I’ve been trying to better understand the catholic conception of natural law. Based on the natural law, why is murder morally wrong? Rape? Can anyone point me towards a good analysis of arguments for natural law and a look at the contents of this law? Thanks for all replies.
“Natural law” refers to the knowledge that we have of morality, simply based on reason. The idea is as follows: human beings possess something called a “nature” (i.e, “human nature”), in common with all men. It is universal to men of all places and all times; we possess human nature simply because we belong to the species called “man,” regardless of age, sex, moral state, walk of life, or any other factor.
This “nature” is not just a convenient concept for grouping together the common properties man, but is, in fact, an ontological principle. All of our actions stem from that nature.
One of the things that our nature does is specify which actions, among all the ones we are capable of, are
beneficial for us, and which ones are
harmful. And things are beneficial to the degree that they bring us toward our ultimate goal (or at least do not impede us from reaching that goal). That ultimate goal or end we generically call “happiness.” We can deduce, even philosophically, that only that only God can give us ultimate and lasting happiness, but we do not need to get that far to see that certain actions clearly contribute to our happiness (are beneficial) or tend to bring about our misery (are harmful). Evil actions are always
contra naturam: they fight against our nature, so to speak.
When we say that something is morally “right,” that is equivalent to saying that it is beneficial, that it is conducive to our happiness; likewise, what is morally “wrong” is precisely that which causes us harm and brings about our misery. (Incidentally, we must not confuse happiness with
pleasure: happiness consists in possessing a good, in reaching a beneficial goal; pleasure is merely the
effect of obtaining such a good. It is, therefore, foolish to seek pleasures for their own sake; it is like chasing a rainbow. What must be sought is always the
good.)
Let us apply this to the examples you mentioned. I should preface this by noting that we don’t really need an argument to prove that murder or rape are wrong. At the very least, it is evident to the victims. Moreover, except in the case of someone with a psychological disorder, I would say that it is unlikely that the perpetrator does not know his actions are wrong, even in the very act of committing the crime. Our intellects are “wired” to understand the most basic moral principles. But it is useful and interesting to understand how moral precepts are rooted in the natural law.
In any event, why is murder
contra naturam? I mean, it is obvious that murder harms the victim, but in order for the action to be wrong it must harm the
perpetrator in some way. (There is no such thing as an evil action that is wrong “just because.”) Well, if we examine the crime, the murderer seeks some apparent benefit (acts are always committed for the sake at least of an apparent good), at the cost of the life of his victim. He accepts some fungible good (money, the appeasement of jealousy, or what have you) in exchange for the very
human nature of his victim.
The key to understanding why this is evil lies in what I said earlier: the communion that all men share according to their human nature. If a murderer lashes out against a fellow man, he is doing violence not only to that individual, but also, in a certain sense, to all those who possess human nature, including himself. For the murderer, human nature itself becomes cheap and fungible. Such a disposition produces a deep disorder in his faculties, which only grace can heal. Since his will has adhered to that disorder, it harms him, so to speak,
morally, not just physically.
Really, the argument against rape is similar. I think it is easy to see that violating a woman’s bodily integrity like that is extremely damaging to her, in every respect: physically, emotionally, psychologically, even spiritually. (A rape victim is not, however,
morally harmed—she does not commit a sin—because the violence done to her is entirely outside her control.) Deliberately causing grave harm to another person is always harmful (in this case,
morally harmful) to the perpetrator, for the same reason as in the case of murder.
Yes, it is possible to live by natural law even if you don’t know/believe God exists. However, since God instilled natural law into us at our creation we can’t ignore him merely because we don’t want to believe in his existence–that’s intellectually dishonest. Still, since natural law is a part of our make up as human beings, even without reference to God we can practice it. We’ll still have to answer to God for breaking it willing and knowingly.