Thomas Aquinas

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

‘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’

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

I agree. Aquinas explanation of the natural law theory actually supports the divine command theory by acknowledging God as the creator of the universe, nature, reason, and morality. Since it is God’s logic behind the natural law theory and an “action is right only if it in agreement with the natural law,” I fail to see how the theory could in any way discredit the divine command

Natural law is a concept with a long history dating back to the Greco-Roman philosophers. Despite some variations among philosophers one point of agreement was understood as “that process in nature by which human beings, through the use of sound reason, were able to perceive what was morally right

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.

Government encourages each resident to sustain appropriate conduct. Efficiently run communities abide by the correct behavior the authority institutes. To establish reverence in society, authorization constitutes impartial court systems. During our first

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.

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.

Rules and regulations govern almost every public activity in the United Sates. These are laws created and enforced by legal authorities to safeguard order, justice, and security in society. Laws help mediate the relationship people and groups have with one another, and outlines a general code of conduct, defining what good law-abiding citizens ought to do, according to society. Laws are universally applicable, and carry with them certain punishments and restrictions for violations or misuse. In places where laws either do not exist or are minimally enforced, then insecurity and chaos are the norm. Despite the benefits of laws, there are instances when they fail to advocate equally for all members of its society. These are unjust laws,

It is generally agreed that laws are necessary for the safety and functioning of a community. For most citizens, laws are followed because they perceive them as legitimate and just, and, even if they don’t agree with them morally, they accept the laws as necessary for the good of the community as a whole. Additionally, they consider themselves active participants in democracy and the lawmaking process. This acceptance of the necessity of current laws by citizens and their part in the creation of laws is what is what makes these laws legal and recognizable. Therefore, laws are legitimized by the approval of the people that the laws were implemented to protect them, through their direct and indirect participation in the lawmaking process.

Unlike ethical theories such as Situation Ethics and Utilitarianism, Natural Law does not require people to try and judge the potential future consequences of an action. Instead, people are expected to follow their innate conscience telling them what is right and wrong, based on Aquinas’s four tiers of law. The eternal law, the absolute and eternal aspect of Natural Law known only to God; the divine law, commands and teachings found in the Bible; the Natural Law, our human reason

In Question 95, Article 1, Thomas arrives at the conclusion that it is indeed necessary for humans to make laws, in fact most necessary (ST 1.95.1 sed contra). Thomas quotes a 6th century scholar, Saint Idisore of Seville, saying “Laws were made that in fear thereof human audacity might be held in check, that innocence might be safeguarded in the midst of wickedness, and that the dread of punishment might prevent the wicked from doing harm.” Simply, laws were created after being first derived from the idea that humans act wickedly in a number of given circumstances, thus confirming that we do in fact need a system of checks and balances in order to live in a healthy and sustainable society. The question then moves to how we come up with laws – by a means of reason, speculation, or some other means. Thomas, after referring to Question 17, Article 1, which follows the logic that: since reason is needed in order to command, and showing that it belongs to the law to command, the creation of law has to pertain to reason (q. 90, a.

The purpose of laws is to protect its citizens. Laws are written and approved by the three main bodies of government, and then are enforced by the police and with the help of the legal system

There are four main philosophers that set the basis for different styles of ethics. The four Philosophers that made a huge impact on us all are Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill. All four philosophers are very well known for their intelligence and work in the ethics community. Although all of the philosophers have the same goal of defining ethics and how we should behave in terms of the highest good for human beings they all do it in different ways in which they feel is the proper way. Throughout this paper I will be comparing each of the four main Philosophers that we learned about this semester to each other so that you can