Books on Aquinas's Natural Law?

[Curious_Hobbit]

Hey guys I was wondering if anybody could recommend a really good comprehensive book on Aquinas’s natural law. I’ve read some of Aquinas and some books on Aquinas (Kreeft, Copleston, Paul E Sigmund) that may have a chapter on natural law, but I would like to go more in depth.

Can anyone suggest a few books that give a good explanation for the foundation of the theory that goes into dealing with ethical issues like human rights, war, abortion, stealing, taxation, homosexuality, suicide, lying, etc?

I seem to have a basic understanding of it but I’m confused when it comes to particular situations. For instance, if the natural function of sweating is to cool off the body then is it sinful to put on antiperspirant deodorant? If the natural function of hair is to provide warmth for the head is it sinful to shave your head?

Thanks!

 

[dmar198]

Hey guys I was wondering if anybody could recommend a really good comprehensive book on Aquinas’s natural law. I’ve read some of Aquinas and some books on Aquinas (Kreeft, Copleston, Paul E Sigmund) that may have a chapter on natural law, but I would like to go more in depth.

Can anyone suggest a few books that give a good explanation for the foundation of the theory that goes into dealing with ethical issues like human rights, war, abortion, stealing, taxation, homosexuality, suicide, lying, etc?

I seem to have a basic understanding of it but I’m confused when it comes to particular situations. For instance, if the natural function of sweating is to cool off the body then is it sinful to put on antiperspirant deodorant? If the natural function of hair is to provide warmth for the head is it sinful to shave your head?

Thanks!

I do not have a book to offer you right off the top of my head, but in regard to those last two questions, I have some initial thoughts which are probably a part of the correct answer, though I don’t think they get to the main reason those actions aren’t wrong. Anyway here goes:

The good is defined as the natural goal of any natural thing. Thus it is “good” for a tree to grow up into maturity and sow seeds; that is its goal. Consequently, evil, which is the opposite of good, is the prevention of the good end of things. Natural “evil” (which is not always MORAL evil) is when a thing is prevented from reaching its natural end. Thus, a natural evil would be if a tornado shattered many young trees, preventing them from reaching their natural goal; but nobody is to be blamed for such a disaster.

Cutting down trees, while there is a “natural evil” consequence, is permissible, and, if I remember rightly, it is because of the principle of double effect: committing a “natural” evil, if it does not involve committing a “moral” evil, is permissible, if there is a greater good in view (such as building a house).

Therefore, if in fact the use of deodorant or the cutting of hair prevents the natural goal of sweat and hair, yet it would not be morally evil, because there is a greater good in view.

So I hope that helps. Remember, I’m not sure if that’s a correct formulation. I could be mistaking things. But after writing it, it seems to have the “ring of truth” to myself. God bless!

 

[Curious_Hobbit]

I do not have a book to offer you right off the top of my head, but in regard to those last two questions, I have some initial thoughts which are probably a part of the correct answer, though I don’t think they get to the main reason those actions aren’t wrong. Anyway here goes:

The good is defined as the natural goal of any natural thing. Thus it is “good” for a tree to grow up into maturity and sow seeds; that is its goal. Consequently, evil, which is the opposite of good, is the prevention of the good end of things. Natural “evil” (which is not always MORAL evil) is when a thing is prevented from reaching its natural end. Thus, a natural evil would be if a tornado shattered many young trees, preventing them from reaching their natural goal; but nobody is to be blamed for such a disaster.

Cutting down trees, while there is a “natural evil” consequence, is permissible, and, if I remember rightly, it is because of the principle of double effect: committing a “natural” evil, if it does not involve committing a “moral” evil, is permissible, if there is a greater good in view (such as building a house).

Therefore, if in fact the use of deodorant or the cutting of hair prevents the natural goal of sweat and hair, yet it would not be morally evil, because there is a greater good in view.

So I hope that helps. Remember, I’m not sure if that’s a correct formulation. I could be mistaking things. But after writing it, it seems to have the “ring of truth” to myself. God bless!

Yes but what if someone wanted to shave their head just because they liked that hair style? How does wanting a particular hairstyle constitute a greater good when it deliberately frustrates the natural function of hair? I could see if you got a big gash in your head and the doctors needed to cut the hair to give you stitches, that would be a “greater good”.

