Download NL Finnis

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.