Comparison of the Divine Command Theory and the Natural Law Theory - Essay Example

DIVINE COMMAND THEORY vs. NATURAL LAW THEORY The Tenets of the Natural Law Theory The natural law theory refers to a body of moral principles common to all humankind and is recognizable by human reason alone. It is hence distinguished from the formal legal enactment of a particular society, such as positive law. Its tenets include unwritten laws that are adhered to by the humankind and are recognized by man’s capacity for reason. Despite the theory’s reliance on reason, the natural law theory is not created by human beings and is hence, based on the structure of reality.1 Part of the tenets of the natural law theory is its characteristic of being the same for all human beings at all times, and must be adhered by them at all times as well. It poses as a means in which human beings can be rationally guided towards what is good for him and the rest of society. It is a natural knowable moral law that did not emanate from any act of human beings, but by the existence of reality in which man acts upon. The Ethical Implications of the Natural Law Theory Some of the ethical implications of the natural law theory include establishing a moral foundation for men to follow, which became the foundation also of the kind of laws being enacted in society. Thus, the natural law theory becomes a benchmark or a source of proper aid from which other laws (positive law, legal laws) adhere to. This moral foundation is one where men unknowingly follow in their association with other men, geared towards the common good and respect for the dignity of the human person. Natural law theory posits that human beings have ends from which their obligations are inferred. The natural law theory connotes ethical implications, which men consider in their decisions about which action to take and not to take when faced with moral and ethical issues. Supposed that natural law theory holds that homosexuality is wrong because it is not the natural purpose for which human nature is designed. This is to say then that homosexuality is an unnatural behavior and is therefore morally wrong and must not be taken as a proper action. Another ethical implication of the theory is holding on to the importance of the human life, in which a human embryo is believed to be possessing rationality amidst the fact that it has not yet developed into a full human being, has no brain yet, internal organs, and extremities. However, the belief in the possession of innate rationality among human beings forbid the act of abortion. It may hence be posited that the human fetus, despite not possessing reason and rationality yet, is eventually inclined towards this tendency, making abortion an act that is ought not to be done and is thus, immoral. This is where ethical implications of the natural law theory may be demonstrated. As already mentioned, the natural law theory was not established by men out of a product of certain legislations that must be followed by the whole universe. Rather, it is structured according reality itself, since it is referred to as the living contact of reason with reality.2 Natural law exists in an unchanging rule or pattern, which is to be discovered by human beings. Natural law theory puts in its tenets the practical order of things, purported at directing human acts towards attainment of what is good. Therefore, its tenets are within the construct of doing what is good (according to reason) and avoiding what is evil (what is contrary to reason). This would in turn reflect the natural inclination of self-preservation, of avoiding harm to others, of living in society, and of knowing truths about the reality in which men live alongside their human nature. Certainly, it takes into account the essence of human nature, in which man quests for order in society, one that is not based on an arbitrary set of commandments but on the essence of reason itself. How the Natural Law Theory is Differentiated from the Divine Law Theory Natural law theory is differentiated from divine command theory in that the latter pertains to the belief that ethical decisions made by man must be in accordance with God’s law, as compared to the former, which is based on reason. The divine command theory operates on the tenet that following an arbitrary set of commandments makes a human act morally right, while the natural law theory posits that acting upon reason in consideration of human nature is what makes an act morally right. Paired with the notion of divine punishment, it is not the use of reason, which men use in their pursuit to act morally, but following the commandments set forth by the Divine being, which the divine command theory posits. An Objection to the Natural Law Theory and Its Defense: Not Being Linked to Divine Inclinations It is clear that the natural law theory is based not on any scriptural foundations or divine intervention as a basis of justifying an act as morally right, but based on reliance on reason in man’s advocacy for what is good. The natural law theory claims that everything has a purpose and that it serves as a guide to what is out to be. Following what is ought to be is good, and is thus, morally right. Even though the natural law theory and the divine command theory both determine acts that are morally right, their tenets are different, since the former does not speak of religion in its claims, while the latter clearly relies on the staunchness of religion in a pursuit to uphold the commandments set forth by the Divine being. An objection to natural law theory is that it could not persist without divine reliance, since its tenets – acting upon what is morally right based on reason for the pursuit of human nature – is not possible without it being attached to a divine inclination. As mentioned, natural law theory holds that human beings are inclined towards an end and it is from these ends, from which their obligations are inferred. However, these moral obligations may only be inferred from what is natural because it is God who choose which things are natural things. The possession of reason and rationality by the human being alongside his natural propensity for an end may be reasoned out towards one that says it is only because of God’s choice that the being has such an end. Divine command theory is founded on the tenets of actions that are held morally right because they are according to the commandments of God, and an arbitrary set of commandments is characteristically its domain. The commandments have corresponding divine punishment if men chose not to follow, the reason why these commandments are arbitrary.3 On the other hand, the natural law theory, as mentioned earlier, does not dwell on this set of commandments because its recognition of what ought to be is purely based on reason and not on sets of commands from a Divine being. However, to define human nature without linking it to the ends that the Divine being have purported for men to follow is difficult, especially if the theory based on what ought to be done is a moral tenet, such as the natural law theory. Similarly, the areas of what must be done and what ought not to be being morally upright follows the same link as that of the natural law theory. The natural law theory dictates of practical reason as basis of human nature as opposed to divine command theory, which is delved on arbitrary commandment of God as basis of man’s fulfillment of it. However, both laws are geared towards the common good and are promulgated towards this purpose. It may hence be inferred that both the natural law theory and the divine command theory are both concerned with the direction of the human beings towards realizing their human nature and true happiness (fulfillment, flourishing, and perfection). One posits, however that fulfillment of human nature and acting upon what ought to be done may be understood through reason (natural law theory), while the other holds that doing what is right is morally right because that is what God says so and what man’s end is purported (divine command theory).4 Because of these differences, the two theories have different manners of promulgation: The natural law theory is promulgated based on man’s connatural knowledge of the good to which he is naturally inclined, alongside the contrary evils of these good, while divine command theory is promulgated through divine revelation, such as through the teachings of the Church and Sacred Scripture. Hence, natural law theory holds ordinances that oblige man to act according to right reason, consequently leading him towards genuine human flourishing or happiness. Divine law theory, on the other hand, holds ordinances some of which pertain to the order of nature and are thus accessible to natural reason. Some ordinances also pertain to the supernatural order of grace, which are thus inaccessible to natural reason. However, the natural law theory is not at all different from the divine law theory because the source of the standards of doing what is moral and avoiding what is immoral must be from a Divine being that initially purports the same for man. References Rachels, James. The Elements of Moral Philosophy. McGraw-Hill Companies, 1986. Rachels, James and Rachels Stuart. The Right Thing To Do. Random House Trade, 1989. Read More