Natural Law And Moral Relativism: Compatible Or Conflicted?

The natural law theory, influenced by Aquinas, holds that moral propositions are bearers of objective truth and are derived from the rational nature of human beings. On the other hand, moral relativism, which first appeared in ancient times, asserts that morality is relative to one's community or culture and can vary based on beliefs and conventions. The question arises: can both natural law and moral relativism be true? This topic explores the compatibility of these seemingly contradictory philosophical perspectives, examining their underlying principles and implications to determine if a harmonious coexistence is possible or if their inherent differences present an insurmountable obstacle.

Aquinas' view of natural law and moral absolutism

Thomas Aquinas is regarded as the West's pre-eminent theorist of natural law. He synthesised the main traditions of natural law or quasi-natural law thinking in the ancient world, including Platonic, Aristotelian, and Stoic traditions, into a framework of a metaphysics of creation and divine providence. Aquinas's view of natural law is incompatible with atheism, deism, agnosticism, nihilism, relativism, conventionalism, and wholesale scepticism. Aquinas's natural law theory is committed to the objectivity of moral norms, with good and evil being both objective and universal.

Aquinas's natural law theory of morality holds that what is good and evil is derived from the rational nature of human beings. He argues that human law is valid only insofar as it conforms to the content of natural law. Aquinas's first precept of natural law is the imperative to do good and avoid evil. Aquinas also believed that there are no principles of right conduct that hold everywhere and always, and that one will always need the moral and intellectual virtues to act well. Aquinas's view of natural law is that it is a set of naturally binding and knowable precepts of practical reason.

Aquinas's view of natural law is that it is comprised of precepts of the eternal law that govern the behaviour of beings possessing reason and free will. Aquinas's natural law is derived from his understanding of divine providence and the universally authoritative character of its norms. Aquinas's natural law theory is a moral absolutist one, as he believed that certain actions are always wrong, such as the killing of the innocent, lying, adultery, sodomy, and blasphemy. Aquinas's view is that these actions are absolutely forbidden due to their conflict with the principles of good, which ground the principles of right in his theory.

Aquinas's natural law theory is distinct from other theories of morality, as it does not fall into contemporary categories for moral theories. His theory is not a form of nihilism or relativism, as it asserts the existence of objective moral truths and norms. Aquinas's theory is also not a form of conventionalism, as it is not determined by community standards or conventions. Instead, Aquinas's natural law theory is a form of moral absolutism, as it asserts the existence of absolute, universal, and binding moral truths that are derived from the rational nature of human beings and the scheme of divine providence.

The incompatibility of natural law with atheism

Atheism, on the other hand, denies the existence of a divine being, which creates a direct contradiction with the core tenet of natural law. Aquinas' natural law theory, as well as those of other influential thinkers like Aristotle, is centred around the idea that moral norms are derived from a higher power, and this is incompatible with the atheist perspective.

Furthermore, natural law is committed to the objectivity of moral norms, meaning that moral propositions can be objectively true or false. This stands in contrast to moral relativism, which is often associated with atheism, and holds that the status of value is relative to one's community or determined by convention. The natural law view, therefore, aligns more closely with theistic religions, which assert that God's will represents an objective moral touchstone, with absolute and universally binding truths.

Additionally, the natural law perspective is incompatible with nihilism, which is the rejection of the existence of values. Atheism, in denying the existence of a divine lawgiver, may be seen as a form of nihilism, further highlighting the incompatibility between natural law and atheism.

While it is possible to hold a natural law theory of morality while denying a natural law theory of law, as John Austin demonstrates, the core tenets of natural law theory in ethics remain incompatible with atheism. The natural law view, with its emphasis on divine providence and objective moral truths, stands in direct opposition to the atheist perspective, which rejects the existence of a divine being and often embraces moral relativism or nihilism.

Moral relativism and the diversity of laws and conventions

Moral relativism and natural law theory are incompatible. The former is a diverse and complex philosophy that emerged in ancient times, but it was overshadowed by the objectivism of monotheistic religions. The latter is a theory of morality that asserts the existence of objective moral truths, which are independent of mind and convention.

Moral relativism first appeared in ancient times, but it was not a flourishing philosophy. The ancient Greeks, for example, were impressed by the diversity of religions, political systems, laws, manners, and tastes they encountered in different societies. This prompted reflection on the conventional basis for morality. The sophists, notably Protagoras, Gorgias, and some of their followers, embraced relativistic thinking. Protagoras, for instance, asserted that "man is the measure of all things," indicating a wholesale relativism that extended to all truths.

However, this view was uncommon. A more popular stance was the contrast drawn between nomos (law, custom) and physis (nature, natural order). In Plato's Gorgias, Callicles, a student of Gorgias, argues that human laws and conventional notions about justice contradict what is right according to nature, which is that the strong should dominate.

