Lesson 8: St Thomas: Natural Law Theory

Values Integration: Incisiveness, Awareness, Sensitivity

Module Overview
At the end of this lesson, you should be able to:
Understand and articulate the Natural Law Theory of St. Thomas Aquinas
Introduction
The Natural Law Theory that St. Thomas Aquinas put forward is a key idea in moral
theory and ethics. According to this idea, morals come from the way people are and the
way the world works. Natural Law Theory, which has its roots in the writings of Aristotle
and was further developed by Aquinas, stresses understanding the person, their purpose,
and their natural drive to be happy by living a good life.
Discussion
The Natural Law and its Tenets
St. Thomas Aquinas's Natural Law Theory is one of the most important ideas in
moral theory. It says that moral rules are built into both people and the natural world and
are set by a spiritual order that can be understood by reason (Aquinas, 1948). Aquinas
built on Aristotle's philosophical ideas by combining them with Christian religion to make
a complete set of moral rules. This talk will go into more detail about the main ideas of
Natural Law, give real-life examples, and answer some criticisms.
Aquinas said that the Eternal Law is God's overall divine wisdom that controls the
whole world. It is the most important rule and all the others come from it (Aquinas, 1948).
God's order and plan for everything in the world are shown in the Eternal Law. When it
comes to people, Natural Law is how the Eternal Law shows itself. For everyone, it is
written in their hearts, and they can use reason to understand moral values (Aquinas,
1948). Natural Law says that people should "do good and avoid evil." Everything else that
is moral is based on this concept. Aquinas came up with a list of basic human rights that
are in line with Natural Law. Some of these are life, reproduction, schooling, seeking God,
living in society, and not hurting others (Aquinas, 1948). People need these things to be
happy and healthy, and they give us a reason to act in a decent way. In Natural Law, the
Principle of Double Effect is one of the most important ideas. Aquinas (1948) says that an
action that has both good and bad effects can be ethically okay if the action itself is good
or neutral, the good effect is meant, and the bad effect is not too big compared to the
good effect. This rule is often used when there are a lot of moral issues, like when talking
about medical ethics.
When talking about end-of-life care in medical ethics, Natural Law concepts are
often brought up. The Principle of Double Effect says that it is okay to give painkillers to
a person who is dying because they may also speed up their death. People think it is
ethically okay to do this because the main goal is to ease pain, not cause death (Boyle,
2004). Natural Law ideas are used in a lot of different law systems around the world.
Aquinas came up with a list of basic human goods that form the basis of laws that protect
life, promote justice, and look out for the common good. Laws against murder, theft, and
lying, for example, are in line with the idea of doing good and staying away from evil
(Finnis, 1980). Natural Law also has an effect on social ethics, especially when it comes
to working for the general good. Policies that support healthcare, education, and social
benefits show that people know these are important things for people to be happy and
healthy. Societies try to make it possible for people to live good, satisfying lives by putting
these things first (Grisez, 1983).
Even though it has had an impact, Natural Law Theory has been criticized in a
number of ways. One big problem with Natural Law is that it assumes that everyone has
the same morals and human nature, which might not take into account differences
between cultures. Some people say that different cultures have very different ideas about
what is a basic human good. For instance, Western and non-Western countries have very
different ideas about family, authority, and individual rights (MacIntyre, 1981). One more
complaint is that Natural Law isn't always clear and can be hard to use in certain
scenarios. "Doing good and avoiding evil" is a broad concept that can mean different
things to different people. People may not agree on what the greater good or lesser evil
is when it comes to topics like euthanasia or abortion, which creates moral ambiguity
(Hursthouse, 1999). Some people say that Natural Law is too strict and doesn't take into
account how complicated life is. Some people say that following Natural Law rules too
strictly can lead to results that are morally questionable. For example, the Catholic
Church's ban on birth control based on Natural Law has been criticized for not taking into
account the social and economic benefits of family planning (Grisez, 1983).
The fact that Natural Law Theory is based on religious ideas can be a problem in
nonreligious settings. Aquinas's use of divine order gives followers a strong foundation,
but it might not make sense to people who don't believe in the same things. This might
make the theory less useful in pluralistic and secular countries (Finnis, 1980). Natural Law
Theory is a strong way to understand ethics because it focuses on using reason to figure
out moral rules that come from human nature and God's plan. It gives clear rules for what
is moral and has had a big impact on many areas, such as law, health, and social ethics.
