Moral Epistemology and Bioethics: Is the New Natural Law the Solution to Otherwise Intractable Disputes?

The contemporary natural law literature often holds that the Natural Law is a plausible framework for forging consensus, or at least making progress toward consensus, in the face of deep moral disagreement. It also has been offered as a framework useful for crafting universal or global ethical standards and as a way to explain (allegedly) widely held moral intuitions or beliefs. Claims that the Natural Law can be used to resolve apparently intractable disagreements, to articulate a universal or global account of ethics, and to explain "what people believe" about ethical questions are misguided. This essay exposes serious problems with each of these claims and contrasts some of the foundational assumptions of New Natural Law theories with traditional Christian approaches to bioethics.