Human is born with the natural ability of reasoning whether or not it is a gracious gift from God as claimed. According to natural law, human is capable of deciding whether an action is morally right or wrong. We do not create what is evil and good, rather, we discover what is right or wrong. Besides, humans are morally obliged to use their reasoning capability to discern what the laws are and subsequently acting in conformity with them. Therefore, there is no reason why divine law must be superior than man-made law when human is just as effective and arguably, even more effective. It is true that human law is self-imposed, capable of violation, subject to exception, modification and repeal. Human law can be binding in conscience if it is formed …show more content…
“Do good and avoid evil” is a result of the differing educational, religious and cultural influences on man in the various times and places of his historical development. Thomas Aquinas contended that general principles of the natural law cannot be applied to all men in the same way on the great variety of human affairs, thus arises the diversity of positive laws among various people. Human laws deal with changing and contingent matters and often with singulars, do not have the certitude that belongs to the speculative sciences. Each has its own realm of operation and is sufficient that each have the certitude proper to its own realm.[ Ibid. ] Natural law can exist without the governance of a superior being through the usage of positive law. Positive law is needed because of the insufficiency of the natural law to direct man in the practical affairs of his life. A state has the power to make laws then oblige the subjects in conscience to obey in order to provide the benefits of a well-ordered life. With or without a superior being, there will still be an authority that is capable of making laws to ensure the common good based on natural law along with positive
In Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle argues that the human good is the soul’s activity that expresses virtue. Aristotle concludes this from an invalid argument. On the one hand I do agree that the activity expressing virtue is a requirement for the human good. But on the other hand, I insist that the human good is a state and not an action. By modifying this argument, I believe we can reach a new conclusion that will help us better understand what Aristotle meant by these concepts.
Virtue is not something that occurs by avoiding evil, it comes when you decide to conform to morality and to what is
Evil is the deterioration of innocence and the engagement in activities that are morally incorrect. The proper response to evil is to avoid it or to gain strength through your suffering to overcome it. In my opinion, morals are the right thing. My definition of doing the right thing is to avoid arrogant actions (being conceited, feeling like your problems are superior to others), dehumanizing others and to treat others with the respect that you expect for yourself. In the texts’, the authors’ have similar views on this as well.
The world we live in is filled with crime, evil, and injustice, but do people have the desire to do bad things knowing that they are bad, or do they do them thinking that they are good? In this essay, I examine Socrates argument, found in Plato’s Meno, that no one knowingly desires bad things. If Socrates were right, it would mean that it is impossible for someone to perform a bad action based on their desire for that bad thing. Instead, all bad desires result from the ignorance of the person performing the action in falsely believing that the action is good. Though Socrates presents a compelling argument, I argue that it is possible for someone to act badly, all the while knowing that what they desire is bad.
Aquinas approaches natural evil in a different way, because he views it as less of a punishment and more of an opportunity for goodness; “many good things would be missed if God permitted no evil to exist” (Aquinas, 1917, 1A, 49, 1). Sometimes a seemingly evil event, such as an earthquake, inspires people around the world to come together and help the country in need; therefore, the evil created an opportunity for goodness and unity, which is essentially God’s ultimate plan. When viewing evil through Aquinas’ approach it is notable that God is almost praised for including evil in our world, because it allows humanity to distinguish a difference between good and bad; therefore, humanity has a greater chance of appreciating the goodness in the world. Because of this, God’s existence is not only justified, but evil is shown as an essential part in making the world a peaceful place, rather than the initial idea that evil is a problem for the
and Aquinas both identify a 'higher law.' In "Letter from a Birmingham Jail," King refers to this higher law as "moral law" or the "law of God." Similarly, Aquinas uses the terms "natural law" and "eternal law." This 'higher law' takes precedence over human law. 'Higher law,' according to both King and Aquinas, comes from God and gives the universe its rational and moral order.
He describes the objection as, “all men desire the apparent good, but have no control over the appearance, but the end appears to each man in a form answering to his character” (1114b). This view argues that all people pursue that which seems good, but some people cannot see the true good, which is out of their control. The immediate implication of this objection, if it is indeed true, suggests that “no one is responsible for his own evildoing” (1114b).
The last theory is Aristotle’s virtue ethics which states that we should move from the concern towards good action and to focus on the concern with good character. This paper argues that Aristotle’s virtue ethics is better than the other ethical theories. The divine command theory says that what is morally right and what is morally wrong is determined by God and God alone. People who follow the divine command theory believe that God is the creator of all things, therefore, he must also be the creator of morally right and wrong acts.
Is out of harmony with the moral law.” (356). This illustrates for the clergymen where each type of law stands in a moral position. Each type of law affects a person’s personality in a negative or positive way. The just laws are typically laws voted for by the people, s
Thesis Statement: Origin of Morality Outline A.Universal Ethics 1.Karl Barth, The Command of God 2.Thomas Aquinas, The Natural Law 3.Thomas Hobbes, Natural Law and Natural Right 4.Immanuel Kant, The Categorical Imperative B.Morality and Practical Reason 1.Practical Reason a.Practical Reason and Practical Reasons C.Evolution of Morality 1.What makes Moral Creatures Moral 2.Explaining the Nature of Moral Judgments F. Answering Questions 1. What is the origin of Morality: Religion or Philosophy? 2. What does religion say about morality?
Men make laws to instill order in a society and prevent chaos in any shape or form. Naturally, laws will always be somewhat unjust because it is impossible to consistently construct laws that directly and equally benefit all members of a society. There will always be a majority that makes the laws and a minority that has to obey the laws. Although laws are usually the standard of morality by which we live by, they must be disobeyed in certain situations. These situations are, but not limited to, an undemocratic formation of aforementioned laws, laws that are inherently unjust according to human law which can be synonymous with God’s law.
To say that if you are following an unjust law makes you unjust, it is based by your opinion. People have different meanings of what is just or unjust, thus we cannot determine whether a law is just or
In becoming a creature of virtue, man is made good and is exposed to happiness. The lawgiver is therefore obligated to order all law in such a way that it allows man to be good simply. The lawgiver is also to order the law so as to make men good as a whole and not for individual gain or pleasure. Objection 2: The law then must also be derived from the eternal law.
Natural law theory states that there are laws that are immanent in nature and the man made laws should correspond as closely as possible. Man can’t produce natural laws but he can find and discover through his reasoning. If a law is contrary to a natural law then it is not a law. Laws should be related to morality. It is a concept of a body of moral principal that is same for all the man
If a person knows what is ‘good’, then their manner of behaviour will always be good, as they possess the knowledge of how to do so. If a person acts in a ‘bad’ or evil way, this is simply because they lack the knowledge of how to act in a virtuous manner. For Socrates, it was simply a case of knowledge being conducive to good behaviour, and ignorance being conducive to bad behaviour. No-one chooses to act in an evil way, according to Socrates. We aim for good behaviour but fall short of