Natural Law Perspectives

Thomas Aquinas was a believer in the natural law that was above the human law that we create. Aquinas felt that all people essential desire goodness and the wisdom of God and that there was a natural law that should guide our decisions. Aquinas states “good is that which all things seek after. Hence this is the fires precept of law, that good is to be done and promoted, and evil will be avoided” (125). There are two types of law that Aquinas describes as natural law, and human law. Human laws being the laws that we make through legislation or in society in general and the human laws will be based on natural law and reasoning. Aquinas writes in Summa Theologica “to the natural law belong those things to which a man is inclined naturally; and among these it is proper to man to be

Aquinas believed in five natural laws. Natural laws are certain things you can’t prove or demonstrate but that you must regard as facts. The first is that good and evil exist. The second is it is better to live than to die. Thirdly, it is good to have children and care for them. Fourthly, it is unnatural to live in solitude all our lives. Lastly, people have a desire for the

To support Aquinas’ claim that money, honor, fame, power, goods of the body, or pleasure is not required for human happiness, one may cite they share ends for the sake of human beings. That is, their ends are meant only to fulfill human capacities

It is imperative to understand Aquinas’ definition of just and unjust laws. Through defining these terms, we will be able to understand Aquinas’ claim. A law that is just has the power of “binding in conscience” (Aquinas in Dimock, ed., 2002, p.20). It is derived from eternal law and therefore inherently morally correct. An unjust law lacks this integral quality. Aquinas is willing to say that an unjust law is a so-called law, but a just law is a law proper in its entirety.

A helpful ethical theory should give people a clear idea of what to do when facing moral dilemmas, indicating whether a potential action is right or wrong. Natural Law is an absolutist and deontological approach to ethics, giving people clear rules that should be followed no matter the situation. It is derived from human nature, suggesting morality is objective – if human nature does not change, morality does not change either. The theory suggests that humans have an inherent sense of right and wrong given to them by God, and that everyone knows what the right thing is; some people just decide not to follow this knowledge. It originates with Aristotle’s idea that everything has a purpose – called its telos – and this purpose must be fulfilled to live a good life. Plato expanded on this concept with his idea of the Forms; eternal, absolute versions of everything that we should strive towards. Ultimately, this theory has both strengths and weaknesses, although the weaknesses outweigh the strengths.

Thomas Aquinas's philosophy was that law existed for the common good of the particular community, and he separated law into four main sections; Eternal law, Natural law, Divine law, and Human law. Eternal law is the law of God that exists universally. Thomas said that God rules over creation like a ruler would govern their community, equating Eternal law to Human law in a sense. Divine law is dirived from eternal law, and is unchangeable by man. It is the will of God and it is usually revealed though revelations such as the Ten Commandments, or the teachings or Jesus. Human law is the section of law that deals with law that involves human rules on a societal scale. Unlike the previous two sections, human law can, and oftentimes should, be changed to better work for the common good of the community. Thomas also states that "human law cannot punish or forbid all evil deeds: since while aiming at doing away with all evils, it would do away with many good things", meaning that human laws cannot change the consience of people, and that they don't hold as much power or influence as the other three categories of law. When explaining human law, Thomas Aquinas is acknowledging positive law, but in order for those laws to be worthy of the name law, they have to closely match the natural laws that exist

Both Aristotle and Aquinas were prominent philosophers who wrote profound works that discussed the concept of the highest human good and how humans can achieve it. In Aristotle’s, Nicomachean Ethics, the highest human good is a state of constantly seeking knowledge as a way of achieving full capacity as a human. The writings of Aquinas are similar to Aristotle, but, in Treatise on Law, he discusses the type and elements of law. His discourse on law ultimately names the highest human good as being in the perfect community with God. Aquinas’s argument supports obedience to law, preexisting inclinations for the good, and a resolution. Aristotle requires that the person constantly seek knowledge and be at work, which can act as a positive force that drives humans to improve themselves.

In his writings on Early Christian Ethics, Thomas Aquinas proposed the existence of four distinct types of laws. These laws are eternal, natural, human, and divine. Aquinas defines eternal law as that which orders everything in the universe. It is a cosmos which issues from the will and wisdom of God. He defines natural law as a subset of eternal law. He states that the natural law is the location for the fundamental principles of

The philosopher Aristotle took the challenge of developing a full-fledged account of virtues that could stand on its own merits rather than simply criticize. He spoke about Eudaimonia meaning happiness of which he defined as the good. “The good, therefore, has been well defined as that at which all things aim.” His theories for happiness and fulfillment followed a theme of pain and pleasure and the proper function. He raised objections to the normative theories by defining his opposition to the claims of others. Aristotle’s argument constitutes taking the righteous path is taking the most ethical path rendering reward with heaven. Aristotle’s theory and argument will be explored further in this review along with the works of some of his successors.