However, it has problems with cultural relativism, being rigid, not being flexible, and being
based on religion. It is possible for Natural Law to continue to contribute to ethical
discussion and practice by responding to these criticisms and changing to fit modern
situations.
Aquinas on the Human Person
St. Thomas Aquinas' view of the human person comes from the way he combined
Christian theology and Aristotelian theory. Aquinas thought that a person was made up of
a body and a soul, with the soul taking the form of the body. Aquinas (1948) says that this
dualistic but unified view stresses that the human soul is rational and eternal, which
makes people different from other living things and in line with the divine order.
Aquinas said that the soul has three main functions: the mind, the will, and the
appetite. People can know and understand the world through their intelligence, make
decisions and act logically through their will, and feel and want things through their
appetite (Aquinas, 1948). Together, these abilities help people act in ways that lead to
their final goal, which is union with God. For instance, a person who uses their mind to
think about the moral effects of their actions and their will to choose good behavior is in
line with natural law and going toward their ultimate goal.
In his idea of human worth, Aquinas goes into more detail about how he saw
people. He says that people have a natural worth that should be honored because they
are made in God's image and have rational souls. Many of his moral lessons, like the
sanctity of life and the importance of moral education (Aquinas, 1948), are based on this
idea of dignity. For example, the sanctity of life principle can be seen in discussions about
euthanasia and abortion, where the teachings of Aquinas uphold the worth of human life
on its own.
But Aquinas' ideas about what it means to be human have been criticized in a
number of ways. One major criticism is that his anthropology is seen as strict and based
on hierarchies. Some people say that Aquinas puts too much weight on reason as the
most important thing about human nature. This could make people who don't meet this
standard, like those with intellectual disabilities, feel less important (MacIntyre, 1981).
Putting so much weight on logic can make people lose sight of other people's moral worth
and respect.
Some experts also say that Aquinas' dualistic view of the soul and body can be
problematic. The idea that the body and the soul are separate is challenged by modern
science knowledge of people as combined physical and mental beings. This point of view
makes me wonder if Aquinas' ideas about anthropology can still be used in modern moral
debates, like those about mental illness and neurological diseases (Hursthouse, 1999).
Another criticism is that Aquinas' anthropology, which is built on religion, might not
work in secular or pluralistic settings. His theory makes a lot of sense from a Christian
point of view, but because it is based on theological principles, it might not be well
received by people who are not Christians. This problem is especially important in
multicultural and secular countries, where moral rules need to be open to a wide range of
people (Finnis, 1980).
Even with these problems, Aquinas' view on the human person is still a strong and
logical way to think about human nature, morality, and respect. By stressing the rational
soul and the intrinsic worth of every person, Aquinas lays the groundwork for many ethical
principles that still affect discussions today. Aquinas' anthropology can be more useful in
today's diverse and complicated world if the criticisms are taken into account and his
ideas are applied to modern situations.
Aquinas on the Purpose of the Human Person
St. Thomas Aquinas had a deep and complete understanding of what it means to
be human. This knowledge came from combining Aristotelian philosophy with Christian
theology. According to Aquinas, the ultimate goal or purpose of life is to become one with
God, whom he sees as the best thing in the world and the source of real happiness
(Aquinas, 1948). People should base all of their actions and choices on this final goal,
which is called teleology.
Aquinas says that everyone wants to be happy, but the only way to find real and
complete happiness is to see God in the afterlife (the beatific vision). From this point of
view, the happiness people feel in this world is temporary and only a taste of the perfect
happiness that comes from being united with God. This ultimate goal gives people's lives
meaning and direction, guiding their moral choices and acts (Aquinas, 1948).
Aquinas thought that this final goal could be reached by living a good life, which
means doing things that are in line with our rational nature and God's will. He talks about
how important it is to have both moral and intellectual values. Moral virtues like
temperance, prudence, justice, and fortitude make the hungry part of the soul stronger,
which lets people control their feelings and wants in a sensible way. Intellectual virtues,
like understanding and wisdom, make the rational part of the brain stronger and help
people find truth and knowledge (Aquinas, 1948). A scientist who seeks information with
honesty and commitment, for example, is not only reaching their full intellectual potential,
but also moving toward their ultimate goal, as Aquinas put it.
