CHAPTER III:

Natural Law
OBJECTIVES:
After reading this chapter, you should be able to:
1. recognize how Thomas Aquinas made use of
ancient Greek concepts to provide a rational
grounding to an ethical theory based on the
Christian faith;
2. identify the natural law in distinction from, but
also in relation to, the other types of law
mentioned by Aquinas: eternal law, human law,
and divine law; and
3. apply the precepts of the natural law to
contemporary moral concerns.
Pantaleon Alvarez
Former Speaker of the House of
representatives), the newspapers
reported that he was intending to draft a
bill which would amend the country's
Family Code, thereby allowing for the
legalization of same-sex unions (October,
2016). This would result in the possibility
of two men together or two women
together being identified as a couple with
rights guaranteed and protected by the
law.
•“UNNATURAL” – (deviant) the reasons
given in the news article vary, ranging
from the opinion that seeing two men kiss
is unsightly, to the statement that there is
something "irregular" about belonging to
the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender
(LGBT) community, and to the judgement
that two people of the same sex being
together. Therefore, unacceptable.
• “NATURAL” - Seems to be used to refer to some kind of
intuition that a person has, one which is so apparently
true to him that it is unquestioned therefore, acceptable.
• The capacity for reason will become the basis of the
natural law theory.
• Aquinas wrote most extensively about natural law. He
stated, "the light of reason is placed by nature [and thus
by God] in every man to guide him in his acts." Therefore,
human bengs, alone among God's creatures, use reason
to lead their lives. This is natural law
• The likely answer from a religious person as to why we
should not steal, or commit adultery is: “because God
forbids us”; or if we ask why we should love our neighbor or
give money to charity then the answer is likely to be
“because God commands it”. Drawing this link between
what is right and wrong and what God commands and
forbids is what is called the Divine Command Theory.
 Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274)
- hailed as a doctor of the Roman Catholic Church.
- was a Dominican friar who was the preeminent
intellectual figure of the scholastic period of the Middle
Ages, contributing to the doctrine of the faith more than
any other figure of his time.
- His Summary Theologiae, Aquinas's magnum opus, is a
voluminous work that comprehensively discusses many
significant points in Christian theology.
- He was canonized in 1323.
THE CONTEXT OF THE CHRISTIAN STORY

- The fundamental truth maintained and

elaborated by Aquinas in all his works is the
promise right at the center of the Christian
faith: that we are created by God in order to
ultimately return to Him. The structure of his
magnum opus Summary Theologiae follows
the trajectory of this story.
 " There are three parts to this voluminous work"
1. Aquinas speaks of God, and although we
acknowledge that our limited human intellect
cannot fully grasp Him, we nevertheless are able to
say something concerning His goodness, His might,
and His creative power.
2. Deals with man or the dynamic of human life. This
is characterized by our pursuit of happiness, which
we should realize rests ultimately not on any
particular good thing that is created by God, but in
the highest good which is God himself.
3. Focuses on Jesus as our Savior.
 THE CONTEXT OF AQUINAS'S ETHICS

* A full consideration of Aquinas's ethics would require us to

explore his discussion of other matters, such as how, in our pursuit
of happiness, we direct our actions toward specific ends.

"The Passions" - are involved in this process, and therefore require

a proper order if they are to properly contribute to a good life.
*"Habits "- We might explore how our actions are related to
certain dispositions. In a dynamic way since our actions both arise
from our habits and at the same time reinforce them.

The Christian Life - therefore, is about developing the

capacities given to us by God into a disposition of virtue inclined
toward the good.
• CONSCIENCE
• For Aquinas, there is a sense of right and wrong in us that we are
obliged to obey. However, he also added that this sense of right
and wrong must be informed, guided, and ultimately grounded
in an objective basis for morality.
 Neoplatonic Good (PLATO)
• God creates. This does not only means that he brings about beings, but it
also means that he cares for, and thus governs, the activity of the universe of
every creature. This central belief of the Christian faith.
• The notion of supreme and absolutely transcendent good.
• In his work The Republic, it is often supposed that Plato is trying to envision
the ideal society. In other words, it can be said that Plato was trying to
answer question such us, “ Why should I bother trying to be good?” and
“ Why cannot good be just whatever I say it is?”.
• Through Neoplatonist like Plotinus, the platonic idea of the good would
continue well into the Christian Middle Ages, inspiring later thinkers and
allowing it to be thought anew in a more personal way as a creative and
loving God.
ARISTOTELIAN BEING
AND BECOMING
Why we need laws?
 There Four Laws
Eternal Law-principles made by God and he is the only one to control the universe (omnipotence/ all-powerful).
God’s plans/purpose for all things.

