John Finnis’ Version of Natural Law

A major strength of NL is that is potentially a source of moral values that can be agreed on universally, on the basis of our common human nature. As a deontological system, it can help establish rules for society that can structure communities. However, there are 3 major criticisms that need to be resolved:

1. what this common human nature consists of, in a way that everyone can agree with

2. how to make NL applicable in secular society, that does not believe eternal law/ beatitude with God as a final end for man

3. the is-ought problem (Naturalistic Fallacy)

The is-ought problem (Naturalistic Fallacy)

An important philosophical criticism of NL is that it tries to derive moral laws about what you ought to do, based on the way things are. (fact  value). This is a “category” mistake because describing the way something is, is not the same as saying what it should be, so you can’t really prove one from the other.

Eg It might be part of our nature to care (description) but this does not prove that one ought to care for others

Eg sex produces babies (description), this doesn’t mean that every act of sex ought to be create babies (normative statement).

To try and derive an “ought” from an “is”, is to commit the Naturalistic Fallacy. It may be rational to follow NL, respecting the way we are made, but it is not necessarily moral.

Finnis’ Solution

Finnis tries to come up with a theory that is both completely secular, and which does not commit the Naturalistic Fallacy, and comes up with a broader view of human nature that does not assume biological inclinations as the most important. He does this in three steps:

1. A list of 7 basic goods

2. Specifies FPPR (First Principle of Practical Reason) & the FPM (First Principle of Morality)

3. Specifies the Methodological Principles - a list of ways to pursue the 7 goods

1. The 7 Basic Goods

Finnis comes up with a list of 7 basic goods, which he considers to be “things-to-be-pursued”, for their own sake, not for any other end (difference from Aquinas’ beatitudo & utilitarianism). The 7 goods give us reasons to act. It is not the case that we “should” do these things, or that we should do other things for the sake of them – the goods only give us reasons why we might act. (he is avoiding the Naturalistic Fallacy)

Basic Goods are:

- Objective goods, because they are based in what human nature is like,

- Self-evident to all rational persons (ie all people would recognize them as good, even if it could not be demonstrated why they do). As a lawyer, Finnis would consider such goods to be protected by human law as well.

- Fundamental, and there is no hierarchy between the goods - no goods have objective priority of value over others.

The 7 basic goods list:

(Little King Alfred Played Sweetly Round the Pram)

  1. Life – respect for human life. (like Aquinas’ self-preservation precept), but also includes valuing good health, freedom from pain, and procreation. Nuclear weapons would frustrate this aim.
  2. Knowledge – he means mostly theoretical knowledge
  3. Aesthetic experience – being able to make and appreciate beautiful things, is simply good in itself, not for any other reason.
  4. Play – enjoyment of culture, and being able to take part in it eg see a play, do dance. May lead to aesthetic experience but not necessarily.
  5. Sociability – pursuing a minimum of peace and harmony among others, but also the flowering of full friendship, and relating to others for their good. (cf. part of Aristotle’s concept of eudaimonia)
  6. Practical reasonableness – the ability to bring your intelligence to bear on the the problems of choosing what action to take, or lifestyle to choose, and shaping your own character ie freely ordering & integrating your emotions and desires, hopes and plans, as self-determination.
  7. Religion – as a “concern for ultimate order” , and a sense of responsibility about your life – it does not mean worship of divine being, but rather the recognition that the basic goods are made possible because of a structuring order in the very nature of things.

2. The FPPR and FPM
– First Principle of Practical Reason & First Principle of Morality

FPPR: “Good is to be done and evil avoided”. This tells us which goods should be pursued, and which avoided.

FPM: “one ought to choose only those possibilities which are compatible with human fulfillment”. The FPM emphasizes that we should integrate our choices so that they contribute to our human fulfillment. It is a guiding ideal of how to act, to make sure we are acting in a way that leads to our fulfillment. In this way, our choice of goods will be “thoroughly reasonable”.

Eg play is important when you are on a long student summer holiday; “knowledge” is more important when you are at university.

3. The 9 Methodological Principles

We can derive “Methodological Principles” from the FPPR (a bit like deriving Primary Principles in Aquinas’ NL) . These Methodological Principles then allow us to make actual decisions. They give us an understanding of what we should do, for our human fulfillment, and how to relate to the 7 basic goods we want to pursue.

Lively/ princes(2) /commit/ dangerous/ errors /rolling /clever /coconuts

  1. The Coherent Life Plan - people should have a plan of life, an idea of who they want to be, and how they mean to integrate the basic goods, and commit themselves to specific goals
  2. Not to have arbitrary preferences among the basic goods
  3. Not to have arbitrary preferences towards different people – Golden Rule – treat others as you would like to be treated.
  4. To have a sense of detachment from all specific projects – not to be fanatical about any one of the basic goods, but have a commitment & be open to all of them, in the long-term and not just living for today only.
  5. Not to abandon commitments lightly – once you have decided on your life plan
  6. To bring about good with efficiency – to use proportional means to achieve good/ avoid bad eg minimum force in self-defence
  7. respect all goods equally, by never to choosing against a basic good. (For Finnis, the end never justifies the means).
  8. To promote and work for the common good of your community
  9. To follow conscience – no matter what. Even if proves to be mistaken.

Strengths of Finnis’ View

- He does present a theory that is secular, has a less biological and broader list of primary precepts, and avoids the naturalistic fallacy (that you should do what your nature suggests. In Finnis; theory, the “should” only comes about from the FPPR).

- the goods do seem culture independent, applicable across a wide range of different people – they may be a useful way of deciding morality and what is against the law

- the methodological principles treat people equally and value different lifestyles equally, but also recognize that we need to work for the common good & for the benefit of others.

- They also help to avoid over-emphasis on any particular good, remembering that the goods need to be integrated into a stable, ongoing life-plan, which requires commitment and integrity of conscience.

- It avoids physicalism, as it does not emphasise biological function –

- It avoids reference to religious authority (ie. eternal law) and emphasizes the role of reason instead, in recognizing and pursuing the basic goods.

***but*** in a sense, Finnis’ theory is NOT a version of Natural Law theory at all. It is not based on human nature in its natural inclinations, but only on a priori , rationally recognized “self-evident” goods.