Natural Law Theory in Ethics “A Critical Survey Based on Tabatabaei and John Finnis”

Natural law theory in ethics is the theory of understanding happiness based on natural talents and strengths of man that exist in the Greek tradition, especially in Aristotle and was followed later in attitudes of St. Aquinas. John Finnis who is one of the contemporary followers of this moral tradition tries to follow the path of understanding and realization of human happiness based on nature. Allameh Tabatabai has also based his moral views on human nature and his natural capacities to depict a version of the theory of natural law in the Islamic ethical tradition. These two contemporary views, despite moving toward one direction and having some significant similarities, have some considerable differences on the basis of which we can judge about the justifiability and defensibility of these two views. The differences can be classified in three main approaches; ontological, epistemological and psychological (motivational). In the ontological approache, unlike Finnis, Tabatabaei has adopted some successful foundations to describe the process in which human moral identity is realized. Hence, he does not have problems such as persisting on a limited list of basic goods and also believing to the non preference of some basic goods over others. In epistemological approaches, Tabatabaei made it clear that the human cognition is limited, and also provided a clear solution to show how to recognize the satisfaction of God as a specific criterion in ethics, while Finnis has introduced a criterion in this way which is ambiguous. In the psychological approach, unlike Finnis, Tabatabai separates reaeons of action.  In general, it seems that the approach of Tabatabaei can be more defensible and reasonable in three mentioned dimensions. By considering the historical theory of natural law, this paper attempts to analyze the moral theory of natural law in relation to these two contemporary thinkers based on three mentioned approaches.