St. Thomas Aquinas’ Natural Law Theory

Despite being one of the most esteemed philosophical theologians that we have seen thus far, St. Thomas Aquinas's Natural Law Theory has some empty room for arguing his beliefs, in contrast to my personal beliefs. This paper will look at the various reasons why St. Thomas Aquinas's Natural Law Theory is popularly acceptable, why I agree with some of these and highlight the differences between my beliefs and his. In the end of this paper, one should be able to conclude on the extent and significance of the similarities and differences of our beliefs.

List of Similarities and differences between mine and St. Thomas Aquinas's Natural Law Theory

What is Natural Law Theory

Since this involves the various schools of philosophy, Natural Law has been used incorrectly by many individuals in several incorrect ways. To make this easily understood, Natural Law is the moral hypothesis of a charter that emphasizes the necessity for the law to be focused on ethics and morality. Also, According to the Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica (n.d.), St. Thomas Aquinas' wrote that; this law is nothing but the attendance of the endless law in a being with a sound mind, in this manner consists of the various rules of behaviour/actions that we as humans are capable of developing.

Similarities

I would say that I agree more and share the same natural law philosophies as Aquinas in a vast variety of ways one being that these laws apply to entities that are able to exercise free will and we as independent decision-makers ought to act accordingly to perform our natural reasoning in order for us all to find out the necessities of our existence and in the process, gain an inclination in our nature.

Also, another view that I share closely with St. Thomas Aquinas about the natural law theory is that; for us as humans to implement these laws, we should first initially conclude on what our creator; God has appointed us as his creations, to be prompted towards as everything posses a natural end and contentment to human activities of existing.

I also agree that humans, compared to other natural occurring entities on earth like water, fire, rocks etc.., humans are not defined through natural law. In place of this, our creator (God) has implanted into us all, our feelings of logic.

Differences

Since Aquinas’ teaching is mostly focused on “eternal law”, I would disagree with that because the law is not entirely a command of reason, coming from a single entity and is made solely for the society that they control, no! These days, we are made to understand that “a single tree cannot build a forest” in the sense that; when ideas are combined to form a law or laws, this command of reason would be initially analysed by the public for their opinions and these individuals of the public do not necessarily have to be intellects as Aquinas had proposed. After this initial vetting, the decisions can be passed on to society.

Also, to contradict Aquinas's theory on how rulers rule society for the sake of the governed (its citizens), this notion has changed over the years, even as long back as 100 years ago. Most of the rulers that are out there these days are not necessarily doing what they do because of the “good” they hope to bring. A vast majority of rulers cautiously view their decisions

Examples of my belief VS St. Thomas Aquinas

In the act of implementing the natural law theory when it comes to same-sex interaction, there are some clear indications that this law only directs to Human entities. The issue with this claim is that; there is same-sex coupling with many other living things other than humans.

Also, the natural law theory concludes that the laws of God ( with evidence in the bible) and that of nature do not allow a compilation that will not yield offspring. This clearly is a dictation of sexual activities and is obviously immoral to me.

Conclusion (Arguments)

Some of the tall truth associated with St. Thomas Aquinas’ natural law theory becomes really clear to us when we deal with a natural direction of reasoning that is apparently conflicting with moral and ethical action. Take for example, when flying in an aeroplane, in cases of emergencies, every passenger is responsible for caring for themselves before caring for their neighbours, even if that neighbour is a child or people that cannot help themselves. Therefore, shall we consider that this case is ethically moral or not?

Also, St. Thomas Aquinas’s natural law theory assumes that moral laws/standards are designed in the laws of God and nature. Modern science, however, is not in favour of this. From a scientific point of view, there are only “cause and effect” within a natural world, i.e. values and morals and these two are the creativeness of mankind’s minds.

So for this reason, we can comfortably say that the natural law theory contributes little or nothing to the modern civil moral dialogue.