Investigation of Natural Moral Law
The roots natural law can be found in the ancient Greek and Roman
world. In this essay Thomas Aquinas and moral law theory will be
highlighted.
St Thomas Aquinas (1224-1274), was an important Christian philosopher
and theologian who’s ethical theory is absolutist and deontological,
which means that it is focused on the ethicacy of actions. In his
work, summa theologica, Aquinas described natural law as a moral code
existing within the purpose of nature, created by God: ‘Law is nothing
else than an ordinary of reason for the common good promulgated by the
one who is in charge of the community’
Primary and secondary precepts
Whether or not an act leads towards God depends upon whether the
action fits the purpose that humans were made for. We have seen that
the main purposes and these are called primary precepts. Acts that
accord with the main human purpose are good. Acts not in accordance
with human purpose are bad. Secondary precepts are rulings about
things that we should or shouldn’t do because they uphold, or fail to
uphold the primary precept.
This natural law exists to assist humans to direct their actions in
such a way that they may reach their eternal destiny with God.
Reason and human purpose
The eternal law of divine reason is perceived through revelation. A
moral life is lived according to and in accordance with reason and an
immoral life is a life lived according to the odd with the reason.
Reason determines that the ultimate purpose and destiny of human life
is fellowship with God. Humans naturally tended towards this destiny
and should live according to their...
... middle of paper ...
...will consider how useful the application of natural moral
law can be to Justice. Justice is establishing a society in which
equality of liberty/freedom is promoted and provided. Hovner and
Westacott (2000) say that ‘any society I would like to live in must
prize individual freedom, but not to the exclusion of social
responsibility or of justice. Justice is fairness, equal opportunity
for all’. Justice is most associated with social democracy.
Justice has a notion of equality-
I) Fundamental equality- there are to be no special privileges and all
people are to be treated as equal.
II) Social equality-
III) Equal treatment for equals- People that are equal should be
treated equally
IV) Treat equals equally and unequally- some may need special help or
punishment. Equality does not necessarily imply sameness.
By definition justice means the quality of being just or fair. The issue then stands, is justice fair for everyone? Justice is the administration of law, the act of determining rights and assigning rewards or punishments, "justice deferred is justice denied.” The terms of Justice is brought up in Henry David Thoreau’s writing, “Civil Disobedience.”
Years before I become a Christian, I was convinced that the Christian God was not good, and could not possibly exist on account of it. I remember, very clearly, saying to a friend of mine, “if God loves his children so much, how could he send them to hell?” I could not comprehend there being that kind of darkness within the world. I could not wrap my mind around hell, or the fact that mankind could have done anything to deserve such a fate. Some recent comments by atheist and agnostic friends of mine are echoes of my past thoughts: “People who don’t hear the gospel go to hell? That’s just not fair,” along with, “if God is real, then he must be evil, because the world is so screwed up.” It is hard for people to reconcile a perfectly good God
Moral rightness and fairness are two alternate ways of saying justice. Justice is defined in a legal dictionary on law.com as “a scheme or system of law in which every person receives his/ her/its due from the system, including all rights, both natural and legal.” There are many different opinions on the law and justice systems in America, many of which are not particularly positive. Law.com also states, one problem can be found in the attorneys, judges, and legislators, as they tend to get caught up more in the procedure than actually achieving justice for the people. While others say that our law system is not interested in finding out the truth, but more criticisms can also be seen in Herman Melville’s story, “Bartleby, the Scrivener.” Melville
Friedrich Nietzsche’s “On the Genealogy of Morality” includes his theory on man’s development of “bad conscience.” Nietzsche believes that when transitioning from a free-roaming individual to a member of a community, man had to suppress his “will to power,” his natural “instinct of freedom”(59). The governing community threatened its members with punishment for violation of its laws, its “morality of customs,” thereby creating a uniform and predictable man (36). With fear of punishment curtailing his behavior, man was no longer allowed the freedom to indulge his every instinct. He turned his aggressive focus inward, became ashamed of his natural animal instincts, judged himself as inherently evil, and developed a bad conscience (46). Throughout the work, Nietzsche uses decidedly negative terms to describe “bad conscience,” calling it ugly (59), a sickness (60), or an illness (56); leading some to assume that he views “bad conscience” as a bad thing. However, Nietzsche hints at a different view when calling bad conscience a “sickness rather like pregnancy” (60). This analogy equates the pain and suffering of a pregnant woman to the suffering of man when his instincts are repressed. Therefore, just as the pain of pregnancy gives birth to something joyful, Nietzsche’s analogy implies that the negative state of bad conscience may also “give birth” to something positive. Nietzsche hopes for the birth of the “sovereign individual” – a man who is autonomous, not indebted to the morality of custom, and who has regained his free will. An examination of Nietzsche’s theory on the evolution of man’s bad conscience will reveal: even though bad conscience has caused man to turn against himself and has resulted in the stagnation of his will, Ni...