By “Eternal Law’” Aquinas means God’s rational purpose and plan for all things. And because the Eternal Law is
part of God’s mind then it has always, and will always, exist. The Eternal Law is not simply something that God
decided at some point to write.

Divine Law- Biblical, reflects from the eternal law (Ten Commandments)

 You shall have no other gods before Me; You shall make no idols; You shall not take the name of the Lord
your God in vain; Keep the Sabbath day holy; Honor your father and your mother; You shall not murder;
You shall not commit adultery; You shall not steal; You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor;
and You shall not covet.

The Divine Law, which is discovered through revelation, should be thought of as the Divine equivalent of the
Human Law (those discovered through rational reflection and created by people). Divine laws are those that
God has, in His grace, seen fit to give us and are those “mysteries”, those rules given by God which we find in
scripture; for example, the ten commandments. But why introduce the Divine Law at all? It certainly feels we
have enough Laws. Here is a story to illustrate Aquinas’s answer.
• A number of years ago I was talking to a minister of a church. He told me about an
instance where a married man came to ask his advice about whether to finish an affair he
was having. The man’s reasoning went as follows — “I am having an affair which just feels
so right, we are both very much in love and surely God would want what is best for me!
How could it be wrong if we are so happy?”
• In response, the minister opened the Bible to the Ten Commandments and pointed out
the commandment that it says that it is wrong to commit adultery. Case closed. The point
of this story is simple. We can be confused and mistaken about what we think we have
most reason to do and because of this we need someone who actually knows the mind
of God to guide us, and who better to know this than God Himself. This then is precisely
what is revealed in the Divine Law.
Natural Law- moral law of God built into human nature: accessible by all, requires use of
reason. Our partaking in the Eternal Law which leads to primary precepts.
Aquinas thinks that the answer is reason and that it is this that makes us distinct from rats and
rocks. What is right for me and you as humans is to act according to reason. If we act
according to reason then we are partaking in the Natural Law.
Human Law- deals with challenging situations, mam-made laws. Humans making specific
laws to capture the truths of the Natural Laws which lead to secondary precepts
 Conscience
- “it is the proper functioning of reason in moving the human
person towards an end goal that is fitting of his/her dignity”.
- One cannot do the right thing if one does not know what it is.
- Even if one does know, he/she is obliged to know.
- According to Angelic doctor, “ if one acts badly out of ignorance
and does not act to rectify the situation by bothering to learn,
that person is to be held accountable”
- Conscience can be mistaken, and being so does not exempt
human person from culpability.
- Ignorance of the law excuses no one.
 Kinds of Conscience
1. Correct or True Conscience judges what is good as good and what is evil as
evil. It is correct conscience which tells that getting the property of another
without consent is stealing. It is also correct conscience which judges that we
ought to pay out debts
2. Erroneous or False Conscience judges incorrectly that what is good is evil and
what is evil is good. It is erroneous conscience which tells the husband to have a
mistress, since it is the macho thing to do.
3. Certain Conscience is a subjective assurance of the lawfulness of unlawfulness
of a certain act. This implies that the person is sure of his decision.
4. Doubtful Conscience is a vacillating conscience, unable to form a
definite judgement on a certain action. A doubtful conscience must be first
allowed to settle its doubts before an action is performed.
5. Scrupulous Conscience is a rigorous conscience, extremely afraid of
committing evil. A scrupulous conscience is a meticulous and wants
incontrovertible proofs before itacts
 Primary Precepts
-apply to all humans by virtue of sharing a common human nature.
-true for all people in all instances and are consistent with Natural Law.
P- reservation of human life.
O-rdered and peaceful society.
W-orship GOD.
E-ducating children.
R-eproduction of the species.
Sometimes we did evil because it seems like it is good.
Real Good- actuals good that fit into perfect human ideal of becoming of
becoming like God. (Absolute)
 Secondary Precepts
-It is NOT always morally acceptable to follow secondary precepts.
It is only morally acceptable if they are consistent with Natural Law.
-The Human Law of St. Aquinas that gives rise to this precept.
-This is not generated by our reason but rather they are imposed by
governments, groups, clubs, societies etc.
Do not kidnap
Do not hack into someone’s bank account
Muslims are prohibited to eat pork.
Apparent Good- seems good but doesn’t into perfect human ideal
of becoming like God.-----Relative
 Doctrine of double Effect
Which states that if an act fulfills four conditions then it is morally
acceptable. If not, then it is not.
The first principle is that the act must be a good one.
The second principle is that the act must come about before the
consequences.
The third principle is the intention must be good.
The fourth principle it must be for a serious reasons.
 Examples:
• The terror bomber aims to bring about civilian deaths in order to weaken the
resolve of the enemy: when his bombs kill civilians this is a consequence that
he intends. The tactical bomber aims at military targets while foreseeing that
bombing such targets will cause civilian deaths. When his bombs kill civilians
this is a foreseen but unintended consequence of his actions. Even if it is
equally certain that the two bombers will cause the same number of civilian
deaths, terror bombing is impermissible while tactical bombing is permissible.
• A doctor who intends to hasten the death of a terminally ill patient by
injecting a large dose of morphine would act impermissibly because he
intends to bring about the patient's death. However, a doctor who intended
to relieve the patient's pain with that same dose and merely foresaw the
hastening of the patient's death would act permissibly.
 THOMISTIC NATURAL LAW
Man’s participation in the execution of the good and avoidance
of evil through the use of his/her reason and will, then the three
questions that originated from the writing of Alasdair Macintyre.
1. Who Am I? (Sino ako?)
 The Thomistic Natural Law interrogates the identity of the human
person.
 All human acts are moral acts.
2. Who do I want to be? ( Sino ang gusto kong maging?)
 The self gives one a chance to clarify his/her goal.
 The human person’s self-knowledge is dynamic.
 is malleable towards self determination.
give direction through freedom to build up the self
towards a particular goal.
3. How can I get there? ( Paano ako makarating doon?)
 Fully utilizes the sound judgement of human reason and evaluates
the best route to get to the goal decided upon.
are here bridged by
 Example:
If one wishes to get to the goal of finishing a degree, one starts with
the reality of the self. Knowing what one needs to improve on
supports the goal of graduating. A sound decision helps the student
to maximize the training and studies that go with being enrolled in
the university. One knows that honesty that a paper diploma that
reflects a degree is hardly of value without true knowledge and
mastery of what one is expected to know. (SELF-KNOWLEDGE).
Hence, if one’s goal is to graduate with competence, one elects
the daily, monthly, semestral, or even yearly tasks that ought to be
completed. Professors, lectures, and even exams are then seen in
this light as aids in reaching the goal. (SELF-DETERMINATION).
Furthermore, the self is not only a passive receiver of what transpires
externally; one designs the path and cooperates with the situation
to reach the end that has been reasonably set by the self. (SELF-
GOVERNANCE).
 The NATURAL LAW Concerns:
1. In Common with others: In reading Aquinas, we have to
consider how we, human beings, are both unique and at the
same time participating in the community of the rest of the
creation. For what? To a desire to preserve one’s own being.
2. In Common with other Animals: According to Aquinas that there
is in our human nature, common with other animals, a desire
that has to do with sexual intercourse and the care of one’s
offspring. In human beings, that natural inclination to engage in
the sexual act and to reproduce exists.
3. Uniquely human: An inclination to good according to the nature
of our reason. “Shun ignorance and to avoid offending those
people with whom one lives”,(Aquinas).
CASE STUDY: Applying DDE
• A doctor who believed on: Abortion in order to save the mother's
life
versus
Performing hysterectomy on a pregnant woman with cancer

