear to be motivated less by reason than by their own view as to what is morally acceptable

Introduction

The rules of moral behaviour determined by the human nature are known as Natural law or law of nature; the natural law theorists determine the law of nature by their understanding of human nature. The natural law theorists analyze the nature of human beings and give reasons for their proposed rules that are considered as natural law. Presently, it is widely seen that the contemporary natural law theorists consider human nature as what is morally acceptable in their view, and are less motivated by reasons. Authors such as John Finnis, have tried to find a link between individual rights and the Common Good, but not inseparable from a transcendent being. Human beings seek to get in life what he calls "basic goods", in an Aristotelian sense; will contribute to the blooming of a virtuous life. Finnis identifies eight fundamental and irreducible basic goods, present in almost all theories of natural-law:

Human life.

Knowledge.

The aesthetic experience.

The game and the fun.

Sociability and friendship.

Practical reason.

Religion.

Marriage.

Finnis had reworked his list of basic forms of human flourishing when he worked with other philosophers. The basic human values are:

Life (health, reproduction, security).

Knowledge and aesthetic experience.

Work and play (excellence).

Friendship: Relationships and friendships.

Self-integration: harmony, integrity or peace of mind.

Self-expression or practical reasons (make decisions in peace).

Transcendence (harmony with sources of meaning, superhuman, theistic or otherwise).

Discussion

The debate of natural law theorists being less motivated by reasons and more influenced by what is morally acceptable (according to their views or mindsets) has been argued by a number of natural law theorists. Most of them consider morality to be the primary factor in proposing natural law. As Veatch's theory suggests, that the proponent of morality, whatever regardless of their merits, is not a natural-law theory. However, the suggestion of Veatch is less extreme than Ralph Mc Inerny's claim made against Grisez and Finnis. Mc Inerny argued that the proponents of the new natural law theory by Grisez and Finnis cannot be inferred or deduced purely from antecedent facts about human nature. Complying with Grisez and Finnis, that hold a “vision” of the reasons, David Hume believed that, “knowledge about the world does not make the practical reasoning”. For obvious reasons, a philosophical theory of practical reasoning that boasts of identifying with the principles of practical philosophy of David Hume cannot be considered a theory of natural-law. When these critics speak of the need, to teach plurality in the "nature", they refer mainly to the human nature and man's place in nature. According to them, strong natural-laws and ethics originate from moral standards, methodological background knowledge of the nature and their place in human nature. According to this approach, metaphysics (a branch of philosophy that studies ...