2. Everything is governed by law of nature, and
the law of nature is discernible to human
beings through reason.
3. The natural law serves as the objective
standard for determining the morality of
human actions. Actions are good if they are
consistent with and if they follow the natural
law.
4. Actions are assessed based on their intrinsic
moral value, i.e. their compliance to the
natural law, and not on the consequences
produced by such action.
5. In other words, good intentions or
consequences cannot justify an intrinsically
immoral act.
6. For Thomas Aquinas, human beings are pre-
loaded with the tools to know what is good,
and the intuitive desire to pursue what is
best for them.
8. Intellect and Will
Intellect and will are engaged in a dynamic,
complex interaction, with multiple stages between
an initial perception and cognition by the intellect
to the final action of the will, with occasional
interruptions or overrides by the passions.
All these stages may happen in the "twinkle of an
eye" or in a long drawn-out process.
9. Intellect and Will
Aquinas presents a detailed account of what goes
on when human beings perform a particular
course of action. This account reveals a close
interaction between intellect and will in bringing
about the action.
10. Intellect and Will
The constant dialogue between the intellect
and the will is expressed through “human
actions”.
13. Like Aristotle, Aquinas
argues that human
beings act for the sake
of a particular end that
they see as a good.
Furthermore, he thinks
that all human actions
aim (directly or
indirectly) at an
ultimate end.
14. One of the biggest
crisis brought about by
the pandemic is the
loss of sense of
purpose.
15. Human beings don’t
act for the sake of
acting; there is always
something they are
trying to achieve by
their actions.
18. Wish (Simple Volition)
Spontaneously seeing the goodness in a
particular end.
This happens when you hear a proposal with
your intellect and compare it with what is
desirable to the will.
19. Human beings think about what they want to
accomplish and settle upon a goal. This they
do in virtue of their intellects in light of their
fundamental desire for the good, which is
built into the will.
20. Intention
When a wish arises in the will, the wish is
confronted with a host of circumstances and
limits, including other intentions and pre-
commitments.
If there is nothing substantially blocking the
wish so as not to be pursued, it becomes an
intention.
21. Intention is the internal act of making a
resolution to pursue an end.
There arises an attraction or desire for that
goal or end; the will inclines the person
towards it.
22. Deliberation
Then they begin to think about how to achieve
this goal or end.
It is the internal act of inquiring after and
approving/disapproving different means.
23. Decision and Election
They then make a final judgment about what to do and
choose what to do on the basis of that judgment.
Decision – an act of the intellect judging the best
means by which to fulfil an intention is to be
accomplished
Election – an act of the will agreeing to that particular
means among others (choosing to pursue particular
means)
24. Command and Use
Aquinas argues that choice is a function of the will
in light of a judgment by the intellect. In other
words, the will moves the agent towards a particular
action, an action that has been determined by the
intellect.
The will then moves the appropriate limbs of the
bodies at the command of the intellect, thus
executing the action.
26. Emotions/Passions
They are felt motivational states, such as anger or joy
that can have either a positive or a negative effect
upon what we do.
Nevertheless, on Aquinas’s account, even though
passions are very powerful influences upon actions
and can make things appear to us as good that
ordinarily would not seem good, the passions cannot
simply overwhelm a (properly functioning) intellect
and will and thereby determine what we do.
27. Aquinas argues that it is always possible for
us to step back and consider whether we
should act on our passion as long as we
possess a functional intellect and will.
29. BASIC GOODS
Life
Reproduction
Educate one’s offspring
Live in society
Avoid offense
alleviate ignorance
Seek God
30. From these BASIC GOODS, we use
“reason” to derive the NATURAL LAW.
In other words, these basic goods themselves are
not the basis of morality. They are simply the
fundamental basis for the natural law, which is
the true determinant of morality.
The rightness or wrongness of an action depends
on its compliance to the natural law.
