Natural law focuses on primary commandments and maintaining its main components; Worship God, live in an orderly society, reproduce, learn and defend the innocent. Euthanasia can violate three of these primary commandments and is therefore prohibited by natural law. The secondary commandments would argue that euthanasia is false because it violates the commandments to defend the innocent. Killing someone, willingly or unintentionally, and worshipping God as the only God, should be able to take their life. At a time when the emphasis is on quality of life, natural law is incompatible with modern culture. Natural law maintains the sanctity of life and any practice that takes away life is wrong – in a society that allows this natural law, it is obsolete. Thomas Aquinas lived when the Church dominated society and culture and now Church and State are separate, which shows that now natural law should be adapted. Another weakness of natural law is that it contradicts itself. Although the primary commandments prohibit euthanasia because it actively kills a person, the doctrine of double effect allows it. If a doctor repeatedly prescribes more drugs to a patient, which eventually leads to an overdose, it is not the fault of the doctor and is allowed by the doctrine of double action.
This is a weakness because it seems to contradict the previous teachings of Thomas Aquinas. However, it could also be considered a force of natural law. The doctrine of double effect is best developed by the Catholic Church in response to situational ethics; It allows euthanasia to some extent, as well as the maintenance of religious aspects – many see this as favorable and may provide a way to solve the euthanasia problem. Once this is no longer possible, they should have the choice to opt for euthanasia if they wish. Pro-Life, on the other hand, promotes the sacredness of life, which is based on the idea that life is sacred and given by God. Relativism is at the heart of the theory. This means that in any situation, when we are faced with a difficult decision about whether to help someone die, we must act out of love, which means ignoring all the fixed rules and doing what the situation requires. One of the most important commandments is to “protect and preserve the innocent.” It is therefore a secondary commandment and an absolute moral rule that one must never kill an innocent person. It seems that euthanasia is always bad.
One could not argue in favour of assisted suicide, since the same principle would prohibit suicide, even if one could justify assisting someone to die, which is unlikely. Natural law is a theonnomic ethical theory, which means that its teachings are based on God. Therefore, the commandment of worship of God must be fulfilled in order to bring us closer to our final cause. A Catholic would not want voluntary euthanasia because of the many teachings of the Bible. In the 10 commandments, God reigns: “Thou shalt not kill” (Exodus 20:13). Therefore, the act of ending life would be considered immoral. When Jesus was asked which of the 10 commandments was more important, He commanded, “Love God” and “Love your neighbor as yourself” [Matthew 22:36-40]. Therefore, the decision to end life, which was made, “imago dei” [in the image of God], would be an immortal sin against God and thus further distance the moral actor from his ultimate cause. Natural law is of no use for euthanasia, and therefore situational ethics should be adopted. Joseph Fletcher was the founder of situational ethics and for a time president of the euthanasia society in the United States.
Situational ethics allow the practice of euthanasia because it focuses more on quality of life. First of all, Fletcher`s vision of agape is much stronger, as it explains the most loving thing you can do. In some situations, it is more affectionate to change the survival machine so that a person`s suffering is stopped. The most loving thing to do allows patients` families to say goodbye, allows patients to assess possible future situations for themselves through living wills. Situational ethics follow the theses of pragmatism, personalism, positivism and relativism. Each of them is important to the issue of euthanasia. Pragmatism allows a practical approach to euthanasia and where the practicality of a situation is central. Personalism puts people above the law so that full agape can be achieved. Although a partially legalistic theoretical situation, ethics is also contradictory where people should make their own decisions regarding the law. Positivism allows the practice of euthanasia because in most cases a positive effect is produced. Relativism is most important because it allows the situation to be weighed on a case-by-case basis (natural law is unable to do so because it is absolute).
These proposals provide more clarity on euthanasia and clarify the issue of euthanasia. How would a follower of the natural law allow euthanasia? A follower of natural law who took all aspects completely literally would never allow euthanasia. This is because the five main commandments clearly contradict this action. The main commandment that euthanasia undoubtedly opposes is “the preservation of human life.” Since the primary commandments are what Thomas Aquinas considers our goal on earth, euthanasia violates these guidelines because it helps someone end their life so that they are no longer alive. Although this is the only primary commandment that openly contradicts euthanasia, in reality euthanasia contradicts all the primary commandments of “procreation,” “education and education of youth,” “living in peace in society,” and “worshipping God,” because if you are dead, then you cannot do these things. The primary commands are all ethical and therefore have no room for manoeuvre. In contrast, secondary commandments are teleological and can change on rare occasions, as Thomas Aquinas himself showed when he went against the original commandment of “procreation” because he was a monk. Learn more. Natural law is an ancient theory that has its origins in the Greeks and Aristotle in particular. Thomas Aquinas took Aristotle and tried to reconcile his theory of ethics with Christianity.
What the candidate is talking about here is Thomas Aquinas` version of natural law, which has been a dominant moral theory in the West because it informs the moral theology of the Catholic Church. Note the synoptic link with the Christian thought document and secularism. However, according to natural law, there are internal and external actions. Inner action (intention) and external action (action) are both of equal importance according to Thomas Aquinas, and therefore both must be good to lead to good action. This means that the followers of the natural law cannot agree with any form of euthanasia, because even if the intention is good, for example to relieve pain, the act of aiding and abetting a person`s suicide, actively or passively, is wrong. On the other hand, the followers of the natural law can accept passive euthanasia, but not active euthanasia based on the doctrine of double effect. Active euthanasia involves doing something intentional that leads to someone`s death, which is a bad act that can have good consequences, while passive euthanasia occurs when the patient dies because medical professionals do nothing necessary to keep the patient alive, or when they stop doing something that keeps the patient alive. For example, do not perform life-prolonging surgery. Learn more.
Here is a written response from the June 2018 exam that received complete scores. I have added comments to show what is good and what is not in this response. You don`t need to write a perfect answer to get the full score. Read my comments in italics and see if you agree. PB Natural Law is a Roman Catholic ethical theory. Another source is found in the Bible in the teachings of St. Paul.