aquinas and natural law
natural law - the moral law of god that has been built into human nature
syndereis = our natural inclination to do good and avoid evil
aquinas was a part of the dominican church
influenced by aristotle, and his view on what the purpose of the world is.
absolutist - certain actions are intrinsically right and wrong regardless of context, consequences and intentions
deontological - a duty based moral framework holding that actions are inhertly wrong based on rules and a duties rather than their consequences
ARTISTOLE’S TELEOLOGY
the ultimate human purpose for humans was eudamonia - happiness/ human flourishing and theora - theoretical contemplation = study of all things in general ( science ) + philosophy.
prime mover - all things in the universe are moving towards, if humans are moving toward eudamonia then they are also moving towards the prime mover
analogy of the arrow -
the arrow = natural bodies = us. we lack intelligence but we move towards a goal. e.g flowers grow towards the sun
the target = purpose/telos . the goal that we are moving towards, for aquinas- human’s purpose is being with god and eudamonia
the archer = God. external intelligence that is directing this arrow.
criticism for teleology
no proof that there is an ultimate purpose for everyone
what if everyone wants a different purpose in life, we are all unique, will everyone want to fulfil the purpose
what is purposes contradict each other e.g purpose is to kill
can we all share the same human nature
James Rachels says ‘the only thing that is missing is god’. aquinas solves this problem by incorporating a divine creator with teleology
Aquinas does not believe that you can reach god in this life time, but actually after death.
natural law - this is how the world works, we should live in accordance with law of nature
nature = human nature which is given to us god given reason. animals cannot drive towards god, because they do not have reason
four tiers of law
eternal law - the will of god, we as humans cannot understand this fully understand these moral truths
it is god’s knowledge of what is right and wrong. the effect of eternal law is moving all things towards and end and purpose. god’s wisdom is reflected in his creation. god’s wisdom is reflected in his creation.
divine law - the bible, which gives us rules to follow and learn about god
e.g 10 commandments and moral teachings of jesus like sermon on the mount.
while aquinas primarily believes that law is rational rather than revealed, he believes the divine laws are revealed by God are reasonable that we could work them out (if you cannot have access to christian texts or you do not believe in christianity, you would still believe in teleology because you should fulfil your end, live in accordance to natural law.)
natural law - everyone can find this out, using reason to see our purpose
it is the moral thinking that we are all able to do, whether or not we have divine revelation of scripture.all humans have the capacity to figure out the laws that we need to find our purpose. it involves rational reflection on our human nature, considering how we might ‘ do good and avoid evil’.
human law - humans using natural law and divine law to create society
laws and customs ad practices of society. they are devised by governments and societies. the laws made by government should be based on what we reason from natural law.
hierarchy of the laws - eternal = on top since all the other laws ultimately rely on it.
criticism:
if there is a hierarchy it is not the most obvious.
telos - natural law doesn’t work. people’s purpose may contradict each other and a general purpose may not exist
eternal law - if you are not religious, then the eternal law that guides everything will not exist.
divine law - if it is the word of god but written by authors, it may not be authentic and the best source of evidence.
human law - may not exist
summa theologica - the natural law is nothing else than the rational creature’s participation of the eternal law.
natural law is human beings understanding of their purpose and their purpose is fulfilling god’s will . eternal law - will of god and human law - is
primary precepts
rule that we should follow, he believes that these are self-evident and that we are naturally inclined to pursue them.
preservation of innocent life - life is important, both our own and that of others. it is natural and reasonable for a person to be concerned with preserving life.
to reproduce - ‘go forth and multiply’ is is rational to ensure that life is continuos and is the main purpose of sexual intercourse
education - humans are intellectual creatures and it is natural for us to learn
to live in an ordered society - we are social beings and it is good to live in an ordered society where it is possible to fulfil our purpose
to worship god - we are spiritual beings and we should recognise god as the source of life and live in a way that pleases him.
secondary precepts - possible application rather than hard and fast rules.
manualists - came up with fixed secondary precepts e.g rejection of contraception because of the primary precept of reproduction
criticism = that natural law is too rigid and outdated
other thinkers - influenced by aristotle and the aim of humans is eudamonia. our unique toes as human beings comes from the ability to reason. aristotle’s virtue ethics argues that we have to develop good character traits to allow us to fulfil our purpose and reach eudamonia.
robert george and john they work together
finnis:
interested in natural law both as an ethical theory and as a philopshy of law.
he uses aristotle’s idea of practical reasoning/phronesis to suggest that there are universal basic goods e.g knowledge, play work, aesthetic experince , friendship and spirituality.
from these more specific rules can be put forward such as pursing basic goods for all, desiring the common good of the community and acting in accordance to one’s conscience.
finnis argues that although we should think about the consequences of our actions, we should no think that the end justifies the means.
robert george:
bases theory on the idea of basic human goods are self -evidently worthy of pursuit and that moral norms are derived by practical reason
the doctrine of the double effect
an action that produce several effects , good and bad. for aquinas the intention of the action is important.
example - abortion would be fine if the intention was to save the mother’s life, because one the the primary precepts is conservation of life
killing during self defence - you are not guilty of doing anything wrong because you save your life = good effect but killing the attacker = bad effect. but the attacker had the intention of causing serious harm.