The diversity of laws and conventions between cultures was also noted by Sextus Empiricus, who, in his Outlines of Pyrrhonism, catalogues the variety of practices between cultures in relation to dress, diet, treatment of the dead, and sexual relations. This diversity led Sextus to suspend judgment on the natural existence of anything good or bad.

Similarly, Montaigne, writing in the 16th century, compiled a list of diverse mores found in different societies and asserted that "the laws of conscience which we say are born of Nature are born of custom."

In more recent times, defenders of descriptive relativism, such as Wong, argue that while there are fundamental moral differences between cultures, these differences are not necessarily due to disagreements about questions of value. Instead, they may arise from differing factual beliefs. For instance, the taboo against homosexuality in some cultures may stem from the belief that homosexuality will result in eternal damnation, rather than a belief about the intrinsic rightness or wrongness of homosexuality.

In conclusion, moral relativism acknowledges and engages with the diversity of laws and conventions between cultures. By recognizing the role of custom and belief in shaping moral norms, relativists emphasize the complexity and variability of moral systems. While natural law theory asserts the existence of universal moral truths, moral relativism highlights the influence of cultural, social, and individual factors in shaping ethical perspectives.

The role of practical wisdom in determining moral truth

Natural law and moral relativism are two distinct and incompatible theories of morality. Natural law, as articulated by Aquinas, holds that moral propositions have objective truth values, meaning they are either objectively true or false. This theory is based on the belief that human nature is rational, and that good and evil are derived from this rational nature, making them both objective and universal. On the other hand, moral relativism asserts that moral values are relative to one's community or determined by convention.

However, moral relativism challenges the idea of universal moral truths by emphasizing the diversity of moral beliefs across different societies. Proponents of moral relativism, such as Herodotus and the sophists, argue that laws and customs vary significantly between cultures, and there is no objective standard to judge these differences. For example, the taboo against homosexuality in certain cultures may stem from religious beliefs rather than a fundamental disagreement about the intrinsic rightness or wrongness of homosexuality.

Despite the differences between natural law and moral relativism, both approaches recognize the complexity of moral decision-making. Natural law acknowledges that specific circumstances can influence the application of moral absolutes, while moral relativism highlights the challenges of reconciling conflicting moral beliefs between cultures.

In conclusion, practical wisdom plays a crucial role in determining moral truth within the framework of natural law. It enables individuals to recognize and apply moral absolutes in specific contexts, guided by the principle of the common good. While moral relativism offers a different perspective by emphasizing cultural diversity and the relativity of moral values, it also acknowledges the need to navigate differing moral beliefs. Ultimately, both theories contribute to our understanding of morality and the complexities involved in determining moral truth.

The relationship between moral objectivism and moral realism

Moral objectivism holds that moral propositions have objective truth values, meaning they are true or false regardless of individual beliefs or cultural norms. This view asserts the existence of universal moral truths that are independent of human minds or conventions. For example, a moral objectivist might argue that killing is always wrong, regardless of the context or cultural beliefs.

Moral realism, on the other hand, is a meta-ethical position that asserts that ethical sentences express factual propositions that refer to objective features of the world. In other words, moral realism suggests that moral statements, such as "murder is wrong," are true or false in the same way that statements about the physical world, such as "the sky is blue," are true or false. Moral realism emphasizes the existence of moral facts that are independent of human beliefs or values.

While there is significant overlap between moral objectivism and moral realism, some philosophers make a distinction between the two. For instance, some argue that moral objectivism focuses on the objective truth values of moral propositions, while moral realism emphasizes the existence of these truths in a Platonic or mind-independent sense. In other words, moral realism asserts that moral truths exist independently of our understanding or perception of them.

The relationship between natural law and moral relativism is a complex one, as they represent contrasting perspectives on morality. Natural law, as articulated by philosophers such as Aquinas, holds that morality is derived from the rational nature of human beings and is therefore objective and universal. This view asserts the existence of fundamental moral principles, such as the imperative to do good and avoid evil, that are inherent in the natural order.

However, moral relativism challenges the idea of universal moral truths by emphasizing the diversity of moral beliefs and values across different cultures and societies. Relativists argue that morality is relative to the norms and values of a particular community or cultural context. For instance, the taboo against homosexuality in some cultures may be based on religious beliefs, rather than a universal moral principle.

In conclusion, while natural law and moral relativism represent opposing viewpoints, it is important to recognize the complexities and nuances within each perspective. The relationship between moral objectivism and moral realism is similarly complex, with some philosophers treating them as interchangeable and others drawing subtle distinctions between them. Ultimately, the ongoing dialogue and debate around these topics reflect the richness and depth of moral philosophy.

Frequently asked questions