2 Types of Value o 1. Intrinsic value (inside): o From the thing itself o From the inside o 2. Extrinsic value (outside): o From another o From the outside

Dignity o Dignity: the worth or value of a thing. o Dignity comes, most importantly, from nature. o Dignity is most importantly intrinsic.

Intrinsic or Extrinsic dignity? o Where does the value come from?

o Diamond: o A diamond is “naturally” rare, hard, useful. o The value is intrinsic o $100 bill: o Intrinsic value: a piece of paper o Extrinsic value: US Gov’t backs it up as legitimate currency with a value of $100.

o Intrinsic dignity can not be taken away. o It can be abused, but never taken away.

How we Treat the Thing Nature → Dignity → Rights it has; Duties towards it

Evil o Definition of evil: a violation of nature (purpose). o Evil violates somebody’s or something’s dignity o Maybe your own

Nat. Law vs. Voluntarism o Nature: what a thing is o Morality (applied): what is right for the thing o So, “what is” determines “what’s right”

o The opposite of Natural Law is Voluntarism. o Voluntarism: Right and wrong is determined by someone’s will. o E.g., white sweater with reds, ipod in water don’t work, even if someone says so.

o God agrees with Natural Law in his laws. o He knows our nature and what is good for us. o Violence: to act contrary to the nature of a thing. o Means: something for the sake of another. o End: something that is for it’s own sake (goal, outcome, result)

Applying Nat Law

o Let’s look closely at 4 kinds of things are figure out how to treat them. o 4 Kingdoms : Rocks, Trees, Cows, and Humans

Rock Nature o Is it okay for me to just start breaking, cutting, or pulverizing rock for fun? o What if it’s my rock? o What if it’s a geode, or a baseball sized diamond? o Can I destroy the largest, most expensive diamond ever, if it is mine?

o Are some rocks of greater worth (dignity) than others? o What do we look at? o What a thing is, tells us how to treat it. o The kind of rock it is, tells us how to treat it.

What a thing is o 1. Life o 2. Beauty o 3. Integrity/wholeness – “undividedness” and “completeness”

Trees o Is it okay for me to cut down a 30sq. Mile forest? For the purpose of building a new city? o Is it okay for me to cut down a tree? 20? For the purpose of building a cabin?

Determining how I treat things o 1. Life o 2. Beauty o 3. Integrity/wholeness – “undividedness” and “completeness” o If I chop a tree in half, it won’t live long and integrity is lost. o But, trees don’t even have feelings, so the life of a tree is not absolute.

o General principle of stewardship: As the only rational creatures, we have power and responsibility for the use of non-rational goods. o Spiderman principle: “with great power comes great responsibility.”

Moral Questions o Can I cut 1/3 of the limbs off a tree? o In order to get out of the way of power lines. o Can I strip bark? o To make maple syrup, rubber, and cork? o These things grow back. What if they don’t? o B/c. we can strip bark and leave it to live if we have a good cause.

Cows o Can I kill a cow? o Kill and eat? o Kill and not eat? o Kill many and not eat? o You need a good reason—meat, dairy, leather. Why? o Because we’re stewards.

o **So…..can I hack steaks from a live cow and just leave it? o But, we said that we could strip bark and cut off these limbs. Why is this wrong? o Cow nature: o Senses >> feels pain o Movement

o Trees don’t—that is the difference! o Great explanation of NL: When you see a change in nature, you may have a change in the judgment of right and wrong. o Trees and cows are living creatures, able to be used, and even killed for our benefit, but the addition of senses changes what is morally acceptable in regard to them.

Human Nature (Finally!) o We have equal or better life, integrity, beauty, motion, & senses (than other life forms). o But also the human intellect/will makes possible human qualities: community, relationships, virtue/vice, and personality. o This increases our ability to others, but also our responsibilities (duties).

o By adding this “new dimension” keeps us from “biologism” in NL thinking. o Biologism states “whatever the biology of something is determines how to treat it.” o Classic trap = contraception. Some argue that the reproductive organs are the reproductive system, therefore intercourse while blocking the reproductive faculty is immoral.

o Opponents said that by that logic you can’t use earplugs because ears were meant to hear. o Karol Wojtyla (JPII) saw this coming and re-framed the contraception question in terms of life and love: about taking vs. giving; loving vs. using; selfishness vs. selflessness. He said that openness to life is what safeguards love.

o As we did with the other “kingdoms”, we look at human nature to tell us how we treat each other. o Man has an intellect and will. o Review: something in our intellect is greater/bigger than time, space, and anything in this world. o So, there is no worldly need that is great enough to justify destroying a human life.

Conclusions o Man exists for his own sake (end) and not just for another (means). o Notice that “what we are supposed to do” isn’t based on the act-er, but on the passive being, the victim (not power, but nature)