Again, this is why I’d like to get some good solid books on natural law. I’d really like to understand the principles and be able to analyze situations as such. Thanks for you reply!

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Hey guys I was wondering if anybody could recommend a really good comprehensive book on Aquinas’s natural law. I’ve read some of Aquinas and some books on Aquinas (Kreeft, Copleston, Paul E Sigmund) that may have a chapter on natural law, but I would like to go more in depth.

Can anyone suggest a few books that give a good explanation for the foundation of the theory that goes into dealing with ethical issues like human rights, war, abortion, stealing, taxation, homosexuality, suicide, lying, etc?

I seem to have a basic understanding of it but I’m confused when it comes to particular situations. For instance, if the natural function of sweating is to cool off the body then is it sinful to put on antiperspirant deodorant? If the natural function of hair is to provide warmth for the head is it sinful to shave your head?

Thanks!

I recommend Known from the Things that Are - Fundamental Theory of the Moral Lifeby Fr. Martin D. O’Keefe, S.J.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I don’t think your questions regarding deoderant or shaving one’s head are derived from a correct understanding of natural law. It is not simply reasoning from what we perceive is the “natural function.” Instead, natural law is the use of unaided reason in determining, from created things, what can be known of God and his will for us.

As for the foundation of the theory, see St. Paul’s teaching in his epistle to the Romans. The title of Fr. O’Keefe’s book (linked to above), “Known from the Things That Are,” comes from Romans 1:18-20.

According to Fr. John Hardon, S.J.:

**NATURAL LAW. **As distinct from revealed law, it is “nothing else than the rational creature’s participation in the eternal law” (Summa Theologica, 1a, 2ae, quest. 91, art. 2). As coming from God, the natural law is what God has produced in the world of creation; as coming to human beings, it is what they know (or can know) of what God has created.

It is therefore called natural law because everyone is subject to it from birth (natio), because it contains only those duties which are derivable from human nature itself, and because, absolutely speaking, its essentials can be grasped by the unaided light of human reason.

St. Paul recognizes the existence of a natural law when he describes the moral responsibility of those ancients who did not have the benefit of Mosaic revelation. “Pagans,” he says, “ who never heard of the Law but are led by reason to do what the Law commands, may not actually ‘possess’ the Law, but they can be said to ‘be’ the Law. They can point to the substance of the Law engraved on their hearts – they can call a witness, that is, their own conscience – they have accusation and defense, that is, their own inner mental dialogue” (Romans 2:14-15). Modern Catholic Dictionary]

Do I have moral obligation with regard to how long or short my hair is, or how pretty I smell? Does every natural function impose a moral obligation, or are there things which are morally neutral? I recommend Fr. O’Keefe’s book, as this will help you to better understand what natural law is, and how to apply it toward discerning fundamental norms in living a moral life.

 

[Curious_Hobbit]

I don’t think your questions regarding deoderant or shaving one’s head are derived from a correct understanding of natural law. It is not simply reasoning from what we perceive is the “natural function.” Instead, natural law is the use of unaided reason in determining, from created things, what can be known of God and his will for us.

As for the foundation of the theory, see St. Paul’s teaching in his epistle to the Romans. The title of Fr. O’Keefe’s book (linked to above), “Known from the Things That Are,” comes from Romans 1:18-20.

According to Fr. John Hardon, S.J.:

Do I have moral obligation with regard to how long or short my hair is, or how pretty I smell? Does every natural function impose a moral obligation, or are there things which are morally neutral? I recommend Fr. O’Keefe’s book, as this will help you to better understand what natural law is, and how to apply it toward discerning fundamental norms in living a moral life.

Thanks for referring me to O’keefe, that looks like the kind of thing I’m looking for!

 

[awatkins69]

Hey guys I was wondering if anybody could recommend a really good comprehensive book on Aquinas’s natural law. I’ve read some of Aquinas and some books on Aquinas (Kreeft, Copleston, Paul E Sigmund) that may have a chapter on natural law, but I would like to go more in depth.

Can anyone suggest a few books that give a good explanation for the foundation of the theory that goes into dealing with ethical issues like human rights, war, abortion, stealing, taxation, homosexuality, suicide, lying, etc?

