The Strengths and Weaknesses

of Natural Moral Law

Natural moral law is the principle founded by St Thomas Aquinas that
mankind can work out rights and wrongs from the world around them;
things occurring in nature, by using their rationality and reason. As such,
many strengths and weaknesses arise from a system.
One major strength of natural moral law is that it allows humans to form
the laws that are the fundamental framework of society. The reason that
this works as a principle is because many of values are shared intrinsically
between a large majority of people. For example, most people would
agree that terrible acts such as rape and murder are completely and
utterly wrong. Thereby, a society is created where a large majority hold
the same values, creating much community cohesion as everyone agrees
on core principles, creating a harmonious society in which people can
agree on important matters, thereby allowing the society to progress in a
forwards manner.
Another strength of natural moral law is that it relies on human ability to
reach decisions about what is right and wrong by themselves, and using
empirical evidence observed from the planet in order to establish their
system of morals. Thereby, a greater state of independence is achieved as
humans really think for themselves using their rationality. Furthermore,
this independence allows the human race to flourish not only in terms of
reaching their potential good, but also in terms of developing different
cultures, due to the simple fact that different parts of the world contain
different natural occurrences, for example, tropical rainforests occur in
Brazil and not here in England, and evidently, there is much difference
between Brazilian culture and English; cultural differentiation being an
obvious strength of Aquinas principle. Expanding on my aforementioned
point, greater independence encourages humans to reach their potential
good by them finding out intrinsically what is good and evil independently.
Furthermore, this allows for increased flexibility in laws created as more
people have an input as to what is decided; leading to a system in which
everyones values are appreciated.
On the other hand, there are problems with the theory of Natural Law that
cannot be ignored. Firstly, there is the issue that not everything on earth
that is naturally found is morally good. A key example is the matter of
natural evil; including earthquakes, volcano disasters and other natural
disasters. Further evidence of this can be found in terrible, life ending
diseases such as cancer and HIV, which a lot of the time cannot be
prevented or cured and is simple a case of terrible luck, infecting anyone
from any age. This kind of evil is not down to human intervention; humans

have no part to play in these deaths and therefore dubbed as natural evil;
not moral evil. As a result, should humans use these natural events to
learn and figure out the world around them using their rationality to
decide what is evil and good, then the final outcome of such judgement
would surely be flawed by interpreting these natural events into their
moral systems and laws. For example, as cancer is a natural disease, it
may lead one to believe that this is acceptable, maybe even morally
correct. These ideas and perceptions can evolve into any manner of
twisted ideas and schemes, potentially resulting in the corruptions of law
systems.
Another weakness of natural moral law is the fact that it is simply a dated
system. Thomas Aquinas was one of the best thinkers ever to have lived
on the planet, but he died almost 800 years ago. His system of working
out what is right and wrong empirically was undoubtedly essential in
setting up the laws that to this very day define our society, but nowadays
his theory is outdated. For example, there is much potential for friction
between two cultures if they had both used Natural Moral Law to work out
different interpretations of how a society should work; if their rational
conclusions result in different outcomes there is much potential of friction
and clashes in ideology. Furthermore, conclusions that may have been
reached hundreds of years ago will likely be invalid today; for example, in
Aquinas time, homosexuals were likely discriminated against and rejected
by the Natural Law theory because they do not follow natural order; and
cannot reproduce. Nowadays, this would induce a huge clash in ideals, as
nowadays homosexuals are integrated thoroughly into society. Many other
examples can also be found that prove that Natural Law is an outdated
theory.
Overall, I believe that Natural Moral Law is definitely a strong theory, but
its weakness cannot be underestimated. There is much benefit to Thomas
Aquinas famous theory, especially the factor that it allows humans to
make up their own minds as to how they live their lives, exercising
independence in order to construct the framework to their society. Many
intrinsic values are held close by a large majority, resulting in a wellbalanced set of societal rules that are respectful and flexible. The fact that
a lot of these rules are still used today proves Natural Laws effectiveness.
Contrastingly, there is no doubting that the theory is fundamentally
flawed in the way that not everything on earth can be deemed morally
good, and that interpretations of these can be damaging to the set of
societal laws empirically worked out. Furthermore, the theory itself is
dates back to the 13th century, around 800 years ago, showing that while
many conclusions reached still have validity, many attitudes have
evolved, as one would expect, in that huge time period, possibly leading
to friction and clashes in ideology.