The Divine Law And Human Law : St. Thomas Aquinas

The philosopher Aquinas had a unique thought process on the way humans acquire knowledge. He believed that by being “born with a blank slate” humans could gain knowledge through experiences and other methods. Aquinas believed that the soul plays a major part in the inquiry of knowledge. Unlike philosophers of old he believed that the soul and body were intertwined. Working together to push the soul forward in its quest to gain knowledge in this life.

While we live in a world that idolizes popstars and political figures, we often forget about the men that made our self expression possible. Humanism is defined as “a philosophy that usually rejects supernaturalism and stresses an individual's dignity and worth and capacity for self-realization through reason (Humanism).” St. Francis and St. Aquinas were both key figures in the beginning of this movement. Instead of reflecting on the holy they decided to look inward and also outward at the world that surrounded them. St. Aquinas, St. Francis, and the impacts they had on humanism were monumental and are worthy of discussion.

Jurisprudence explores what would be the simplest manifestation of law so as to create a civil society society where both individual liberty and normative goals are practiced. Should the the aim of law be primarily centered on the protection of individual liberty or, instead, the normative goals geared toward the benefit of of civil society? The laws in any society ought to not be centered on normative goals it ought to conjointly defend individual liberty.

Several hundred years ago, two great philosophers Thomas Aquinas’s and Rene Descartes used the method of ontological argument for the existence of God and used intuition and reason alone to get to each other’s theory. Rene Descartes wrote out several mediations, but the one we’re going to touch base on is meditation III that he wrote in the 1600’s; While Thomas Aquinas’s wrote his five proofs of God in 1270 that specifies God’s existence in each proof; the one that gives the best argument is the existence of God in his III proof. While both philosophers provide great information about their reason about God, Thomas Aquinas’s and Rene Descartes both attempt to prove the existence of God, but

He believed that in order to understand law, one must first realize what law’s purpose is. He, like Thomas, argued that law’s purpose it to benefit society by creating a morally sound order to human action and conduct. He detailed seven goods that he believed to be intrinsic and universal, and argued that laws should be enforced under the stipulation that they adhere to the enhancement of these goods, because they are what determines a fulfilling life. They are: life, knowledge, play, aesthetic experience, sociability, practical reasonableness, and religion. The goods that relate to the thesis of this paper the most are knowledge and sociability, as the result of the case has a direct benefit on them and is, therefore, moral and legitimate. Legal positivists, however, disagree that morality has any place in determining what legitimate law is.

Thomas Aquinas also had a critique of the ontological argument, that we as humans cannot know Gods nature, humans will all conceive of God in different ways, some conceptions of God even assign him a body; this argument couldn’t apply to all these conceptions, some of which are contradictory, this would mean it’s impossible to conceive of God in the way that Anselm has put forward. In order for the ontological argument to work you would need to know God perfectly, and since only God knows itself perfectly, only God could use this argument. The phrase “a being than which none greater can be imagined” is far too vague to be used in a strong argument.

Thomas Aquinas lived in the thirteenth century. He lived during the time of Aristotle, who was starting to lose his quality of being liked a lot in Western Europe. The works gave people a whole new way of seeing things / sensible view of what is and is not important of the world. Thomas somehow managed to stay Christian and still believed in the ideas of Aristotle. Aquinas spent much of his life living on the edge of church support.

St. Thomas Aquinas argues that an “an unjust law is no law at all.” (Aquinas in Dimock, ed., 2002, p.19) However, Aquinas also acknowledges that a human lawgiver may promulgate a command that has the form of law, and is enforced like a law, yet is unjust. This observation leads to the realization that these are two inconsistent claims. Yet Aquinas believes that these inconstancies can be reconciled. In Aquinas’ view an unjust law is not a law but yet is also able to be issued as law and imposed as law.

Are we naturally moral creatures? Do we always act towards the common good of others? I am positive that we do not, and in fact, as much as society wants to, we go against our morals and lead with our ‘feelings’. These feelings may feel right, but it doesn’t mean they will lead you in the right path to fulfil your ultimate end, true happiness. Hitler was a passionate man driven by feelings, but what he felt and did during the World War Two era was not for the sake of the common good, and was not morally right. In today’s society we often struggle between what is legally right and what is

John Finnis is celebrated for his reworking of Aquinas’ natural law theory. Finnis’ is renowned for his ‘seven basic goods’, making reference to the question of ‘how is your life going’, an approximation of human flourishing. Furthermore, for a deeper analysis, nine methodological requirements of practical reasonableness, utilised to determine sound decision making, shall conclude the analysis. These two lists combined are said to create unchallengeable and universal principals of natural law. Finnis’ basic notions in regards to natural law are deemed best evident when intellectual creatures act in a rational manner. Practical reasons is at the core of natural law. Natural law is a reference to human’s rational and intellectual

Philosophers base the idea of objective morality on the assumption that some moral ideals are universal and should be the moral responsibility of everyone. Subjective moralists counter this argument by explaining that each moral decision is independent because each moral situation is unique to its own conditions. Ultimately, these two views shape the nature of moral philosophy and theology, each describing the different natures of morality (Hammond). These two theories have a large impact on the thinking process of humans on an everyday basis. This process then leads up to a person valuing different things more than others. The separation of objective and subjective theories all boil down to whether or not a theory is universal or not. A subjective theory has an absence of universal truths, and an objective theory has universal truths. Two vary popular theories that will take part in my research were the Divine Command Theory, and Natural law theory. Two theories that may seem similar, but in fact are very different.

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 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.

So because of this, he says that it is not important for people to know the whole order of things when in regards to the eternal law. So they may know that the eternal law exists, but not really how it works. Aquinas believes that everybody knows the truth to some extent. In regards to how this plays effect in today’s society, criminals are very aware of what they are doing when they plan to commit these crimes, yet they still commit them and break the law. “Wicked people are incompletely subject to the eternal law.” Laws signifies a plan directing an end. Aquinas believes that human law does not derive from eternal

1.) Thomas Aquinas believes that humans are born with a clean slate in a state of potency and acquire knowledge through sense experiences by abstraction of the phantasms. His view on how man acquires knowledge rejects Plato’s theory that humans are born with innate species. Along with Plato’s theory of humans understanding corporeal things through innate species, Aquinas also rejects Plato’s theory that in being born with innate species, humans spend their lives recollecting their knowledge.