I seem to have a basic understanding of it but I’m confused when it comes to particular situations. For instance, if the natural function of sweating is to cool off the body then is it sinful to put on antiperspirant deodorant? If the natural function of hair is to provide warmth for the head is it sinful to shave your head?

Thanks!

There is actually a really great book online by a guy named Michael Cronin. It’s not so much a book of Aquinas scholarship, but it basically presents natural law theory and all its applications, most of them to questions you’re concerned with, as well as questions in the history of philosophy. It’s one of the old scholastic manuals from the early 20th century. Enjoy!

Volume I: archive.org/details/scienceofethics01cron
Volume II: archive.org/details/scienceofethics02cron

 

[Curious_Hobbit]

There is actually a really great book online by a guy named Michael Cronin. It’s not so much a book of Aquinas scholarship, but it basically presents natural law theory and all its applications, most of them to questions you’re concerned with, as well as questions in the history of philosophy. It’s one of the old scholastic manuals from the early 20th century. Enjoy!

Volume I: archive.org/details/scienceofethics01cron
Volume II: archive.org/details/scienceofethics02cron

Thanks for the resources awatkins! I checked it out and I really think that’s what I’m looking for, a good long natural law analysis on many issues

 

[Curious_Hobbit]

Thanks for the resources awatkins! I checked it out and I really think that’s what I’m looking for, a good long natural law analysis on many issues

I read several parts of those 2 online books you recommended and they were pretty interesting. There were some things that I got to understand a little better, but I’m still confused about some aspects of natural law.

For instance, Cronin argues that since the purpose of speech is to communicate the thoughts in your head, it is wrong to use speech to communicate what is not in your thoughts (lie), what you know to is not so. This makes perfect sense. However, upon reflection I wonder “what about story telling?”. Wouldn’t this make fiction wrong?

Another place Cronin argues that living in society is natural. Humans have a natural tendency towards advancement and progress (intellectually, scientifically, industrially, commercially, etc.), but this can’t be actualized by man living in seclusion. When man lives in groups different people can take up different tasks that fulfill the needs of the group so that the basic necessities of life can be had while man actualizes his potential to advance and progress. Again this makes a lot of sense, but is it therefore immoral to be a mountain man and live alone in the wilderness?

Something else that I’ve been wondering about is how is circumcision viewed in light of natural law? Somewhere I read an excerpt from Edward Feser where he said that cutting off you arm or leg would be wrong because your arm and leg have specific purposes (walking, running, getting food, holding things, etc.) and inhibiting them from performing their natural functions is unnatural and therefore immoral. How about the foreskin? Can circumcision be justified with natural law?

These are just some things I’ve had on my mind. I’ve been looking into David Oderberg, he looks like a really good analytic catholic thomist. I’m thinking about getting his book “Moral Theory: A Non-consequentialist Approach”, has anyone read it? I’m just trying to get a good in-depth book on natural law by a modern writer

 

[JP2Admirer]

For instance, Cronin argues that since the purpose of speech is to communicate the thoughts in your head, it is wrong to use speech to communicate what is not in your thoughts (lie), what you know to is not so. This makes perfect sense. However, upon reflection I wonder “what about story telling?”. Wouldn’t this make fiction wrong?

Fiction is not lying because it is not intentionally signing something you know not to be true. That is, you are making a fictional story, but you are, by the very nature of the art, not claiming that it was true. So the two are not the same, though they seem the same.

Another place Cronin argues that living in society is natural. Humans have a natural tendency towards advancement and progress (intellectually, scientifically, industrially, commercially, etc.), but this can’t be actualized by man living in seclusion. When man lives in groups different people can take up different tasks that fulfill the needs of the group so that the basic necessities of life can be had while man actualizes his potential to advance and progress. Again this makes a lot of sense, but is it therefore immoral to be a mountain man and live alone in the wilderness?

You are thinking in too “Kantian” absolute terms. It is our natural desire to live in society. Now, there is nothing “morally” wrong with living in seclusion if one so chooses. He is, in a sense acting contrary to man’s natural inclination, but he is not explicitly contradicting the natural lawOn the other hand, if someone intentionally sewed discord so as to invite revolution and war, then they would be acting contrary to the good of peaceful societal living, and that would be immoral.

Or if someone was lost in the mountains and the mountain man refused to help them, he would be contradicting the natural law.

