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-bepursued”, 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.
K, Pr
The 7 basic goods list:
(Little King Alfred Played Sweetly Round the Pram)
1. Life – respect for human life. (like Aquinas’ selfpreservation 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.
Criticisms of Basic Goods:
- Is this an exclusive list? how can we be sure that there are only 7 basic goods?
Finnis argues that any other goods we may puruse are simply forms of these 7
basic goods. Must life always include reproduction? Or can’t a disabled person
or a person with a lifelong illness still have a “full” life?
- What does Finnis mean by “self-evident”? Is he just making an assumption ? He
has not proved that this particular list of goods is the most basic expression of
human nature.
- Finnis says all these goods are not hierarchical, but that they are all equally self
evident ie none is more important than any other and all are equally to be
pursued (he is trying to get away from the idea of having an overall “final end”).
But if you were to save a drowning child while playing golf, doesn’t that suggest
that you consider life to be more important than play?
- We do normally consider some values to be higher but Finnis does not allow
this. We normally consider a good person to be the one who is committed to
higher values ie saving life. If you didn’t save the child, but carried on playing
golf, Finnis would say there was nothing morally wrong in that. ).
MRumian 2016
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.
Criticisms of the Methodological Principles:
- Life Plan criticism:
 If you have a life plan, it is because you have ordered the basic goods for yourself,
as more or less important to you to pursue, so that you can make relevant moral
choices. Some ordering principle is being introduced, but Finnis does not say
anything about how to choose it, or which ones would be moral to follow. With
so many possibilities, he gives no guidance about actually choosing a life plan. Or
about when you can change one.
 If you have a life plan, then you have some final end in view. This contradicts his
aim to avoid specifying a final end.
 Some good actions can be done without a life plan – that doesn’t make them
immoral. Eg jump in on the spur of the moment to save a drowning child. It
wasn’t part of their life plan! (not part of what they thought would make up their
human fulfillment)
- over emphasizes the 6th basic good of practical reasonableness: this good already
shapes how we will relate to the other goods
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.
MRumian 2016