WE MUST FIRST UNDERSTAND: Aquinas' Natural Law theory “Summa Theologiae” is rooted in his understanding of

human nature, reason, and God's divine plan.

Defining "Natural: “The term "natural" is often used to justify or condemn actions
based on personal beliefs, behaviors in nature, instincts, or common practices. Need Human Nature: Aquinas believed that human beings have a rational nature, which
for Clarity: The varied meanings of "natural" necessitate a more nuanced sets them apart from other creatures. Our rationality allows us to understand and
understanding. discern moral principles.

NATURAL LAW Natural Law: Natural law, according to Aquinas, is a subset of divine law. It
consists of those moral principles that human beings can discern through reason
Natural law in ethics is a theory that suggests that there are inherent principles and alone. These principles are considered self-evident and are derived from our
moral rules that govern human behavior and are discoverable through reason and understanding of human nature and the purpose or telos (end or goal) for which
observation of the natural world. This theory posits that moral values are grounded in humans are created.
the fundamental nature of human beings and the world around us.
Teleological Ethics: Aquinas adopted a teleological or goal-oriented ethical
ST. THOMAS AQUINAS framework. He believed that every being has a specific purpose or end that it
Hailed as a doctor of the Roman Catholic Church, Thomas Aquinas was a naturally strives to achieve. In the case of humans, our ultimate goal is to achieve
Dominican friar who was the preeminent intellectual figure of the scholastic happiness and fulfill our potential as rational beings.
period of the Middle Ages, contributing to the doctrine of the faith more than any God's Plan: Aquinas thought these rules were part of God's plan for how
other figure of his time. His Summa Theologiae, Aquinas's magnum opus, is a humans should live and be happy.
voluminous work that comprehensively discusses many significant points in
Christian theology. He was canonized in 1323. Conscience: Your conscience is like an inner guide that helps you follow
these rules. It tells you what's right and wrong in different situations.
THE CONTEXT OF CHRISTIAN STORY
Primary precepts: Natural law ethics typically identifies a set of primary precepts
Central Christian Truth: Aquinas emphasizes the core Christian belief that we are or principles that are considered foundational to ethical reasoning. These precepts
created by God with the ultimate purpose of returning to Him. (THE PROMISE) often include principles like preserving life, seeking knowledge, and pursuing social
Structure of Summa Theologiae: Aquinas's major work, Summa Theologiae, is cooperation.
structured around this Christian narrative. Secondary precepts: From the primary precepts, natural law theorists derive
Three Parts: The work is divided into three parts: secondary precepts that provide more specific guidance in various ethical situations.
These secondary precepts help individuals make moral judgments about particular
Part 1: Discusses God, emphasizing His goodness, might, and creative power, even actions or behaviors.
though our understanding of Him is limited.
THE GREEK HERITAGE
Part 2: Focuses on human life, marked by the pursuit of happiness, which is
ultimately found in God, not in created things. The Greek heritage of natural law in ethics refers to the influence of Greek
philosophical thought on the development of the concept of natural law in ethical and
Part 3: Explores Jesus as the Savior, highlighting the role of God's grace incarnated moral philosophy. The roots of natural law theory can be traced back to several key
in Jesus for salvation. Greek philosophers, most notably Plato and Aristotle, who laid the groundwork for
later thinkers to expand upon the idea of an inherent moral order in the universe.
Salvation Through Grace: Aquinas emphasizes that salvation is possible only
through the presence of God's grace, which is perfectly embodied in Jesus. NEOPLATONIC GOOD
Return to God: The Christian story, according to Aquinas, revolves around the idea The concept of the Neoplatonic Good is rooted in the philosophy of Plato,
that we are created by God and seek ultimate happiness and salvation in Him. particularly in his work "The Republic." Plato was not only concerned with
envisioning an ideal society but also with providing an objective basis for morality.
He sought to answer questions like "Why should I bother trying to be good?" and Potency and Act: Aristotle's philosophy also introduces the concepts of potency and
asserted that the Good is a real, transcendent entity, not something that can be act. Potency represents the latent potential or capabilities that a being possesses but
arbitrarily defined or ignored. has not yet actualized. Act, on the other hand, signifies the state of actual realization
or manifestation of these potentials.