Something else that I’ve been wondering about is how is circumcision viewed in light of natural law? Somewhere I read an excerpt from Edward Feser where he said that cutting off you arm or leg would be wrong because your arm and leg have specific purposes (walking, running, getting food, holding things, etc.) and inhibiting them from performing their natural functions is unnatural and therefore immoral. How about the foreskin? Can circumcision be justified with natural law?

You are not inhibiting the purpose of the penis, so it is not contrary. Now if we were to castrate ourselves to have higher singing voices, we’d be contradicting the natural law.

Also, Aquinas doesn’t shy away from stating that the further we descend from the principles of the natural law, the more they break down, i.e. he wasn’t naive to realizing that in the realm of action there are infinite circumstances and that the application of the principles may sometimes get difficult for human beings to decipher. So there may be ethical questions that we cannot answer what is the absolute right way to act in.

I would recommend reading Thomas himself – 1-2 qqs.90-100.

 

[adolphuscusins]

Yes but what if someone wanted to shave their head just because they liked that hair style? How does wanting a particular hairstyle constitute a greater good when it deliberately frustrates the natural function of hair? I could see if you got a big gash in your head and the doctors needed to cut the hair to give you stitches, that would be a “greater good”.

Again, this is why I’d like to get some good solid books on natural law. I’d really like to understand the principles and be able to analyze situations as such. Thanks for you reply!

The “greater good” justification is not necessarily one you need to rely on in your hypo. The premise in your question is that if there is some “natural function,” that the refusal to abide by that function is wrong. Think about a knife. It might have been designed to cut things, but it works pretty well at prying open a stuck drawer. Even assuming that providing warmth was your hair’s primary purpose, that doesn’t necessarily imply that that primary purpose of providing warmth should trump other worthy goals (like appearing respectable enough to get a job or being prudent enough to not have waist-long hair if you are a wrestler). There are competing goals and functions for different things, and your moral decision making will aim at integrating those considerations with respect to your end goal, whether it be swimming faster (ergo, wanting less hair) or playing a role in a movie about Woodstock (certainly needing more of it).

Read this quick two page article from Robert George: templeton.org/reason/Essays/george.pdf

If that strikes your fancy, check out some of his books: Clash of Orthodoxies, Embryo, and In Defense of Natural Law. There is plenty of theory and application of the specific issues you mentioned above. Also, Morality and the Human Goods by Gomez-Lobo is a nice short primer on Natural Law.

 

[Curious_Hobbit]

Fiction is not lying because it is not intentionally signing something you know not to be true. That is, you are making a fictional story, but you are, by the very nature of the art, not claiming that it was true. So the two are not the same, though they seem the same.

You are thinking in too “Kantian” absolute terms. It is our natural desire to live in society. Now, there is nothing “morally” wrong with living in seclusion if one so chooses. He is, in a sense acting contrary to man’s natural inclination, but he is not explicitly contradicting the natural lawOn the other hand, if someone intentionally sewed discord so as to invite revolution and war, then they would be acting contrary to the good of peaceful societal living, and that would be immoral.

Or if someone was lost in the mountains and the mountain man refused to help them, he would be contradicting the natural law.

You are not inhibiting the purpose of the penis, so it is not contrary. Now if we were to castrate ourselves to have higher singing voices, we’d be contradicting the natural law.

Also, Aquinas doesn’t shy away from stating that the further we descend from the principles of the natural law, the more they break down, i.e. he wasn’t naive to realizing that in the realm of action there are infinite circumstances and that the application of the principles may sometimes get difficult for human beings to decipher. So there may be ethical questions that we cannot answer what is the absolute right way to act in.

I would recommend reading Thomas himself – 1-2 qqs.90-100.

Hey JPAdmirer,
I’ve read Aquinas’ questions on Divine, human, and natural law, but they are rather general. I think I get the major premise of Aquinas’ Natural law (ie. God created our nature and therefore acting in according with our nature is morally good), but I was just wondering about these kinds of specific applications.

