St. Thomas Aquinas, David Hume, And Nel Noddings

977 Words4 Pages
In life, our character is tested numerous times through difficult predicaments. In a fictional scenario set in a genocidal, totalitarian regime, the head of house faces an extremely challenging dilemma. While the common individual may approach the predicament a certain way, the philosophies of Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther King, Jr., David Hume, and Nel Noddings give us an idea of what may be the most correct choice. While each philosopher presents a different and sound argument, they each have a different idea of what is morally right. St. Thomas Aquinas—the most influential medieval philosopher—created a bridge between faith and reason, and, thus, gave the world philosophies that can be applied to many different scenarios. His ethics include a set of laws known as the Eternal Law, the Divine Law, the Natural Law, and the Human Law. The Eternal Law is the law that only God knows. The Divine Law is the Bible, and human beings have the ability to obey these interpreted divine laws. The Natural Laws are laws that were created by God (because God created everything), but must be deciphered by human reason. Lastly, Human Law is what is set by governments, and it is usually unfair or flawed. That being said, the Human Law of the fictional genocidal, totalitarian regime would be categorized as deeply flawed. In Thomas Aquinas’ "Summa Theologica: Question XCIV," he states that “good is that which all things seek after” and that “good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be

    More about St. Thomas Aquinas, David Hume, And Nel Noddings

      Get Access