THE REPUBLIC
Actualization: Beings, according to Aristotle, need to actualize their latent potentials
In Plato's "The Republic," the main character Socrates elevates the notion of the to become what they are intended to be. This process of realizing one's inherent
Good to an unprecedented level. He describes the "Idea of the Good" as the source of capacities is the key to understanding change and becoming in the world.
truth, knowledge, and the cause of all that is known. The Good is considered higher
in dignity and power than truth and knowledge. It is a fundamental principle that Aristotle's Contribution: Aristotle's framework of the four causes and the concepts
imparts essence to everything and is the cause of their existence. of potency and act provide a foundational understanding of beings and the processes
of change and development in the world. These ideas have had a profound influence
ARISTOTELIAN BECOMING AND BEING on subsequent philosophical thought and have been embraced and expanded upon by
Aristotle's exploration of beings involves understanding them through four causes: thinkers like Aquinas.
material, formal, efficient, and final. These causes help to comprehend any particular ESSENCE AND VARIETIES OF LAW
being. Beings are corporeal (made of physical "stuff"), have a specific form, arise
from other beings (efficient cause), and have an apparent end or goal (final cause). Essence refers to the intrinsic nature of human beings.
Additionally, Aristotle introduces the concepts of potency and act to explain how
beings change or become. Beings possess latent potentials that need to be actualized Varieties of Law include human-made laws, eternal law, natural law, moral law, and
for them to achieve their intended state. Becoming involves the realization of these divine law.
potentials. ESSENCE:
ARISTOTELIAN COMPONENTS: Free Will and Rationality: Human beings possess free will and rationality, enabling
Four Causes: Aristotle's philosophy introduces the idea that any particular being can them to make choices and judgments. Their actions are directed towards attaining
be understood through four distinct causes: material, formal, efficient, and final desirable ends or goods.
causes. These causes collectively provide a comprehensive framework for Goods as Ends: These desirable ends, often referred to as goods, serve as the
comprehending the nature of things. objectives of human actions. People engage in various activities to pursue these
Corporeal Nature (Material Cause): The material cause is one of Aristotle's goods, which vary from person to person.
causes, representing the physical substance or "stuff" that makes up a being. It Goods and Reason: Reason plays a vital role in determining what is truly good. It
emphasizes that all beings have a corporeal or material aspect, and their composition ensures that individuals thoughtfully consider what is genuinely beneficial for them
is a fundamental element in their existence. rather than blindly pursuing what they initially suppose to be good.
Formal Cause: The formal cause pertains to the specific shape, identity, and Community and the Common Good: Human beings are not isolated entities but are
characteristics that make a being what it is. It defines the essential properties and part of a community. Consequently, they must consider the common good, not just
attributes that distinguish one being from another. their individual good. This sense of community and shared well-being is known as
Efficient Cause: The efficient cause delves into the processes and actions that lead the common good.
to the existence of a being. It explains how a being comes into being, often involving Law as a Measure: To promote the common good and to direct human actions
the actions of other beings or natural processes. properly, there must be a measure or limit to individual actions. This concept of
Final Cause: The final cause refers to the ultimate purpose or end of a being. Each measurement, which guides actions towards collective well-being, is called law.
being is thought to have a specific goal or function, and this final cause guides its
existence and actions.
Traffic Rules Example: An example used to illustrate this concept is traffic rules. It comes from the Greek word deon which means “being necessary”. Hence
Such rules serve as a measure or limit for individual drivers, ensuring road safety and Deontology refers to the study of duty and obligation.
preventing accidents.
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)
Law and the Common Good: Law, in its ideal form, should focus on the common
good of a community. It should be made by those who have the responsibility for the He is the main proponent of Deontology.
community's well-being, whether the entire community or a public authority.