 

[Curious_Hobbit]

The “greater good” justification is not necessarily one you need to rely on in your hypo. The premise in your question is that if there is some “natural function,” that the refusal to abide by that function is wrong. Think about a knife. It might have been designed to cut things, but it works pretty well at prying open a stuck drawer. Even assuming that providing warmth was your hair’s primary purpose, that doesn’t necessarily imply that that primary purpose of providing warmth should trump other worthy goals (like appearing respectable enough to get a job or being prudent enough to not have waist-long hair if you are a wrestler). There are competing goals and functions for different things, and your moral decision making will aim at integrating those considerations with respect to your end goal, whether it be swimming faster (ergo, wanting less hair) or playing a role in a movie about Woodstock (certainly needing more of it).

Read this quick two page article from Robert George: templeton.org/reason/Essays/george.pdf

If that strikes your fancy, check out some of his books: Clash of Orthodoxies, Embryo, and In Defense of Natural Law. There is plenty of theory and application of the specific issues you mentioned above. Also, Morality and the Human Goods by Gomez-Lobo is a nice short primer on Natural Law.

Hey adolphuscusins,
Thanks for the article. I guess I just need a better understanding of how to determine which of the competing goals and functions trump others without casting aside the natural purposes to a degree that would be immoral from the natural law perspective. Also, does George draw heavily on Grisez and Finnis? From what I hear they are apart of the “new natural law school” and I should steer clear of them. What do you think?

 

[adolphuscusins]

Hey adolphuscusins,
Thanks for the article. I guess I just need a better understanding of how to determine which of the competing goals and functions trump others without casting aside the natural purposes to a degree that would be immoral from the natural law perspective. Also, does George draw heavily on Grisez and Finnis? From what I hear they are apart of the “new natural law school” and I should steer clear of them. What do you think?

I would be interested to hear who told you to avoid Grisez, Finnis, and George and why they did so. Grisez was one of the most ardent defenders of the Church’s teaching on contraception; the archbishop of DC got Grisez leave from Georgetown to specifically help him deal with responding to critics of Humanae Vitae. They are all widely consulted by bishops and appear to be orthodox in their thinking. The only criticism I have heard of them has been that some people disagree with their methodology. However, their work is based off and is a continuance of Aquinas. Grisez’s work especially is well-founded in Scripture and the Church Fathers as well. George and Finnis write on different topics than Grisez, but their work is still sound and profitable to read.

“New Natural Law” is only a term applied to their thinking, but there is not much new about it. It is based on Thomas and is solidly compatible with Church teaching (there is no “official” Chruch philosophy). Read this section of Aquinas carefully: newadvent.org/summa/2094.htm#article2. Agreement or disagreement with the “new” natural lawyers will generally revolve around intepretation of this part of the ST.

In short, I would not avoid them.

 

[Curious_Hobbit]

I would be interested to hear who told you to avoid Grisez, Finnis, and George and why they did so. Grisez was one of the most ardent defenders of the Church’s teaching on contraception; the archbishop of DC got Grisez leave from Georgetown to specifically help him deal with responding to critics of Humanae Vitae. They are all widely consulted by bishops and appear to be orthodox in their thinking. The only criticism I have heard of them has been that some people disagree with their methodology. However, their work is based off and is a continuance of Aquinas. Grisez’s work especially is well-founded in Scripture and the Church Fathers as well. George and Finnis write on different topics than Grisez, but their work is still sound and profitable to read.

“New Natural Law” is only a term applied to their thinking, but there is not much new about it. It is based on Thomas and is solidly compatible with Church teaching (there is no “official” Chruch philosophy). Read this section of Aquinas carefully: newadvent.org/summa/2094.htm#article2. Agreement or disagreement with the “new” natural lawyers will generally revolve around intepretation of this part of the ST.

In short, I would not avoid them.

I watched a lecture and read a few articles from David Oderberg in the past and I remember him criticizing Finis and Grisez. He was saying that although they come up with many of the same conclusions as traditional natural law theorists, they do it at the expense of a proper metaphysical foundation for their ethics. That they either didn’t ground their ethics in the essences or nature of things or they did in a different way. His criticism was something like that. Anyway I was just curious about that. That article you posted by George made good sense and as long as you say their philosophy is consistent with ST q94 article 2 then I’ll have to check them out.

 

[adolphuscusins]

I just looked up the contents of Oderburg’s book that he edited on natural law. One of contributors of a chapter in the book is a collaborator of George and Grisez. So, reading people even if you disagree with them is certainly not a bad thing.

