Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Summary so Far.. • Aristotle • Aquinas The Finnis Reconstruction of N.L. Natural law without nature? Secularisation of Natural Law • Grotius John Finnis (1940 - ) • Book “Natural Law, Natural Rights” • Following Grotius, tries to show that you can have Natural Law independently from idea of Eternal Law, so that it does not presuppose existence of a divine lawgiver, according to whom everything in creation is “structured”. • A theory of law as well as a theory of ethics – Aquinas explained moral force of natural law (based in nature) How can he do this? If there is Natural Law, but no Eternal Lawgiver, are there any “rules” in nature, dictatijng how things should be? If not, then how can there be a “Natural Law”? Natualistic Fallacy • End of the moral process is human flourishing, wellfunctioning (A) • Rejects A’s idea that formal cause leads to final cause. (if you know what a man is, you know how he should behave) Observing behavioural facts tells us about shoulds. • Morality cannot be reduced to metaphysical basis to give it normative force • Do not base morality on human nature/ natural goods (philosophical anthropology ) Naturalistic fallacy • But then how do you decided what “natural goods” are ? He thinks you can find self-evident objective “goods” rationally – not by looking at nature. Finnis’ self-evident “7 basic goods” • They are worked out “rationally” as self-evident, not in the sense that they are obvious, but in the sense that they include all other “moral” goods. • All men desire to know, all efforts to know include avoiding ignorance • They motivate your actions and they are the goal of your actions – desirable to have for themselves, as well as for what they can give you. • They are universal and timeless and absolute. Does Finnis manage to prove sself- 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Life – preservation, procreation, health. Knowledge Play, or skill. Aesthetic appreciation Friendship, sociability Practical reasonableness – using intelligence to make moral decisions. Disctinctive. Reaonable to follow reason. Religion – that all other goods made possible by a higher intelligence 9 principles practical reasonableness • Tells us how to deal with the other goods – Skill and commiment needed to basis goods to acehieve them – Commit to all, None can be left out – Integration and harmony of all goods is active effort – Treat others fairly golden rule, not doing to them what you do not like – Detachement, remembering commitments – Efficeint moral action, avoiding worse – Not consequences, but values matter – Foster common good – Follow conscience Problems with Finnis • • Finnis claims they are not discovered through looking at human nature, but then this also makes these “goods” simple a question of “knowledge” or “self-experience” not based on how things really are in us. • They are valued for their own sake, not for another, final end. But more like HI’s – what you must do to take part in practical reasonableness (Scavone) AN egoist could just choose play or aesthetic. • They are “pre-moral” goods – not good or bad in themselves, just instinctive,. But if everybody has them, what is the difference between good and bad man, If both euqally puruse them? Good man – pursues good? • Natural law not = reason – living in accord with nature is not the same as living according to reason.not necessarily emvedded in nature but Finis seems to think so • • Practical Reasonableness This is the most controversion of Finnis’ 7 basic goods – as it doesn’t just seem like a good, but actually the way in which you identify all the other goods: so it isn’t just practical any longer, but theoretical – knowledge, not action. identifying the other goods – how are they self-evident? Is it just his intuition? He says other people would accept his list, and that proves it is objective, or really true. - based on what it already recognises that it wants – from a basic core of our personality, rather than abstract reasoning of what is “obvious” to want. • • Brain in a Vat Would you want to be a brain in a vat? Is this an ambition you might have for yourslef, as a future goal? Why not? The point is we have a strong sense of what happiness for us would mean, and it is not being a disembodied brain in a vat. Thking about it, is a rational way of coming to a conclusion that this is not a suitable end for humans. Rather we have something in our human nature that does give us an idea of what we really do want. – the ground of what we desire.