advantages
allows for some flexibity since an action that causes good and bad effects is permitted as long as the intention was good
regonises that real life situations can be difficult. e.g kant does not have any answers to situations when duties clash or competing goods cannot be achieved. double effect gives a solution when there is a problem.
objections:
the idea of the bad effect being permitted if it is unintended and secondary is difficult to judge. it is almost impossible to know the genuine intention of someone.
e.g doctor killing someone during euthanasia. the consequence of euthanasia is the same whether the doctor had good intentions of relieving pain or genuinely wanted to do harm
difficult to know how far the idea can be taken. e.g using condoms to prevent HIV being spread, this would however go against the primary precept of reproduction, so it’s hard to know how far to go.
can right and wrong be based on the idea of telos?
aristotle and aquinas = essentialist - there is something that is is to be human that we cannot change even if we wish to. the aim tot fulfil the primary precepts and that being the morally right thing to do, is in our human nature.
sartre -extentialism
no preordained purpose or god to guide is, we are responsible for creating our own essence through our actions
argues that objects can have a fixed nature e.g knife which is designed with a specific purpose before it is made.
humans could only have purpose if they are made by god, but being an atheist means he does not believe in God.
he stated that ‘hell is other people’ - sartre argues we have a tendency to deny our freedom and behave as objects. he calls this living in bad faith, we realise that when we act as objects we are denying ourselves freedom
natural law and good
aquinas believes that all humans are orientated towards god and towards good
stoicism :
zeno and aurelius viewed the world as an ordered place. if the universe is ordered then the response from humans is to live an ordered life.
god created it and left within it divine reason, this divine spark is within each of us.
right actions are the ones where we reason rightly.
cicero - right reason is in accordance with nature. he argues that these laws would continue to apply even if the gov changed them, laws broadly remain the same regardless of the country e.g athens and rome
aquinas:
he fused the idea of the prime mover and christian thought
humans are created in the image of god, which can be seen as we are able to reason
synderesis principle suggest that we are directed by something within us to do good and avoid evil
moral mistakes - no one ddeibertely does a wrong action. the person has made a reasoning error of mistaking an apparent good with a real good.
OBJECTIONS
betrand russell - aquinas already knows the truth, it is found in the catholic faith.
he is bringing god into an arguement, where god was not meant to be, aristotle removed god because it was against observation, he cannot be proved and aquanis has inserted him back in.
human
is natural law a helpful method to moral decision making
yes:
primary precept are not seen as controversial, they are good that are valued in all societies in both the past and present
the primary precepts in particular lead natural law to be absolutist , so there is clarity in judgments
there are some flexibility in terms of the application of secondary precepts which take a situation into account. but catholic interpretuers of natural law are not always this flexible
natural law leads to belief that certain rights exist regardless of context.e.g the value of life, education and living in peace= seen as part of the natural order of the earth
reaffirms the importance of reason - humans are made in the image of god and have the rationality to know right from wrong
no:
to can be argued that basic goods can vary between different societies and that whne these levels are taken to secondary precepts you can see the differences more obviously as people have different attitudes to life
since it is absolutist- natural law can see very legalistic and very fixed with having to obey laws, even when the consequences are going to be negative. although some say it depends on how you interpret the theory
natural law commits naturalistic fallacy, stating that observing what happens in the world and assuming that this is what has to happen. it is trying to define moral values with natural terms e.g jumping from is to ought and saying that what is natural must be good
tension between the clarity of primary precepts and then the flexibility of the secondary precepts. although the catechism doesn’t see this as a problem because it believes that natural law has universal application and application varies a lot.
can right and wrong be based on the idea of telos?
natural law is right to base their ideas of right and wrong on telos
if aquinas is right that there is an essential human nature then there really is a good that all humans should strive towrds
aquinas supports telos with reason. the divine command theory - which argues right and wrong are based on the revealed commandments of god.
natural law is wrong to base their ideas on telos
aquinas has made the mistake of assuming that all humans have the same purposes , could be possible that all humans have different purposes
existentialists argue that humans have any purpose except the ones they freely choose for themselves. if god doesnt exist then you cannot argue that humans purpose is to reach god
evolution - suggests that purpose is not a feature of the world but it is something that humans project onto the natural world.
telos entails that some things are natural to humans and other things are not
do humans and all creation really have an orientation towards good?
yes:
stoicism - humans beings are intrinsically rational and social creatures that gives us a natural orientation to do good.
paleys argument- the world is complicated so therefore it points towards an omnibelevolant god creating a world where humans are intended to do good and be happy
aquinas argues we do want to live well and we naturally strive for goodness, however we can be unclear on what goodness really is
natural law gives dignity to humans and gives humans faith in the following their reaosn
no:
rejecting the teleological view of the world, that comes from an assumption of god. more modern concepts point towrds thr world being here randomly and that their is no final goal. dawkins said that evolution is a blind watchmaker
augustine argues that humans are fallen and are affected by OG sin so they cannot reaosn for themselves, spo they cannot make good decisions and act upon them. humans will is divided.
aquinas gives priority to reason, he is being too optimistic about what reason can achieve. he relies too heavily on the reaosn that we recieve from being made in the image of god
aquinas view of apparent and real goods can be seen as naive. some humans seem to knowlingly commit evil actions and the excuse is that they thought they were pursuing apparent goods.