Also, Grisez, Finnis, etc. will not be shy about telling you that their natural law philosophy is not based on a prior methaphysical anthropology of man. The disagreement is over whether or not this is permissible. You should pick up a book or two of their writing and listen to their argument first hand. Essentially, for a valid deductive argument, no term may be in the conclusion that was not present in the premises. They argue that basing natural law on a prior metaphysical anthropology can lead to an invalid inference. If you say, “Man’s natural purpose is x; therefore to not x is immorral,” you will have gone from a question of factual analysis, an is question, to moral proposition, an ought question. For the sake of space, I am admittedly butchering the argument, but hopefully, you can see where this is going. It is the same thing I was trying to point out to you about the hair hypo and the knife example I game. Doing something against a thing’s natural purpose doesn’t make it wrong. In saying that hair’s natural function is x and that frustrating x is wrong, you are assuming something that I am not sure I would grant you: that is it necessarily immoral to violate the natural purpose.

Send me a pm if you’re interested in any of this; I have several article that cover pointed areas of contention. I can email them to you.

(Excuse any typos)

 

[Joel_PF]

I watched a lecture and read a few articles from David Oderberg in the past and I remember him criticizing Finis and Grisez. He was saying that although they come up with many of the same conclusions as traditional natural law theorists, they do it at the expense of a proper metaphysical foundation for their ethics. That they either didn’t ground their ethics in the essences or nature of things or they did in a different way. His criticism was something like that. Anyway I was just curious about that. That article you posted by George made good sense and as long as you say their philosophy is consistent with ST q94 article 2 then I’ll have to check them out.

This is, I believe, one of the greatest strengths of Grizes’s and Finnis’s theory of natural law.

Finnis does deny the metaphysical basis of natural law. He merely notes what has, since Hume, been undeniable: our knowledge of morality does not come, and CANNOT come, from a knowledge of metaphysics, of the nature of man. It comes, rather, from man’s own natural inclinations, our knowledge of the first principles of natural law which are present in every single human being.

For me, Finnis’s “Natural Law and Natural Rights” and “Aquinas” (which is his comprehensive overview of Aquinas’s ethical and political thought) are indispensable readings.

 

[EphelDuath]

I strongly recommend by Jacques MaritainNatural Law: Reflections on Theory & Practice, who himself was a devout Thomist.

 

[adolphuscusins]

This is, I believe, one of the greatest strengths of Grizes’s and Finnis’s theory of natural law.

Finnis does deny the metaphysical basis of natural law. He merely notes what has, since Hume, been undeniable: our knowledge of morality does not come, and CANNOT come, from a knowledge of metaphysics, of the nature of man. It comes, rather, from man’s own natural inclinations, our knowledge of the first principles of natural law which are present in every single human being.

For me, Finnis’s “Natural Law and Natural Rights” and “Aquinas” (which is his comprehensive overview of Aquinas’s ethical and political thought) are indispensable readings.

Couldn’t agree more. The only problem is how hard it is to find a reasonably priced (i.e. cheap) copy of those books.

I am excited though about the newly released edition of NLNR.

 

[marica_mandic]

Thomas Aquinas was an Italian Dominican priest.
He was influiental philosopher and theologian in the tradition of scholasticism.
Aquinas is not surname, but is a Latin adjective meaning , of Aquino, his place of birth.
He was the foremost proponent of natural teology.
He is the one of the 33 Doctors of the church.
The works for which he is best-known are the Summa Theologica and Summa Contra Gentiles.
For him human is a single material substance, but still sholud be understood as having an immaterial soul, which continues after bodily death.
Ultimately humans are animals, the animal genus is body.
The soul is not corporeal.
The intellect is incorporeal,it does not use bodily organs.
Human soul does not depent of the body.
Matter exist only through form, but soul does not depent on matter.
That is the dual nature of humanity.
Concerning the nature of God he propose five statements.
-God is simple,without compostion of parts.
-God is perfect, lacking nothing.
-God is infinite,

• God is immutable,
• God is one.
  The goal of human existence is union and eternal fellowship with God.
  This goal is achieved through the beatific vision, an event in which a person experiences unending happiness by seeing essence of God.
  This vision occures after death.
  The ultimate goal carries implications for one*s present life on earth.
  Those who truly seek to understand and see God will necessarily love what God loves.