The first principle of law according to Aquinas is that "good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided. All other precepts of the natural law are based upon this” (ST I-II.94.2). The other precepts are self-preservation, procreation, education of offspring, seek truth avoid ignorance, and live in society. Aquinas believes the natural law is written on every human and every human has equal knowledge of good and evil; however, once individual circumstances are factored in, it is dependent upon humans to follow or ignore it. However, Aquinas believes that “the natural law, in the abstract, can nowise be blotted out from men 's hearts” (ST I-II.94.6) but through bad habits of the society it could be weakened. According to Aquinas, the natural law has two main aspects. The first of these is that “the natural law is altogether unchangeable in its first principles” (ST I-II.94.5), which means God can add to, but not take away from, the law. This only applies to the primary precepts; the secondary precepts may change in some particular aspects. The second aspect is that “the written law is said to be given for the correction of the natural law” (ST I-II.94.6.ad 1); to put it simply, human laws are necessary to fill in the gaps/loopholes left from the natural law. Aquinas’ teachings shows that the actions of human is either good or bad depending on whether it conforms to reason.

John Finnis, an Australian legal philosopher has tried to resurrect the natural law tradition in moral philosophy and law since the mid-1960s. He tries to offer a "neo-Aquinian" natural law philosophy which does not presuppose a divine being. By focusing attention on goods rather than a single Good, Finnis skilfully articulates what he calls a theory of moral action for our day. Or, in other words, he seeks a theory of how to live well. Finnis identifies a number of equally valuable basic goods or ends, given human nature, there are seven. Three are substantive, existing prior to action and four are reflexive which is depending on our choices.

Natural law has a lot of strength and weaknesses, but what is natural law in the first place? Natural law is a universal guide for judging the moral values of our choices, and looks at human in a way that says we at the end of the day know the right thing to do. Weaknesses for natural law are many, one of them is to see good automatically found in nature but the question begs to be asked is everything in nature actually good. Aquinas thought that all people searched for God and this is why they found good, but that wasn’t true back then and definitely isn’t true now. Another weakness is that having babies is important in natural law so does this mean that people who are incapable of having babies our unnatural. It is believed that moral

Thomas Aquinas came up with natural law that integrated the works of early philosophers into the Christian doctrines. All scholars understood human being as a rational creature that could reason and make sound decisions on life matters. Therefore, human beings possess the practical reasoning that enables them to choose the right ways and avoiding evil (Boss 86). The only question among the scholars is how an individual should live to attain this happy supposition. Different views that various people possess makes it difficult to know which virtues are acceptable and which ones are not. Aristotle did not believe in religious activities but

This article discusses the conceptions of legal normativity, both moral and “strictly legal” conceptions. According to Spaak, regarding the normative force of legal justification, legal positivists can still embrace the moral idea and not be in conflict with their generally held belief in the “strictly legal” concept of law. In Torben Spaak’s opinion, there is a reason to desire legal positivism; he explains this through introducing the concept of jurisprudence. When discussing the nature of law, Spaak states, “that while the moral conception is what is likely favored on a smaller scale, the strictly legal conception is more appealing because it is broader,” (478). Spaak is arguing, his belief that “validity-based explanations come nearer to the truth,”(483) rather than belief-based explanations. He concludes that we are to prefer legal positivism over natural law theory. “That is why in this article I have been concerned with the law itself rather than our views about it.”(483)

In this paper, I will propose that it is better to look at whether a law is legally valid or not through the perspective of natural law theory as opposed to positivist theory. My argument consists mostly of the language of “improvement” which can only exist based on the theory of natural law which states that law is something which has an objective truth behind it. Only when there is an objective mark to hit can there be hits and misses and I believe that positivism disregards the possibility of hits and misses entirely. So, my argument is that it makes more sense to consider legal validity of a law from the perspective of natural law rather than positive law because it includes not only the previously set up legal system when considering validity, but it also considers the general idea of some kind of morality as well. A sub argument is that the starting legal system must have had some basis by which to have been created and accepted which must be some form or notion of morality.