The objectivity of Morality and the Natural Law

While modernism takes over the world, not only truth, but morality becomes itself subjective. Today morality is a list of preferences that people individually or collectively agree upon or propose. In fact, it seems that this is taught everywhere and in our own very schools. Thus does Pope Gregory XVI write in an encyclical: “Thus, by institutions and by the example of teachers, the minds of the youth are corrupted and a tremendous blow is dealt to religion and the perversion of morals is spread.” (Mirari Vos). For this subjective and preference-based morality is really no morality at all. It bears no objective weight or value; thus, we must discard it. Ita, we must return to the Scholastics and their formulation of the objective natural law that stems from the Stagirite himself, Aristotle. As Pope St. John Paul II writes: “The basis of these values cannot be provisional and changeable "majority" opinions, but only the acknowledgment of an objective moral law which, as the "natural law" written in the human heart…” (Evangelium Vitae). Now Aristotle's system of morality is based on the idea of final ends or causes. The principle of final ends or finality is just that every agent acts for an end. Such that, for example, the final end of a heart is to pump blood.

Aristotle himself explains final ends and also how they relate to human action: “The end of something is what that thing is for. For example, the end of taking a constitutional (Walking exercise) is to be healthy.” ( Metaphysics, Bk. Delta I). Now to doubt Aristotle's conception of finality results in impossible positions and consequences: As Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange writes: “Every action is essentially intentional, at least in the broad sense of tendency and natural inclination. In other words, by its very nature, every action tends toward a goal, whether consciously or unconsciously. Were this not so, it would not emerge from the state of indetermination; it would have no direction and no meaning. It would no more be an attraction than it would be a repulsion, no more an assimilation than a disassimilation, no more vision than hearing, etc.” (Order of things, pg. 114).

The opposing interlocutor would have to accept impossible consequences that result from denying the concept of finality, for he would have to say that there is no purpose or meaning, or that the eye is not for seeing, nor even the mind for thinking, since such a principle doesn’t exist. This is clearly an impossible position to take and therefore results in a reductio ad absurdum. Thus, things are so constituted as to act for a certain end that is natural to them, for this is nothing more than the natural law. As Jacques Maritain writes: “The same applies for natural objects. Any kind of thing existing in nature, a plant, a dog, a horse, has its own natural law, that is, the normality of its functioning, the proper way in which, by reason of its specific structure and specific ends, it should achieve fullness of being either in its growth or in its behaviour.” (Natural Law, pg 28). And because man has free will, this conception of the natural law is intertwined with his actions and is therefore a moral law. Jaqcues Maritain writes further, “The natural law of all beings existing in nature is the proper way in which, by reason of their specific nature and specific ends, they should achieve fullness of being in their behaviour. This very word should had only a metaphysical meaning (as when we say that a good or a normal eye "should" be able to read letters on a blackboard from a given distance.) The same word should starts to have a moral meaning, that is, to imply moral obligation, when we pass the threshold of the world of free agents.” (Natural Law, pg 29). 

An example of a moral inclination is that of a man who preserves his life, for this is a requirement of the natural law and is therefore a good. On the contrary, a privation or lack of fulfilling an inclination such as preserving one's life, is therefore called a sin or is evil. St. Thomas explains:

“For every privation of good, in whatever subject, is an evil: whereas sin consists properly in an action done for a certain end, and lacking due order to that end. Now the due order to an end is measured by some rule. In things that act according to nature, this rule is the natural force that inclines them to that end. When therefore an action proceeds from a natural force, in accord with the natural inclination to an end, then the action is said to be right: since the mean does not exceed its limits, viz., the action does not swerve from the order of its active principle to the end. But when an action strays from this rectitude, it comes under the notion of sin.” (ST I-II, q.21, a.2).

Even with regards to sexual ethics we can determine a path of morality. For what is the final end of sexual relations, but procreation or the rearing up of children. Therefore, we can discard contraceptives which violate the natural order and end/ purpose of the sexual organs. Thus, contrary to common modernistic belief, and using the metaphysics of Aristotle, the Scholastics and their conception of finality, we are able to come to knowledge of the objective moral order of man.

Though it must be made clear, that finality is only metaphysically possible with the assumption of He who orders things toward their ends, i.e. the Lord. Thus does St. Thomas write: “It is therefore evident that the natural law is nothing else than the rational creature’s participation of the eternal law” (ST I-II, q.91, a.2). Thus we are not left to despair when it comes to morality without divine revelation. For even St. Paul in his letter to the Romans observes men outside the faith who have knowledge of the moral law. He writes “For when the Gentiles who do not have the law by nature observe the prescriptions of the law, they are a law for themselves even though they do not have the law. They show that the demands of the law are written in their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even defend them.” (Romans 2:14-15).