Aquinas Interpretation Of Natural Law Essay

Aquinas argued that ‘every human law has just so much of the nature of law, as it is derived from the law of nature,’ but adds, ‘if any point it deflects from the law of nature, it is no longer a law but a perversion of law’. To Aquinas, human reason is fallible and prone to mistakes; human law ‘cannot have that inerrancy that belongs to the demonstrated conclusions of the sciences’.[ See n.2.] He repudiates the thesis that a law is a law merely because it has been decreed by a sovereign. He suggested that a rule can only become ‘law’ only if it has has appropriate moral dimensions. Besides, laws which are opposed to the divine plan, such as the laws of tyrants inducing to ‘idolatry’, must not be observed. This is because our duty is to obey

Natural law maintains that law should be based on morality and ethics. Natural law is based on what’s “correct” and is “discovered” by humans through the use of reason and choosing between good and evil. Where man exercises his reason correctly he will understand what will result in better ends. In fact, the interpretation of natural law varies from one theorist to another. According to Kelsen (1881-1973), laws and systems of government supposedly all derived from natural law vary from place to place and age to age, there being no unanimity between philosophers as to the conclusions to be deducted from natural law. For example, Hobbes thinks that natural law has taught that the civil government should have absolute authority. Locke and Rousseau think that democracy is the ideal under natural law but to Sir Robert Filmer, democracy is contrary to natural law by stating that “God did always govern his own people by monarchy alone.” Thus, Ross observed that, ‘like a harlot, natural law is at the disposal of everyone’. This can be seen by the way that down the centuries slavery was justified within the Christian natural law