Thomas Aquinas And The Natural Law

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.

The Constitution of the United States is one of the oldest living documents in the entire world. It has spawned a civilization to the height of power that world haven’t seen since the days of Caesar and the old Roman Republic. Many years has passed since then, and the founding fathers drawing from that failed republic, endeavored to create a government that could withstand internal and external forces that inevitably leads to its demise. Drawing from two renowned thinkers of the time, Baron de Montesquieu and Brutus (pen name), the face of the anti-federalists, the founding fathers tried to grapple with the immense of task of creating a government from scratch. The failed Articles of Confederation, proved the fact for the need of a stronger executive

‘Something rather than nothing refers to’ the cosmological argument for the existence of God claiming that all things in nature; ‘something’ are dependent on something else for their existence. As Lucretius puts it in his first book De Rerum Natura, “by observing nature and her laws…her first principle: that nothing’s brought forth by any supernatural power out of naught” hence we arrive at nihil fit ex nihilo ‘nothing comes from nothing’

This is similar to Locke’s outlook on the social contract which is directly related to his theory about the state of nature, but his outlook also differs from Aquinas’s understanding of eternal and natural law. Locke believes that God has made every person equal, and the owner of themselves which is their own property. Because of this they need to give certain right to the government or a “social contract” in exchange for protection of their own property. This includes themselves and their gained properties which are gained by

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 stated, “There are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all."

If a law is not moral, thus it is not a law. Aquinas thinks this for there must be a moral reason to follow a law.  Thus, if a law does not have any moral reason for a person to follow the law, the law is unjust. According to Aquinas, a sanction (a punishment) would not be a good enough reason to follow an unjust law. The Fugitive Slave Law goes against the laws of nature. Humans have their own free will and the law of nature never permits one human to claim another human. People are not property and have their own free will.  Obviously, morality says people are not possessions. One cannot approach a person and say, “I own you.” It is not morally justifiable. To Aquinas the Fugitive Slave Law is not a real law for the sake that the law does not follow morality. At the time of the Fugitive Slave Law, people knew slavery was wrong; so, the jurors in Morris did conduct appropriately. As stated before, natural law theory states a law requires morality. The jurors let the emancipators free since the Fugitive Slave Law was against morality and natural law.  The jurors did the morally suitable thing through the lens of natural law theory since they were doing what morality said.
        Positivism, another attempt to answer what the law is, leads to a similar outcome as the Natural Law theory which was that the jurors in Morris did the right thing. John Austin discusses positivism in his book “The Province of Jurisprudence Determined.” First, Austin defines

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

According to Beccaria, the proper basis of law in human society is in the people. The idea of law revolves around human nature, around the sovereignty. In Chapter 1, Beccaria states that the people gave up their complete liberty of freedom in order to avoid living in a constant state of war. Without having laws, the people would not know their limitations, and, therefore, would have no limitations. Not knowing their limitations, society would be blown into anarchy. Men would encroach on the lives of other men. They would steal possessions that were not theirs to take freely. They would claim land that did not belong to them. If there were no law, a chain reaction of chaos would be set aflame in society. If a man did not follow these laws,

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

The nature of tyranny is perceived to be a state of coercion and the obliteration of free will. But even with its unfavorable connotation, tyranny’s state has survived in different periods of history. Tyranny is a dichotomic pendulum that swings back and forth the ideas of the common people. Some think it to be a cruel authoritarian regime, but others think tyranny to be a natural granted regime. One similarity in the two ideas of tyranny is the idea that tyranny is not a perfect regime and does not have a firm structure of legislation. Because of its structureless nature, tyranny is always unstable and carries the fear of losing its power any moment. That is why there are two sides of tyranny. The people who try to hold the power of tyranny

According to Aquinas the best form of Earthly government is the presence of a monarch within a state. Monarchies have power over everyone yet justice belongs to all equally. Aquinas’s position on the best earthly form of government derives from his strong position on natural law and moral value. Aquinas believes that a monarchy is the best-suited form of government because it is natural for one person to govern over others. He pushes the idea that a monarch should be wise and just within its approach to rule over the people. If power needed to be constrained Aquinas believed that a constitution would be ideal for diffusion of power within the state. A monarch would also be able to allow a separation between the state and church thus creating two different factors that allow for the common good to be constructed. A good monarch would facilitate survival of individuals within a community and make a conscious effort to promote the voice of the individual being. Aquinas justifies that any monarch that does not follow these basic principals is not flawed, but rather a reflection of the people. A bad monarch would be allowed to rule at the hands of Gods will and his disproval would never be recognized because a bad ruler a method of God communicating his disapproval of the people through the head of state. This ideology left the monarch, as a very powerful figure that could essentially rule without fault and no consequences would be held in his account.