Can suicide be justified as morally correct? This is one of the many questions Immanuel Kant answers in, “The Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals”. Kant discusses many questions with arguable answers, which explains why he is one of the most controversial philosophers still today. Throughout Kant’s work, multiple ideas are considered, but the Categorical Imperative is one of the most prevalent. Though this concept is extremely dense, the Categorical Imperative is the law of freedom that grounds pure ethics of the metaphysics of ethics. Categorical imperatives are the basis of morality because they provoke pure reasons for every human beings actions. By the end of his work, one will understand Kant’s beliefs on morality, but to explain this, he goes into depth on the difference between hypothetical imperatives and Categorical Imperative, two different formulations of the Categorical Imperative, and a few examples.
Immanuel Kant addresses a question often asked in political theory: the relationship between practical political behavior and morality -- how people do behave in politics and how they ought to behave. Observers of political action recognize that political action is often a morally questionable business. Yet many of us, whether involved heavily in political action or not, have a sense that political behavior could and should be better than this. In Appendix 1 of Perpetual Peace, Kant explicates that conflict does not exist between politics and morality, because politics is an application of morality. Objectively, he argues that morality and politics are reconcilable. In this essay, I will argue two potential problems with Kant’s position on the compatibility of moral and politics: his denial of moral importance in emotion and particular situations when an action seems both politically legitimate and yet almost immoral; if by ‘politics’, regarded as a set of principles of political prudence, and ‘morals’, as a system of laws that bind us unconditionally.
The position that I hold regarding the essay’s question is that I do not believe in an objective morality or in objective moral truths, I believe that all morality is entirely relative and subjective based on cultural norms because moral relativism is the philosophized meaning that right and wrong are not absolute values and that they are personalized based on the individual and the circumstances or cultural orientation. Morality applies within cultures but not across them. Ethical or cultural relativism and the various schools of pragmatism ignore the fact that certain ethical percepts probably grounded in human nature do appear to be universal and ancient, if not eternal. Ethical codes also vary in different societies, economies, and geographies
The ability to interpret the morally correct (morally good) resolution to a moral, when confronted by a moral dilemma, can be a very difficult task. Ethics is the search for universal objective principles for evaluating human behavior, good or bad. In societies, ethics are developed by their religious beliefs, government, and through experience. Social ethics serve as the premise for morality. Humans through ethics create morality, a personal or social code of conduct. The principles for one's morality are founded by the ethical standards of their society. Through experience, education, religion, and morality humans develop morals based on social and religious ethics. Morals give humans the ability to distinguish the morally right/good decision to make when confronted with a moral dilemma. However, in some instances we are confronted with a morally problematic situation in which it is difficult to distinguish the morally correct solution. For example, we'll consider the morally problematic situation faced by the Smith's. The Smith family is like any average, American, middle-class family of Catholic faith. One night Jim, the Smith's eldest son who had jus graduated from college, went out to a bar for a friend's birthday. Later, in the morning hours, Jim decides that he should go home. Jim decides to drive home even though he was very intoxicated. On his way home Jim runs a red light proceeding to smash into a car, instantly killing the driver. Jim leaves the scene, of which there were no witnesses, and hurries home. His parents tell him to stay at the house while they attempt to resolve and analyze the situation. The next day, a couple of police officers arrive at the house and ques...