He is thought to herald the “Copernican revolution in Philosophy.” What is meant by
VARIETIES OF LAW: Copernican Revolution? Nicolaus Copenicus was the 15th century astronomer who
proposed the heliocentric model of the universe in his book De Revolutionibus
Human-Made Laws: Laws created and enforced by human societies, such as traffic
Orbium Coelestium. that made a breakthrough of event in history of ideas as it
laws, class rules, and municipal ordinances. These laws ideally align with the
heralded a radical paradigm shift in the way humans considered their place in the
common good.
universe. Just like to Copernicus, Kant developed revolutionary insights concerning
Eternal Law: The divine plan of God that governs all creation and leads beings the human mind and the conditions for the possibility of knowledge.
toward their intended end. It is the highest form of law, although humans can only
partially understand it. He was a German enlightenment philosopher who wrote one of the most important
works on philosophy, Groundwork towards a Metaphysics of Morals (1785). In this
Natural Law: A moral framework rooted in human nature, derived from the work, Kant brings our attention to the fact that we human beings have the faculty
understanding of common inclinations shared by all human beings. It includes the called rational will; It is the capacity to act according to the principles that we
inclinations to preserve life, engage in sexual activities, and act in accordance with determine ourselves.
reason.
Consider differentiating animals to persons. Animals are sentient organisms, meaning
The Moral Law: Based on the natural law, it guides moral behavior and ethical
they have the ability to navigate and perceive their external environment. We do not
decision-making, addressing issues such as the preservation of life, sexual ethics, and
see animals, like dogs bumping into walls unless they are weak or sick. Animals
the exercise of reason in moral judgment.
constantly interact with their surroundings. This is also true to us human beings, we
Divine Law: Derived from divine revelation, particularly found in sacred scriptures are also sentient. Thus both humans and animals interact in and with the world.
like the Ten Commandments in the Bible. While significant for faith-based morality, Reacting to external stimuli and internal impulses to survive and thrive. On the other
Aquinas's natural law theory primarily focuses on the natural inclinations common to hand, people are also rational. Rationality consists of the mental faculty to construct
humanity. ideas and thoughts that are beyond our immediate surroundings. This is the capacity
In summation, given the meanings of these laws, we must follow them in good for mental abstraction, which arises from the operations of the faculty of reason.
intention in order to achieve a certain level of common good, not only on a human Thus, we have the ability to stop and think about what we are doing. We can remove
level, but also on a spiritual level where we direct our actions in ways not only ourselves mentally from the immediacy of our surroundings and reflect on our
directed to achieving a proper sense of safety and amity in the community, but also a actions and how such actions affect the world. Simply stated, we are not only
devotion to abstain from breaking rules set forth by God, and as stated in the divine reacting to our surroundings and internal impulses, but are also conceiving of ways
law, so we may attain a happiness in eternity that may come only from serving in to act according to certain rational principles.
goodwill as the Lord had originally intended us to do.
AUTONOMY vs HETERONOMY

Kant describes autonomy as the will that is subject to a principle or law.

Deontology
Heteronomy is the simple legislation and imposition of a law by an external
it is a moral theory that evaluates actions that are done because of duty. authority.
Kant claims that the property of the rational will is autonomy (Ak 4:440), which is and assess possible alternative actions. The above-described jealous partner and
the opposite of heteronomy. These three Greek words are instructive: autos, heteros, raging basketball player, if they had enough self- possession, could refrain from
and nomos, which mean "self" "other," and "law, respectively. Hence, when we reacting mindlessly to the triggering stimuli and instead construct a rational response.
combine autos and nomos, we get autonomy; heteros and nomos to heteronomy.
In what way does a rational will distinguish a human being from an animal insofar
Crudely stated, autonomy means self-law (or self-legislating) and heteronomy means
as the animal is only sentient?
other law.
Humans have a capability known as rational will, which allows us to act on
The distinguishing point of both concepts is the locus of the authorship of the law. In
principles that we set for ourselves. To consider the rational will is to distinguish
any given scenario where a person complies with the law, we ask where the author is,
between animals and people. As humans, we can pause and reflect on our actions.
whether it external or internal, If the author of the law is external, the will is
We can mentally detach ourselves from the immediate reality of our surroundings
subjected to an external authority, thus heteronomous will, in contrast, if the author
and ponder on our activities and how they affect the environment. We can imagine a
was the will itself, imposing the unto itself, then we describe the will as
new and healthier future, as well as mental models of how we will interact with
autonomous.