But Aquinas' ideas about what people are here for have been criticized in a number
of ways. One big problem with his teleological theory is that it depends too much on
religious ideas that might not make sense in secular or pluralistic settings. People who
disagree with the idea of a final purpose based on God's image say it might not be
appealing to everyone, especially those who don't believe in God (Finnis, 1980). This
limitation makes it hard to use Aquinas' ethical theory in societies with a lot of different
kinds of people.
Another criticism is that Aquinas' teleological method is seen as too rigid. Some
people say that focusing on a single final goal might mean ignoring how complicated and
different people's lives and goals are. For example, people may find meaning and
happiness in things like art, science, or social activism that aren't closely related to
Aquinas' theological teleology. This argument says that a broader view of human purpose
might be able to better handle the different ways that people look for happiness and
fulfillment (MacIntyre, 1981).
Some scholars also say that Aquinas' focus on the beatific vision as the final goal
might make happiness and human flourishing in this life seem less important. As much
as Aquinas recognizes the value of happiness in this life, his main focus is on the next.
This could make people miss the moral and ethical importance of better people's well-
being in the present (Hursthouse, 1999).
Even though these things have been said about Aquinas, his view on the goal of
humanity gives us a rich and clear way to think about moral and ethical issues. Aquinas
gives us a way to live that includes reason, morality, and spirituality by stressing that union
with God is the final goal and that virtues play a part in reaching this goal. Taking into
account the criticisms and applying his ideas to modern situations can make Aquinas'
ideas more relevant and useful in today's ethical discussions.
Happiness as Constitutive of Moral and Cardinal Virtues
St. Thomas Aquinas says that getting better at the moral and cardinal virtues is an
essential part of being truly happy, or beatitudo. He says that happiness is not just a
feeling that goes away, but a state of being that comes from living in a way that is good
and sensible. Aquinas says that the best kind of happiness, which he calls "the beatific
vision of God," can only be fully experienced in the next life. Aquinas (1948) says that the
pursuit of virtue in this life is necessary to reach this final goal.
Aquinas says that there are two kinds of virtues: moral virtues and cardinal virtues.
Moral qualities, like temperance, prudence, justice, and fortitude, control the hungry part
of the soul and help people act in a way that makes sense. These traits help people
control their feelings and wants, which lets them make moral choices (Aquinas, 1948).
For example, temperance helps people control how much food and drink they drink, so
they don't get too much or too little. This balance is important for the person's general
health and happiness.
Cardinal virtues, which Aquinas also calls "hinge" virtues, are the most important
qualities for living a moral life. For example, the virtue of prudence helps people figure out
what the right thing to do is in any given scenario. Justice makes sure that people give
others what they're owed, fortitude gives them the strength to face problems and
difficulties with courage, and temperance helps them control their wants and emotions
(Aquinas, 1948). These traits work together to make a stable and peaceful personality,
which is necessary for real happiness.
Aquinas' ideas about happiness and virtue can be used in real life. When it comes
to work, for example, a fair and wise boss can make the workplace more effective and
fair, which is good for both individual and group health. When someone is fortitudinous,
like a firefighter or soldier, they show courage in dangerous situations, which helps keep
others safe. Through these examples, we can see how developing virtues leads to acts
that help others and make each person happy.
It has been said that Aquinas' view is wrong, though. One criticism is that his idea
of happiness is too far-fetched, focusing mostly on the afterlife and the image of God.
Some people say that this focus can make temporary happiness and the moral
importance of improving people's well-being in this life less important (Hursthouse, 1999).
They say that a more fair view would see how important it is to be good in this life and the
next in order to be happy.
Some people say that Aquinas' theory might not take into account the complexities
of modern life well enough. The strict grouping of virtues and how they should be used
might not always explain the complicated and situational moral problems people face
today. In tough social problems like immigration or economic inequality, where what is fair
for one group might be unfair for another (MacIntyre, 1981), the virtue of justice might
clash with other virtues.
