I don't understand Thomas Aquinas' arguments for natural law theory, help

  • Thread starter Thread starter TheDefaultMan
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

TheDefaultMan

Guest
Thomas Aquinas’ arguments seem to go like this

Premise 1: All rational agents act ALWAYS towards an end (I agree)
Premise 2: Given that this is a form of a perfection, they are acting towards a good (I agree)
Premise 3: They must act towards their goods and their perfections (natural ends)

Now what I don’t understand is how Premise 3 follows from Premise 2. Why is it that we have to do EVERYTHING that is good for us (in the Thomistic, “conforming to natural ends” sense) if what is only established is that we always act on the basis of a PARTICULAR GOOD.

Like for example, if I turn my lamp off with the final end in mind of making me happy that my lamp is off, I only seeked the good or the perfection of pleasure. Just because I seeked the good in that particular situation, why is it that I must seek the proper good in every other?
 
Last edited:
Now what I don’t understand is how Premise 3 follows from Premise 2
If you agree that there are perfections, more specifically that there are perfections that are a natural end of our nature, it follows true that we ought to act for that perfection, since to act in any other way would be unnatural or an imperfection. It would be to lack something or act in contradiction to that which is true to our nature.

But you have to agree that there is such a thing as perfecting ones nature in an objective sense. Christianity speaks of the idea of perfecting the flesh, or being a master of the flesh. It speaks of ends that full-fills our nature. If there are truly objective ends in realty that full-fill our nature, then it follows that there are ends which are true to our nature and ends that are not, or rather they are not natural ends at all.

In Thomist philosophy, morality is teleological. Good is as much about the fundamental purpose of human activity as much as it is about right or wrong, for there can be no such a thing as right and wrong without a true objective purpose. They are one and the same.
 
Last edited:
If you agree that there are perfections, more specifically that there are perfections that are a natural end of our nature, it follows true that we ought to act for that perfection, since to act in any other way would be unnatural or an imperfection. It would be to lack something or act in contradiction to that which is true to our nature.
Well I do agree that when we act we act for perfection, but why is it the case that we MUST act for ALL perfection?
 
Some acts are simply neutral. Immortality comes into play when we act contrary to our natural ends and perfections.
 
I understand that. That wasn’t my question though, I was wondering how Thomas Aquinas bridged the gap between “you seek perfection whenever you do something” to “you must seek all perfections all the time.”

Do you know?
 
I understand that. That wasn’t my question though, I was wondering how Thomas Aquinas bridged the gap between “you seek perfection whenever you do something” to “you must seek all perfections all the time.”

Do you know?
Because you’re ordered towards realizing the good in yourself, which means actualizing the perfections in your nature, and if you’re not you’re acting against your nature and against the objective good.
 
Well I’d push it back a bit. Why exactly do I ought to do the good? This post that I had was supposed to be based on that question, and Thomas Aquinas’ response to it.
 
Well I do agree that when we act we act for perfection,
To act for perfection presupposes that there is such a thing. If there is such a thing, then to act contrary to that perfection would be to lack perfection in ones action or to act in a way that would undermine the fulfilment of our natures. Otherwise it’s meaningless. To act for the fulfilment of our natures is described as good, to act otherwise is described as evil or bad or wrong or unnatural. Obviously to fulfil ones nature one ought to do that which is good, and good is what truly full-fills ones nature.
 
Well I agree that it would be good, but why do we ought to do the good?
 
Because rational beings would chose to do so?

Acting against the good and hence perfection would be irrational, right?
 
But why do we ought to do our natural end?
I think this really boils down to understanding an Aristotoean-Thomist philosophy of nature and God’s creative act and the basis for the convertibility of being and the good. The good isn’t just an abstract commandment, it’s simply part of the natural order that God established that the actualization of a nature is what is good.

I hate mechanical analogies for the most part as it misrepresents the A-T approach to nature, but if you don’t choose to attain to your ends as a rational being you’re somewhat like a defective product (only you choose to be). Your will is ordered towards the good, and your intellect is ordered towards truth and being able to understand the good. You have a natural obligation towards attaining to your own ends. You ought to attain to your ends because that’s what your nature and your existence is ordered towards intrinsically.

I saw in another topic you were looking to read Feser’s Aquinas, and that’s a decent starting point, though it’s really a primer. It’s definitely not in the public domain, though, so my awareness on ways to legally read it amount to purchasing it or borrowing it from a library.
 
40.png
TheDefaultMan:
They must act…
This doesn’t follow. You cannot get ought from is.
False. That objection is only applicable to certain philosophies of nature.
 
By being alive, your dog tends to act toward the goals of his nature.

Some of his acts are more doggy (eating, drinking, mating) and some are less doggy (eating toilet paper, drinking beer, humping a leg).

But all of his acts are trying to hit one of his ends, even if they end up frustrating his ends (and getting him scolded or making him sick).

Evil humans or stupid humans still act in such a way as to aim at human ends, even if their acts don’t arrive at them.
  • Actually, humping a leg is primarily a dog dominance move, and only partly a sex move. But it doesn’t work for dominance over humans, either.
 
Last edited:
By being alive, your dog tends to act toward the goals of his nature.

Some of his acts are more doggy (eating, drinking, mating) and some are less doggy (eating toilet paper, drinking beer, humping a leg).

But all of his acts are trying to hit one of his ends, even if they end up frustrating his ends (and getting him scolded or making him sick).

Evil humans or stupid humans still act in such a way as to aim at human ends, even if their acts don’t arrive at them.
Dogs aren’t rational beings as humans and angels are. Every human act, even the most despicable, is aimed at some good. But when one chooses as a rational being to do what amounts to violence against one’s own nature one has acted immorally. It is the part of the purpose of a rational mind to make these evaluations. There is no moral character to a dog’s actions.
 
Last edited:
False. That objection is only applicable to certain philosophies of nature.
Evil and good are both possible natures. That is about “is”. The reality is however indifferent toward evil or good. Therefore, there is no “ought”.
 
40.png
Wesrock:
False. That objection is only applicable to certain philosophies of nature.
Evil and good are both possible natures. That is about “is”. The reality is however indifferent toward evil or good. Therefore, there is no “ought”.
As I said it depends on your philosophy of nature. Reality as understood by Aristotleanism or Thomism is very much not indifferent towards good and evil, and evil is not a possible nature as the word nature is used in either system.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top