• To kill a person whom you know to be plotting to kill

versus
to strike in self-defense against an aggressor
 EXAMPLES:
• A doctor who believed that abortion was wrong, even in order to save the
mother's life, might nevertheless consistently believe that it would be
permissible to perform a hysterectomy on a pregnant woman with cancer. In
carrying out the hysterectomy, the doctor would aim to save the woman's
life while merely foreseeing the death of the fetus. Performing an abortion, by
contrast, would involve intending to kill the fetus as a means to saving the
mother.
• To kill a person whom you know to be plotting to kill you would be
impermissible because it would be a case of intentional killing; however, to
strike in self-defense against an aggressor is permissible, even if one foresees
that the blow by which one defends oneself will be fatal.
 CASE STUDY: Applying DDE
• to throw someone into the path of a runaway trolley in order to stop it and
keep it from hitting five people on the track ahead
versus
to divert a runaway trolley onto a track holding one and away from a track
holding five

• a soldier who throws himself on a live grenade intends to shield others from its
blast
Versus
a person who commits suicide intends to bring his or her own life to an end.
 Examples:
• It would be wrong to throw someone into the path of a runaway trolley in
order to stop it and keep it from hitting five people on the track ahead; that
would involve intending harm to the one as a means of saving the five. But it
would be permissible to divert a runaway trolley onto a track holding one
and away from a track holding five: in that case one foresees the death of
the one as a side effect of saving the five but one does not intend it.
• Sacrificing one's own life in order to save the lives of others can be
distinguished from suicide by characterizing the agent's intention: a soldier
who throws himself on a live grenade intends to shield others from its blast
and merely foresees his own death; by contrast, a person who commits
suicide intends to bring his or her own life to an end.