Natural Law Ethics (NLE) is an extension of Aristotle's virtue ethics. Aristotle's initial ethical theory has been criticized by some, not for its emphasis on moderation (courage, for example, is the Aristotelian Mean between cowardice and rashness), but for its alleged inability to explain specifically what actions qualify as courageous, temperate, just, and prudent: the four cardinal virtues.
What NLE does is expand upon virtue ethics by stating that the good of a person involves mastering these virtues by the following: act to ensure that the secondary purpose of a human function does not supersede its primary purpose. Yes, NLE presupposes teleology (the study of purpose, telos being purpose itself). I don't wish to defend NLE at this time, but I will provide an example of it.
According to NLE, it is morally wrong to use alcohol to the point where secondary functions of the liver and brain - metabolizing alcohol and drinking to excess so that the person no longer thinks clearly, respectively - supersede those organs' primary functions. Once this is done, then the alcohol has been abused. This is one of the reasons NLE gives for acknowledging that alcohol abuse is morally wrong.
Now, what about the objection I had in mind? Let's forget about alcohol for a moment. Imagine you are a German citizen during WWII, hiding a Jewish family in your home. A small group of Nazis comes to your door and asks if there are any Jews in your home? What is your answer based on NLE? On the one hand, lying is wrong on NLE because it frustrates the primary purpose of a person's rationality. On the other hand, giving the family over to the Nazis, knowing they will be sent to a concentration camp, is also opposed to the NLE, since we are morally obligated to protect the innocent.
Is this a sound objection to NLE? Actually, and I rarely use terms of derision, I find such an objection (though common) to be incredibly sophomoric. What's the answer to the question in the above paragraph? The answer is to lie and protect the lives of an innocent family. Why? The reason is that on NLE, some priorities are more important than others. This doesn't condone lying, but if put in this situation, the lives of innocents are more important.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I wonder. What do you think of the (from what I understand) stoic answer to that dilemma, where A) you don't have to say anything one way or the other, and B) that lying may be the most optimal way to save the family isn't the real concern, since doing what's on-balance the most optimal isn't the goal, but doing what is right - and if you fail to lie, you haven't done anything wrong. At worst, someone else has done something wrong, and they can't make you party to their evils?
ReplyDeleteCrude, with respect to option A, silence is often taken as a form of self-incrimination. I know here in the U.S. one is free to plead the Fifth, but outside of a courtroom I can't see that working.
ReplyDeleteB is a bit more problematic. I understand the objection, but I would maintain that our moral intuitions tell us that lying is the better option. Is moral intuition reliable? For the most part, I think, unless there is some compelling reason to reject it. If a Stoic or a deontologist wants to argue that there are no exceptions to lying, then he or she can do that. However, it still seems to me that by not lying one becomes complicit in the Nazi agenda.
Doug,
ReplyDeleteI was thinking specifically of the opportunities of misdirection there, which Feser wrote about.
As for B, how do you see becoming complicit? The intent to be complicit isn't there. Hypothetically, let's say you tell a lie - and you're a bad liar. Are you complicit?
But is not lying always and everywhere evil? It is per se disordered and evil to signify contrary to one's mind, and one cannot do evil to bring about good, even if it's a venial sin. On natural law, pace Janet Smith and Peter Kreeft, lying is quite out of the question.
ReplyDeleteIf there's a legitimate option other than lying in this situation, then one should absolutely go with that option. One might say that lying is always and everywhere evil, but if the alternative is being complicit in the murders of innocent people, then lying would be the lesser of two evils.
ReplyDeleteCrude, lying in this situation would amount at most to a venial sin. I think we can agree on that. Now, one needn't intend to be complicit in order to be complicit. I don't think either option results in a mortal sin. Rather, I just happen to think that giving up the Jewish family is worse than lying. As for being a bad liar, the intention is still the opposite of being complicit in murder.
I think this is an issue where we're free to disagree on. I just know that I would lie (much like Judith, in the Book of Judith) if I were put in a situation like that.
For evangelicals who do not accept the Book of Judith or any of the deuterocanon to be Scripture, we can substitute Judith with Rahab.
ReplyDeleteIs moral intuition reliable? For the most part, I think, unless there is some compelling reason to reject it.
ReplyDeleteThe Church condemns certain actions as intrinsically immoral, yes? So lying,as a corruption of the purpose of speech, even for a good, even for a GREAT, cause, should be immoral. And one cannot sin for a good end.
If bombing Hiroshima would save the most lives out of all options possible in WWII, that still doesn't make it a moral action. It is simply not on the list of possible actions. Same principle, smaller scale. Sure, the Nazis might find the Jew, but if there is absolutely no morally neutral action you can take to prevent this, then there is simply no action you can take. You've exhausted your possibilities.
I like Dr. Feser's distinctions between broad versus narrow mental reservations as the best solution to such dilemmas.
I have no idea what happened to my longer post, but I would say that as an intrinsically immoral act, lying is simply out of the question. To say it's a choice between that and giving up the choice is presenting a false choice, because lying ISN'T a choice. It's a complete non-option. Intrinsically immoral acts are non-options.
ReplyDeleteWhat you are obligated to do in this circumstance is everything in your power to protect the Jews short of committing intrinsically immoral acts.
It is the same principle used when we talk about why torture is always and everywhere wrong even when we can use it to save innocent lives. It's not a choice between torture and saving innocent lives. Torture is not an option. It is always wrong.
I do agree 100% that it is at worst a very, very venial sin when committed with the correct intentions in mind.
What this whole discussion shows, IMHO, is that when it comes to morals, it doesn't always come down to black or white. On NLE, when applied consistently, lying is always wrong. Yet, I agree with Doug, in the situation he described, I would lie even if I believed in natural law ethics.
ReplyDeleteEthics is a far too subtle subject to be dogmatic about.
First, I appreciate you guys challenging me on this issue. Malcolm, do you have a link to a Feser article that addresses this issue? Honestly, I would love to be corrected. It wouldn't be the first time I'd be wrong, ya know. :)
ReplyDeleteHi, I totally forgot about this post. Sure thing, here's the most relevant link to the topic, and Dr. Feser links to other articles of his as well:
Deletehttp://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/11/murderer-at-door.html
Thanks, Malcolm. I'll take a look at the post. As I said, I'd love to be corrected on this issue.
DeleteWalter, just out of curiosity, would you consider yourself a consequentialist? Just asking; no desire to debate its merits.
ReplyDeleteDoug
DeleteI seem to have some problem publishing my comments. This is my third or fourth attempt. If my other comments did come through, you can delet them if you want. To answer your question: I guess I am a consequentialist, but let me repeat that I don't think morality is a matter of black or white.
I apologize for the difficulty in getting your comments published. I certainly didn't delete them, and they're not listed in the spam folder. One thing that makes me wonder is whether blogspot is having a general problem with comments. In fact, one of my own comments got lost in this very thread.
Delete