Is John Finnis’ Natural Law Acceptable Today?

 by Naome Dixon

John Finnis is a controversial contemporary professor of law, who reformulated aspects of natural law to correspond with jurisprudence, in his book “Natural Laws and Natural Rights” in 1980. Due to the recent publication, one can argue that Finnis’ theory should be acceptable in modern society. This can be seen with the focus on the rule of law, the empowerment of the individual via practical reason and the broader scope for religious and atheistic belief. Saying this, one can conversely argue that his theory is not acceptable in contemporary society, due to the alienation of traditional Roman Catholics, Finnis own conservative bias influencing the “self-evident” basic goods and its unfalsible nature. Overall, despite its modern publication, one can argue that Finnis’ theory is not compatible with contemporary society and alongside a religious belief Hoose depiction of proportionalism is superior. 

Within contemporary British society, there has been a decline in church attendance, seen with UK Church membership declining  from 10.6 million in 1930 to 5.5 Million in 2010. Due to this, Finnis’ broader scope for religious belief is arguably compatible within contemporary society. This can be seen in the Basic Good of religion, as while this grounds the theory in belief, he refers to a notion of a cosmic order above the individual or  as Finnis puts it an “intelligent grasp of worthwhile forms.” Thus, the basic good is not necessarily Christian and could include other faiths such as Buddhism. Moreover, within this basic good, Finnis also puts an emphasis on questions being significant in themselves rather than the answers derived from the. Therefore, one could argue that Richard Dawkins asking questions around the existence of God is significant in itself, despite the answers being “agnostic or negative” in his book the “God delusion”. This broader definition of religion within the self evident basic good opens up Finnis’ theory to be acceptable in a contemporary society with a decline of traditional religious belief. Conversely, one can argue that this broad definition of religious belief alienates contemporary Roman Catholics, as within Aquinas’ Natural law, the universal nature of his 5 primary precepts (which Finnis replaced with his 7 Basic Good) are universal due to their God given nature. This is not the case for Finnis’ theory, as it is broader, so the question stands on why Finnis claims his 7 basic goods can be universal without a solid foundation in the eternal divine law, like Aquinas’ natural law. While there are elements of Christian belief, such as the basic good of “life” mirroring Aquinas precept of self preservation, there is still not a strong enough Christian foundation for contemporary Roman Catholics. Therefore, despite the broader scope of religion being compatible with the decline in church attendance, there is still an alienation of traditional Roman Catholics, who may still prefer Aquinas’ untampered Natural Law.

Moreover, one can argue that Finnis’ theory is not acceptable within contemporary society, as his own conservative political bias negates the application of his 7 Basic goods. This can be seen with his Basic Good of life, as in a 2011 paper “Law, Morality and Sexual Orientation” he argued that the Basic Good does not include gay marriage, while it does heterosexual, as it is not “intrinsically good or reasonable”. Moreover, in relation to the issue of immigration, he described it as “reverse colonialism” as mass immigration can harm the “requirement of practical reason” of the  community, by destroying local cultural customs. Arguably, this view is not acceptable within contemporary society, seen with the largely unanimous western support for Ukrainian refugees in 2022, who came with differing cultures. Saying this, Finnis is not opposed to all immigration within his theory, but only mass and due to his normative legalistic philosophical approach of jurisprudence, he strongly believes in the rule of law. Thus, as the UK currently does allow controlled  immigrants tuon levels, the Finnis apologists should accept this as well, as one should accept the law and authority within their country. This perhaps makes the application of immigration acceptable in modern society, however the application onto gay marriage still remains an issue, notably at ter the passage of the Marriage act in 2013. In addition to this, one can argue that the application of Proportionalism, as depicted by Hoose in “Proportionalism: An American debate and it’s European Roots” in 1980, is more acceptable within contemporary society. This is due to the Proportionalism Maxim of “it is never right to go against a principle unless there is a proportionate reason which would justify it” which arguably handles the issue of immigration better than Finnis. While this is subjective, the reliance on morally absolute principles such as “love they alien as yourself “ (Leviticus) is arguably more productive, while also allowing flexibility through proportionate reason. By weighing up the values against the disvalues, following the Proportionalism methodology, one can conclude that there is not sufficient proportionate reason to break this moral principle and it to be the right act. This reliance on fixed moral absolutes with an element of flexibility is arguably more acceptable in contemporary society than Finnis system which is heavily influenced by his own personal political bias. Thus one can argue that despite the rule of law, Finnis theory is not acceptable within contemporary society. 

Lastly, one can argue that Finnis’ theory is acceptable, as the central principle (seen in the basic goods and the 9 requirements for practical reason) of practical reason allows the individual to be empowered. Finnis distinguishes between two types of reasoning, theoretical and practical. Theoretical reasoning is descriptive and cannot command moral obligations and this reasoning is used in naturalistic theories (such as Utilitarismism) making them fall into G.E Moore’s naturalistic fallacy. Differing from this, Finnis theory is based on practical reasoning which is applied, and normative, so it can produce moral obligations and it is similar to Aristotle’s Phronesis; Finnis argues this makes his theory escape the fallacy. The use of practical reasoning empowers the individual, as it is applied situationally and thus different moral agents can come to different solutions which mirrors the multi-faceted contemporary society. For example, with the issue of Capital Punishment, one can use practical reasoning and apply the Basic Good of Life to support its use (as it protects others from being murdered) or to oppose it (as it takes away the fundamental right to self-preservation). The variety in outcomes while using practical reasoning arguably is acceptable within the complexity of contemporary society. However, one can argue that while practical reasoning escapes G.E Moore’s Naturalistic Fallacy, it does not escape Anthony Flew’s critique. This is because it is unfalsifiable, as it is not inductive or a tautology and thus the moral obligations it’s claims should be rejected as truth, in an empirical contemporary society. Thus, despite practical reasoning empowering the individual, one can argue that Finnis theory is not acceptable in contemporary society as it is unfalsifiable. 

In conclusion, despite its broader scope for religion, its respect for the rule of law and its empowering of the individual via practical reasoning, one can still argue that Finnis’ theory is not acceptable within contemporary society. This is due to the alienation of Traditional Roman Catholics, Proportionalism supplying a more well rounded application in the face of Finnis political bias and its unfalsifiable nature.