others in that environment. We conceive of how we could alter, if not transform, the
RATIONAL WILL vs ANIMAL IMPULSE world we inhabit through our imagination and reflection. As a result, humans may
not only create and form mental images but also act on them—to enact and make
Sensible Impulse - are usually bodily and emotional. Bodily instincts and desires,
them real. The ability to put our thoughts into action is the foundation of rational
such as the urge to eat, drink, sleep, or have sexual intercourse, comprise the set of
will. The rational will is the ability to intervene in the world and behave in ways that
human compulsions for survival and the propagation the species. Emotions and
are consistent with our reasoning. Animals, as far as we know, only act on impulses
sentiments also up what Kant considers sensible impulses.
based on their instincts. They don't and can't think about what they're doing.
Example: The jealousy from seeing your girlfriend or boyfriend make eyes Animals, after all, do not "act," according to some. Only their surroundings and
at someone, and the rage from being pushed foully by your opponent in a internal impulses cause them to "respond." Simply said, unlike animals, we humans
basketball game. not only react to our surroundings and internal impulses, but we also devise
strategies to operate under specific rational principles.
-As we previously claimed, when we discussed the difference between
animals and humans, there is immediacy to sensible impulses. There is UNIVERSALIZABILITY
hardly anything that comes between the stimulus and the reaction. Kant
To figure out how the faculty of reason can be the cause of an autonomous action, we
calls this set of actions that are caused by sensible impulse animal choice or
need to learn a method or a specific procedure that will demonstrate autonomy of the
arbitrium brutum.
will But before explaining this procedure, it will be helpful to first make a distinction
Arbitrium brutum, or “animal power of choice” - Is what is described to be choice about kinds of moral theories, namely, substantive and formal moral theories.
based on one's. inclinations that are determined by sensuous impulse, or stimulus. In
Substantive moral theory - immediately promulgates the specific actions that
animals, this principle serves as the. basis of animals' actions: for example, when a
comprise that theory. such, it identifies the particular duties in a straightforward
stick is thrown – a trained dog will pursue the stick and return it to its master.
manner that the adherents of the theory must follow. The set of Ten Commandments
there is a choice or action that is determined by pure reason. Kant calls this kind of of the Judeo-Christian tradition is an unambiguous example of a substantive moral
action Free choice, and one may argue that human freedom resides in this capacity theory. The specific laws are articulated mostly in the form of a straightforward
of reason to intervene, to "mediate" within arbitrium brutum. moral command: "Honor your father and mother" "You shall not kill" and so forth.

Rationality was described as the mental capacity to construct ideas and thoughts that Formal moral theory does not supply the rules or commands straightaway. It does
are beyond one's immediate. This mental capacity is what makes the intervention not tell you what you may or may not do. Instead, a formal moral theory provides us
possible between stimulus and reaction. With the faculty of reason(Rationality), a the "form" or "framework" of the moral theory. To provide the "form" of a moral
person can break the immediacy of stimulus and reaction by stopping to deliberate theory is to supply a procedure and the criteria for determining, on one's own, the
rules and moral commands. Metaphorically, we can think of a cookbook as akin to a Instead, we Imagine the maxim as a law that everyone ought to follow. The proper
formal moral theory. In using a cookbook, we are given instructions on how to cook way to imagine the universalized maxim is not by asking, "What if everyone did that
certain dishes, but we are not given the actual food themselves, which would be maxim?" but by asking. "What if everyone were obligated to follow that maxim?"
"substantive" In following a recipe for sinigang, for example, we may add a slight Here is a clear example.
variation to the ingredients and sequence of steps. But want the remain sinigang and
Let us assess that hypothetical world. If borrowing money without intending
not transform into some other kind of viand like pochero, we need to follow the steps
to pay were everyone's obligation to comply with, what would happen to the
that are relevant to making sinigang. To be exact, a formal moral theory will not give
status of the universalized maxim? The purpose of borrowing money would
us a list of rules or commands. Instead, it will give us a set of instructions on how to
be defeated because no one will lend money. In a world where it is an
make a list of duties or moral commands.