Some people also say that Aquinas' values have their roots in a certain culture and
time period, and may not be completely relevant to multicultural societies today. Stressing
ideals like moderation and caution might not work as well in cultures that have different
ideas about what is morally right and what makes people happy (Finnis, 1980).
Even with these problems, Aquinas' idea that happiness is linked to moral and
cardinal virtues gives us a strong way to live morally. By pointing out how important it is
to develop virtues, Aquinas shows how to live a full and worthwhile life. His ideas inspire
people to grow as people in a way that balances their own happiness with the happiness
of everyone else. Taking into account the criticisms and changing his framework to fit
modern situations can make it more useful and relevant, aiding people in navigating the
moral minefields of modern life while seeking real happiness.
Natural Law Ethics
Thomas Aquinas came up with the idea of "natural law ethics," which is based on
the idea that moral rules come from the way people are by nature and from God's orderly
creation of the world. Aquinas says that these rules apply to everyone, can't be changed,
and can be reached through reason (Aquinas, 1948). The main idea behind Natural Law
Ethics is "do good and avoid evil." All other moral rules are based on this basic concept,
which also helps people make ethical decisions.
Aquinas named a number of basic human rights that are in line with Natural Law.
These include life, reproduction, teaching of children, seeking God, living in society, and
not hurting others (Aquinas, 1948). These things are necessary for people to be happy
and healthy, and they also show what is ethically right or wrong. As an example, rules that
protect human life, like those that make it illegal to murder and assault, are based on the
Natural Law principle of preserving life. In the same way, educational practices that help
kids grow intellectually are in line with the natural good of teaching kids.
The Principle of Double Effect is a key part of Natural Law Ethics because it lets
you use it to solve difficult moral problems. Aquinas (1948) says that an action that has
both good and bad effects can be ethically okay if the action itself is good or neutral, the
good effect is meant, and the bad effect is not too big compared to the good effect. In
medical ethics, this rule is often used. For instance, giving a person who is dying a lot of
painkillers may speed up their death, but if the main goal is to ease their severe pain, this
is seen as ethically okay (Boyle, 2004).
Natural Law Ethics has been criticized in many ways, even though it has had an
impact. One big complaint about it is that it seems rigid and can't handle complicated
moral problems in different ways. Some people say that the concept of "do good and
avoid evil" is too general and open to different interpretations, making it hard to apply
consistently in complex situations (Hursthouse, 1999). There is moral ambiguity when
people argue about things like euthanasia and abortion because they have different ideas
about what is the better good or lesser evil.
One more complaint is that Natural Law assumes that everyone has the same
morals and human nature, which might not take into account differences between
cultures. Different cultures have very different ideas about what is a basic human good.
For example, Western and non-Western societies have very different ideas about family,
power, and individual rights. This makes it hard to believe that Natural Law principles are
true everywhere (MacIntyre, 1981). This idea of cultural relativism makes it very hard to
use Natural Law Ethics in multicultural and varied settings.
Some scholars also say that Natural Law Ethics might not work in secular or
pluralistic countries because it is based on strong religious ideas. Aquinas' framework is
a strong moral system for Christians, but because it is based on religious principles and
heavenly order, it may not work well for people who don't believe the same things (Finnis,
1980). This criticism shows how important it is to have moral standards that everyone can
agree on, despite their religion or culture.
Some people also say that Natural Law Ethics might make moral decisions too
easy by focusing on vague ideas instead of real-life situations. Critics say that Natural
Law Ethics might not take into account the systemic and structural factors that cause
problems like poverty and injustice when it comes to social justice issues like these.
Instead, a broader method that takes into account political, economic, and social factors
may be needed to solve these problems (Grisez, 1983).
Even with these problems, Natural Law Ethics is still a good way to think about
how to make moral choices because it stresses the importance of reason and the natural
order of the world in finding moral principles. It gives us a clear and logical way to judge
people's actions and encourages us to seek the common things that are necessary for
everyone to be happy. Natural Law Ethics can continue to contribute to moral theory and
help people behave morally in a complex and diverse world as long as its flaws are fixed
and its principles are changed to fit modern situations.
