Article: An Ethical Argument

Introduction

Natural law ethics traces itself back to the ancient Greek Philosopher Aristotle, and was popular throughout the Middle Ages, being defended and explained by the Catholic Philosopher St. Thomas Aquinas.  It continued to be influential through the Renaissance and was defended by Enlightenment thinkers like John Locke.  Nonetheless, it fell out of favor in the 19^th century, as evolutionary theory seemed to render certain aspects of it implausible.  At the same time, under the influence of the Industrial Revolution, and thinkers like John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham, more consequentialist approaches became popular.  These approaches judge the morality of an action solely by its consequences and remain extremely popular today. 

Nonetheless, consequentialist theories suffer from major problems.  If the morality of an action is judged entirely by its consequences then atrocities like child abuse, torture of the innocent, rape, genocide could all be justified if only they produced enough positive consequences for society.  Indeed, under consequentialist approaches, nothing can be wrong, as ethical decisions became primarily about running a cost-benefit analysis. 

Consequentialist approaches seem to underlie much support for physician assisted suicide and euthanasia, but given their weakness, it is worth exploring alternate theories.

A Basis of Natural Law Ethics

Natural law ethics has come to be mistrusted today.  Given that many of its defenders today are Catholics and its history of having been defended by Thomas Aquinas, many are inclined to dismiss it because of its association with religion.  This “guilt by association” is mistaken and a purely naturalistic account of natural law ethics is both possible and will follow below.

On the contrary, a modern Natural Law Ethics can be derived from a few basic principles accessible both to secular and religious people, making it an ideal way to find common ground on a difficult issue. Natural Law Ethics can begin with a particular principal:

1. Any time we act intentionally, we pursue a good. 

This good may not be a moral good.  When we are hungry and choose to eat, we pursue the good of health.  Likewise when we choose to exercise.  When we drink to quench thirst, we may pursue the goods of comfort and health.  Choosing to read a book pursues the good of knowledge.  People may be mistaken in the way they pursue a particular good.  An alcoholic pursues certain goods when he pursues drink, but it cannot be denied he is pursuing a good; he is only mistaken in how he does so.

 Once this be acknowledged, we are in place to express a primary principal of natural law ethics:

• The good is to be done and the bad is to be avoided.

This should not be particularly controversial to either a religious or a secular person.  Indeed, it is doubtful whether any serious person can disagree with it. 

What Natural Law Ethics is Not

Before going further, it is worth clearing up a common confusion of natural law ethics: confusion over the meaning “natural.”  The natural law ethicist is often accused of claiming that something is good if it is natural, meaning “occurring in nature.”   Nor does the natural law ethicist claim that things that are artificial are necessarily bad.  Chemotherapy is artificial, but it promotes the natural good of life. 

The Primary Good of Life

Among the goods human beings pursue, some of those goods are primary (also caused “foundational” or “intrinsic.”  As intrinsic goods, they are good by their very nature and do not derive their goodness from their usefulness for another purpose.  Money is only an extrinsic good.  It has no value on its own; its only value is to procure for us something else we need.  Life is an intrinsic good.  It is good on its own and not merely for some other purpose.  Primary or Foundational goods include:

• Life and health
• Social cohesion and friendship
• Procreation and family
• Beauty
• Truth
• knowledge

Natural law theory is based on these “natural goods”.  Reason now gives us another principal:

• Once we recognize natural goods, we realize we are required to pursue and respect natural goods and not violate them.

Respect for the Natural Good of “Life”

Life, then is a natural or primary good for us.  As a primary good for us, it is also a primary good for all persons.  Since, it is a primary good, it would be wrong to disrespect it by treating it as if it were only an instrumental or extrinsic good (like money).  Life is not just useful for a purpose; it is valuable on its own.  It cannot be treated as a mere means to an end.

Recognition of primary goods, including the primary good of life, gives rise to certain moral obligations, including the obligation to respect and not to violate that good.  For instance, we should not intentionally harm our health or that of others without a compelling reason.  We should not abuse illegal drugs.  If we pass a person who is drowning and we can rescue them, we should do so.

Finally, the primary good of life imposes an absolute moral principal on us:

• It is always wrong to intentionally kill an innocent person. 

Due respect for the primary good of life means that it is never acceptable to intentionally kill an innocent person. 

Respect for Life and Assisted Suicide

This moral principal, “it is always wrong to intentionally kill an innocent person,” gives clear guidance in the case of either euthanasia and in physician assisted suicide.  Both are intentionally killing of an innocent human being.  They fail to respect and indeed violate the primary good of human life.  They wrongly treat human life as a secondary or extrinsic good, a mere means to an end.  No other consideration like personal autonomy (my life, my choice) or quality of life (suffering) can be a justification for assisted suicide.

What Should Society Do?

Not all things immoral should be illegal (like, perhaps, gambling).  Nonetheless, some things should be.  The state exists to promote the common good.  Its policies must respect and not undermine respect for the primary goods of persons.  Hence, state laws cannot disrespect or violate the primary good of life.  When actions that intentionally kill the innocent are made legal, innocent human life is publicly devalued by the state, harming the common good.  Therefore, the state should not make assisted suicide or euthanasia legal.

Further Reading:

Craig Paterson, Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia: A Natural Law Ethics Approach, (2008). 

• Some aspects of this book would not be endorsed by all natural law ethicists, including many religious ones, but it represents a strong effort to make a natural law ethics argument accessible for secular persons as well as religious ones.