"Moral thought, then, seems to behave like all other kinds of thought. Progress through the moral levels and stages is characterized by increasing differentiation and increasing integration, and hence is the same kind of progress that scientific theory represents." Quoted by Mr. Kohlberg himself. Kohlberg developed a set of stages on what he thought how man develops morally. Lawrence Kohlberg's reasoning for the stages of moral development stemmed from Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget; who was one of the first to study systematically moral reasoning in children. Lawrence was also influenced by Socrates, Immanuel Kant, & John Rawls. These were philosophers who preceded Kohlberg and what led him to make "Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development." According to Kohlberg, although the specific content of moral codes can vary from culture to culture, what really distinguishes among cultures is what is only on the surface. He believed that humans, with the exceptions of sociopathic and severely impaired people, have an innate potential for development from the earlier to later stages of moral development. According to Lawrence, "each stage is distinct and reflects a level of moral judgment that is more complex than that of preceding stages." He compares his views of moral development as kind of like a "mathematical" solution to conflicts. Kohlberg's Stages of Moral development consists of three levels and within them six developmental stages; each more sufficient at responding to moral predicaments than its predecessor. Within his works he was predominantly concerned with justice. Level one: Pre-Conventional(early), which deals with the beginning two stages; the first being Punishment and Obedience( How can I elude punishment?) & the second ...
Morality ivolves distinguishing which human behaviors are right or wrong and good or bad. Morality covers topics such as harm, rights and justice, and therefore it is mainly concerned with protecting every idividual. There has been a culture of war between liberals and conservatives all based upon human morality aspects (Haidt & Graham, 2007, p. 1). Cultural war can be termed as the division in personal opinions and thoughts between open-minded people or liberals and the conventional or traditionalists, also known as conservatives.
Aristotle in his virtue ethics states that a virtuous individual is someone with ideal traits. These characteristic traits normally come from an individual’s innate tendency but should be cultivated. After they are cultivated, these character traits supposedly become stable in an individual. Moral consequentilaists and deontologists are normally concerned with universal doctrines that can be utilized in any situation that requires moral interpretation. Unlike these theorists, Aristotle’s virtue ethics are concerned with the general questions such as “what is a good life”, “what are proper social and family values”, and “how should one live” (Bejczy 32). Aristotle developed his virtue ethics based on three central principles; eudaimonia, ethics of care, and agent based theories. Eudaimonia stipulates that virtues can be seen in the way an individual flourishes; flourishing under this concept refers to one’s ability to perform their functions with distinct accuracy (Bejczy 33).
Of course I looked “justice” up in the dictionary before I started to write this paper and I didn’t find anything of interest except of course a common word in every definition, that being “fair”. This implies that justice would have something to do with being fair. I thought that if one of the things the law and legal system are about is maintaining and promoting justice and a sense of “fairness”, they might not be doing such a spiffy job. An eye for an eye is fair? No, that would be too easy, too black and white. I could cite several examples where I thought a judge’s or jury’s ruling was not fair, but I won’t because frankly, we’ve all seen those.
J.S. Mill’s principle of utility is explained as actions are right as they tend to gain happiness, and wrong as they tend to reduce happiness. Mill defines happiness as, “pleasure and the absence of happiness is pain.” He argues that pleasure can differ in quality and quantity, and that more complex pleasures are ranked higher. Mills also places people’s achievements of goals, such as a virtuous living, should be counted as part of their happiness. When Mill states that the principle of utility is the “First Principle” of morality he is ranking the principle of utility highest because that in order to know what the boundaries of morality are, it is necessary to know how actions should be accounted. The first principle dictates the rest of the principles of morality because it illuminates what the right thing to do is, and that is to maximize happiness. Happiness is the goal of morality, and this is why Mill believes that morality must have a first principle.
The relationship between law and morality has been argued over by legal theorists for centuries. The debate is constantly be readdressed with new cases raising important moral and legal questions. This essay will explain the nature of law and morality and how they are linked.
When considering morality, worthy to note first is that similar to Christian ethics, morality also embodies a specifically Christian distinction. Studying a master theologian such as St. Thomas Aquinas and gathering modern perspectives from James Keenan, S. J. and David Cloutier serve to build a foundation of the high goal of Christian morality. Morality is a primary goal of the faith community, because it is the vehicle for reaching human fulfillment and happiness. Therefore, great value can be placed on foundations of Christian morality such as the breakdown of law from Aquinas, the cultivation of virtues, the role of conscience in achieving morality, and the subject of sin described by Keenan.