Guide Questions for Discussions
1. Understanding Eternal and Natural Law:
What does St. Thomas Aquinas say is the difference between Natural Law
and Eternal Law? Give some examples of how each one works in real life
and in nature.
2. Application of the Principle of Double Effect:
Talk about a current moral problem that could be solved by using the
Principle of Double Effect. What are the possible good and bad results, and
how would Aquinas' criteria decide if the action is morally okay?
3. Cultural Relativism and Natural Law:
How do Natural Law Theory's ideas about basic human things fit in with or
clash with different cultural practices and values? Can the rules of Natural
Law be used everywhere, or do they need to be changed to fit different
cultures?
4. Critiques of Natural Law Ethics:
Look into the main complaints about Natural Law Ethics, like how rigid,
unclear, and based on religion it is thought to be. What changes could be
made to these criticisms to make Natural Law more useful in diverse and
secular societies?
5. Virtue and Human Purpose:
How, according to Aquinas, do moral and cardinal virtues help people find
true happiness (beatitudo)? Give examples from different fields, like health,
law, and education, to show how developing these virtues can improve the
well-being of individuals and groups.
Summary
St. Thomas Aquinas's Natural Law Theory is one of the most important ideas in
moral theory. It says that moral rules are built into people and the natural world, and they
can be understood through reason. Aquinas took ideas from both Aristotle and Christian
theology and put them together. He said that the end goal of life is to be united with God,
which is the highest good and true happiness (beatitudo). He named a number of basic
human things that people need in order to thrive, including the ability to live, reproduce,
learn, and interact with others. The Principle of Double Effect shows how Natural Law can
be used in tricky ethical situations, especially in medical ethics. It says that actions can
have both good and bad effects as long as the good effect is meant and the bad effect is
proportional. Even though Natural Law Theory is widely used, it has been criticized for
being too rigid, not taking into account cultural differences, and having religious roots.
These issues may make it harder to use in secular and diverse cultures.
 Aquinas believed that people have a rational soul and innate dignity. He believed
that moral actions should lead to their ultimate goal by developing moral and cardinal
virtues. Critics, on the other hand, point out things that might make some people feel
excluded, differences in culture, and a focus on the future that is more important than
happiness in this life. Still, Aquinas's idea that happiness is linked to virtue creates a
strong moral framework that combines reason, morality, and faith, providing useful
insights for modern moral debate. Natural Law Ethics can continue to make a meaningful
contribution to ethical discussions and practices by addressing these criticisms and
adapting to current situations. This will promote both individual and collective well-being
in a diverse and complex world.
Assessment
1. According to Aquinas, what is the ultimate purpose or final end (telos) of human
life?
A. Wealth
B. Power
C. Union with God
D. Knowledge
2. Which principle is central to Natural Law Ethics and serves as the foundation for
all other moral directives?
A. The Principle of Utility
B. The Principle of Double Effect
C. The Golden Rule
D. Do good and avoid evil
3. In Aquinas’s Natural Law Theory, which of the following is NOT considered one of
the basic human goods?
A. Life
B. Reproduction
C. Artistic Expression
D. Seeking God
4. What does the Principle of Double Effect state regarding actions that have both
good and bad effects?
 A. An action is permissible if the bad effect outweighs the good effect
B. An action is permissible if the good effect is intended, and the bad effect
is not disproportionate to the good effect
C. An action is always impermissible if it has any bad effect
D. An action is permissible only if it has no bad effect
5. Which of the following is a major critique of Aquinas’s Natural Law Theory?
A. It provides too much flexibility in moral decision-making
B. It assumes a universal human nature that may not account for cultural
differences
C. It focuses solely on individual happiness
D. It ignores the importance of religious beliefs in ethical reasoning
References
Aquinas, T. (1948). Summa Theologica. Benziger Bros.

Boyle, J. M. (2004). Toward understanding the principle of double effect. Ethics &
Medics, 29(3), 1-3.

Finnis, J. (1980). Natural Law and Natural Rights. Clarendon Press.

Grisez, G. (1983). The Way of the Lord Jesus: Christian Moral Principles. Franciscan
Press.

Hursthouse, R. (1999). On Virtue Ethics. Oxford University Press.

MacIntyre, A. (1981). After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory. University of Notre Dame
Press.