obligation to borrow money without paying back, all lenders would know
Categorical Imperative - Kant endorses this formal kind of theory. The that they will not be paid and they will refuse to lend money. The institution
Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten. Which he wrote in 1785, embodies a formal of money-borrowing would lose its meaning if everyone was obligated to
moral theory in what he calls the Categorical Imperative which provides way of borrow money without intending to pay it back. As a universalized maxim,
identifying the rightness and wrongness of an action.Kant defines Categorical it would self- destruct because it becomes impossible. This is how Kant
Imperatives as commands or moral laws all persons must follow, regardless of their assesses it:
desires or extenuating circumstances. There are four key elements of categorical
"Here I see straightaway that it could never be valid as a universal law of nature and
imperative namely; Action, Maxim, Will, and Universal law.
be consistent with itself, but must necessarily contradict itself. For the universality of
Maxim - Consists of a "rule" that we live by in our day-to-day lives, but it does not a law that each person, when he believes himself to be in need, could promise
have the status of a law or a moral command that binds us to act in a certain way. whatever he pleases with the intent not to keep it, would make the promise and the
Rather, maxims depict the patterns of our behavior. Thus, maxims are similar to the purpose that he may have impossible, since no one would believe what was promised
"Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) in our lives. We act according to a variety of him but would laugh at all such expressions as futile pretense (Ak 4:422)."
maxims, even if we are not aware of them. Actually, we become aware of our
In the passage above, Kant distinguishes between being "consistent with itself" and
maxims when we talk about ourselves, when we reveal our habits and the reasons
"contradict itself." Look at the maxim again: "When am in need of money, shall
behind them. For example, we tell our friends what we ordinarily do in certain
borrow it even when know I cannot pay it back." The meaning of the act "to borrow"
specific situations: When the weekend comes, I usually go to the beach with my
implies taking and using something with the intent to return it. In the maxim, the
family to relax. When the exam week begins, I go to mass so that I will be blessed
claim is to borrow "even when I know I cannot pay it back," which contradicts the
with good luck. Whenever meet my crush, wear my hair in a braid so that he will
very meaning of "to borrow." The contradiction is evident: to borrow (implies
notice me. These are usually personal "POLICIES" that may or may not be unique to
returning) but the intention is not to return. Of course, in the real world, many people
us, but we act according to these maxims nonetheless. This is why Kant calls a
borrow money without intending to pay, but it is the logical plausibility of the
maxim a subjective principle of action. We have many maxims in our daily lives, and
universalized maxim that is at stake. Here, we reveal the contradiction that occurs
we live according to them. In the formulation of the categorical imperative, Kant
when we scrutinize the maxim because, after all, one contradicts oneself when one
calls our attention to the kind of maxims that we live by. He claims that we ought to
borrows money (implies intent to return) without intending to pay it back. It makes
act according to the maxim "by which you can at once will that it become a universal
no sense. This is why Kant claims that the universalized maxim "could never be
law." What does it mean to will a maxim that I can become a universal law? It means
valid as a universal law of nature and be consistent with itself, but must necessarily
that the maxim must be Universalizable, which is what it means to "will that it
contradict itself." Thus, we can conclude that the act of borrowing money without
become a universal law." This means nothing other than imagining a world in which
intending to pay is rationally impermissible. Here, we discover two ways by which
the maxim, or personal rule, that I live by were adopted by everyone as their own
Kant rejects maxims. The universalized maxim becomes either (1) self-contradictory
maxim, In this formulation, Kant is telling us to conceive of the maxim as if it
or (2) the act and its purpose become impossible.
obligated everyone to comply. This mental act of imagining a universalized maxim
does not mean we picture a world in which everyone actually followed the maxim.
Rational Permissibility - Simply put, it refers to the intrinsic quality of an action
that it is objectively and necessarily rational. Using the universalizability test, we can
reveal the objective necessity of an action as rational. Observe, for example, the
quality of the arithmetical claim, "1+1=2." It is objectively necessary because the
quality of the claim is universally and logically valid, and we understand this to be
always true as rational beings.

Observe the difference between the quality of objectively necessary claims with
contingent claims, such as claims about the world like "The sky is blue," the truth of
which depends on the actual situation in the world. Therefore, we have demonstrated
that borrowing money without intending to pay, as a kind of false promise, is
objectively and necessarily wrong, insofar as it encounters a self-contradiction and
logical impossibility when it is universalized as a maxim.