31. From these BASIC GOODS, we use
“reason” to derive the NATURAL LAW.
For example, while we instinctively desire to live
and survive, our actions to achieve this purpose
or end should not produce harm or death upon
others, because reason would dictate that “all
life is valuable and should be respected at all
cost”. The universal application of the natural
law dictates that this principle of reason is
applicable not only to each individual person, but
to all human beings.
32. From these BASIC GOODS, we use
“reason” to derive the NATURAL LAW.
Furthermore, while it is natural for human beings
to reproduce, it does not mean that it is wrong
not to procreate or that human beings should
always seek to reproduce. What reason dictates is
that the act that naturally results in procreation
or reproduction should not be artificially
hindered or prevented.
33. In determining the morality of an action
based on the natural law, these two
components are to be considered:
Positive injunction – what to do
Prohibition – what not to do
34. Example
Prohibition Basic Good Positive Injunction
Killing an innocent person Life Promote and protect life
Prevent procreation Reproduction Promote procreation
Abandonment Educate one’s
offspring
Provide needed support in all
facets of human development
Cause chaos & disorder Live in Society Live harmoniously w/ others
Bullying; unfaithfulness Avoid offense Respect; Do good.
Fraud; misinformation; lies Shun ignorance Tell the truth.
Seek God
35. But why do people still violate the
natural law if it’s obvious and “natural”?
Ignorance – we seek what we think is good, but
we end up being wrong.
Emotions – we see what we should do, but
emotions overpower our reason.
36. But what if an action produces multiple
effects – some are good, and some are bad?
How will its morality be assessed?
37. PRINCIPLE OF THE DOUBLE EFFECT
The doctrine (or principle) of double effect is often
invoked to explain the permissibility of an action that
causes a serious harm, such as the death of a human
being, as a side effect of promoting some good end.
According to the principle of double effect, sometimes it
is permissible to cause a harm as a side effect (or “double
effect”) of bringing about a good result even though it
would not be permissible to cause such a harm as a means
to bringing about the same good end.
38. PRINCIPLE OF THE DOUBLE EFFECT
Somewhat offers some degree of exception to the
semblance of absolutism offered by the natural
law theory.
39. FORMULATIONS OF THE PRINCIPLE OF
THE DOUBLE EFFECT
The act itself must be morally good or at least indifferent.
The good effect and not the evil effect be intended, and the agent
did not positively will the bad effect but may permit it.
The good effect must flow from the action at least as immediately as
the bad effect. In other words the good effect must be produced
directly by the action, not by the bad effect. Otherwise the agent
would be using a bad means to a good end, which is never allowed.
The good effect must be sufficiently desirable to compensate for the
allowing of the bad effect, and that there be a proportionately grave
reason for permitting the evil effect.
40. Examples:
Life-saving operation
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.
41. Heroism
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.
42. Self-defense
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.
43. POSITIVE LAW as derived from the
NATURAL LAW
Thomas Aquinas believed that human laws should
be based upon the fundamental moral principles
of the natural law.
Rules that are derived from the NATURAL LAW are
called primary precepts. Those derived from
HUMAN or POSITIVE LAW are secondary precepts.
44. POSITIVE LAW as derived from the
NATURAL LAW
Aquinas defines a law as "an ordinance of
reason for the common good, made by him
who has care of the community, and
promulgated”
45. POSITIVE LAW as derived from the
NATURAL LAW
Aquinas maintains that natural law is
superior to human law as it is humankind’s
rational participation in God’s law, which is
the highest and most absolute authority.
46. CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE
According to Aquinas, “if in any point
[human law] deflects from the law of
nature, it is no longer a law but a
perversion of law”
An unjust law and those which that violate
the natural law should not be followed,
because it is not a law anymore.
47. CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE
As such, one can logically infer that an
unjust human law—one that violates natural
law—is not only a law that it is morally
permissible to ignore, but is a law that one
is morally obligated to disobey.
