Thomas Aquinas, a medieval philosopher and theologian who lived from 1225 to 1274, made significant contributions to political philosophy, grounded in his integration of Christian theology with Aristotelian philosophy. His political philosophy, mainly articulated in works such as "Summa Theologica" and "Summa Contra Gentiles," focuses on the nature of law, governance, and the moral foundations of political authority. Here are key aspects of Aquinas's political philosophy:
The Purpose of Political Authority
Aquinas believed that political authority exists for the common good of the community. The state plays a crucial role in creating a peaceful and orderly society where individuals can live virtuous lives, fulfill their duties to God, and reach their ultimate end, which is union with God. This perspective sees the government's role as not just ensuring peace and justice but also facilitating the moral and spiritual well-being of its citizens.
Law and Its Types
One of Aquinas's significant contributions is his theory of law, particularly his distinction between different types of law: eternal law, natural law, human law, and divine law. Eternal law is the plan of divine wisdom as directing all actions and movements; natural law is the participation in the eternal law by rational creatures, reflecting our innate understanding of good and evil; human law is the specific application of natural law in societies, subject to change and variation; and divine law is revealed through Scripture, guiding humans to their supernatural end.
Thomas Aquinas's views on the purpose of political authority, you can refer to his seminal work, "Summa Theologica." In this text, Aquinas elaborates on law, governance, and the role of the state in relation to the common good and moral order. While Aquinas's work is vast and covers much more than just political philosophy, the following parts and questions from "Summa Theologica" are particularly pertinent to his views on political authority:
Summa Theologica, I-II (Prima Secundae), Question 90, Article 2: Here, Aquinas discusses the essence of law and asserts that the end (goal) of law is the common good. This aligns with his belief that political authority is directed towards the common good of the community.
Summa Theologica, I-II, Question 91, Article 2: In this section, Aquinas talks about the different types of law, focusing on eternal law, natural law, and human law. His explanation of natural law as a participation in the eternal law by rational creatures underpins his view that the moral and spiritual well-being of individuals is a concern for political authority.
Summa Theologica, I-II, Question 96, Article 4: Aquinas addresses the question of whether human law should be framed for the community. He argues that since the aim of human law is the common good, it must consider not just the rectitude of actions but also the capability of the citizens, ensuring laws are made that people can follow without great difficulty.
Summa Theologica, II-II (Secunda Secundae), Question 47, Article 10: This section is relevant for understanding Aquinas's views on prudence and governance. He outlines the virtues necessary for rulers, emphasizing that the governance of the state should aim at the common good.
Summa Theologica, I-II, Question 98, Article 1: Aquinas discusses the necessity of law and argues that it is essential for directing communities towards the common good, which includes living virtuously and fulfilling duties to God.
Natural Law
Aquinas's concept of natural law is foundational. He argued that through reason, humans can discern certain universal moral principles that are inherent in human nature. These principles should guide the creation of human laws and the actions of individuals and governments. Natural law forms the basis for understanding human rights and duties in Aquinas's philosophy.
Just and Unjust Laws
Aquinas held that for a law to be just, it must meet several criteria: it must aim at the common good, be promulgated (known by those who are expected to follow it), and not exceed the authority of the lawgiver. Unjust laws, those that violate natural law, do not bind people in conscience, except to avoid scandal or disturbance.
The Right to Resist Tyranny
While Aquinas generally advocated for obedience to lawful authority, he also acknowledged the legitimacy of resisting tyrannical government. If a ruler becomes a tyrant and acts against the common good, Aquinas believed that it is justified for the community to remove or resist such a ruler, preferably through lawful means.
Kingship as the Best Form of Government
Aquinas considered monarchy, or kingship, to be the best form of government when the monarch is virtuous and seeks the common good. However, he also recognized the potential for tyranny in a monarchy and hence advocated for mixed forms of government that include elements of aristocracy and democracy to provide checks and balances.
Thomas Aquinas's political philosophy offers a comprehensive view that integrates ethical, theological, and political considerations. His emphasis on the moral purposes of government, the role of law in society, and the importance of the common good remains influential in contemporary discussions of political theory and ethics.
Aquinas’s Natural Law Theory
Grace does not destroy nature but perfects it.
They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.
Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) was an
intellectual and religious revolutionary, living at a time of great
philosophical, theological and scientific development. He was a member of the
Dominican Friars, which at that time was considered to be a cult, and was
taught by one of the greatest intellects of the age, Albert the Great
(1208-1280). In a nutshell Aquinas wanted to move away from Plato's thinking,
which was hugely influential at the time, and instead introduce Aristotelian
ideas to science, nature and theology.
Aquinas wrote an incredible
amount — in fact one of the miracles accredited to him was the amount he wrote!
His most famous work is Summa Theologica and this runs to some three and
half thousand pages and contains many fascinating and profound insights, such
as proofs for God's existence. The book remained a fundamental basis for
Catholic thinking right up to the 1960s! But do not worry we will only be
focusing on a few key ideas! Specifically books I-II, questions 93-95.
2. Motivating
Natural Law Theory: The Euthyphro Dilemma and Divine Command Theory
The likely answer from a religious person as to why we should not steal, or commit adultery is: "because God forbids us"; or if we ask why we should love our neighbour or give money to charity then the answer is likely to be "because God commands it". Drawing this link between what is right and wrong and what God commands and forbids is what is called the Divine Command Theory (DCT).
There is a
powerful and influential challenge to such an account called the Euthyphro
dilemma after the challenge was first raised in Plato's Euthyphro. The
dilemma runs as follows:
Either God commands something is right because it is, or it is
right because God commands it. If God commands something because it is right,
then God's commands do not make it right, His commands only tell us what is
right. This means God simply drops out of the picture in terms of explaining
why something is right.
If on the other
hand something is right because God commands it then anything at
all could be right; killing children or setting fire to churches could be
morally acceptable. But if a moral theory says this then that looks as if the
theory is wrong.
Most theists
reject the first option and opt for this second option — that God's commands make
something right. But they then have to face the problem that it make morality
haphazard. This "arbitrariness problem" as it is sometimes
called, is the reason that many, including Aquinas, give up on the Divine
Command Theory.
So for Aquinas
what role, if any at all, does God have when it comes to morality? For him,
God's commands are there to help us to come to see what, as a matter of
fact, is right and wrong rather than determine what is right and wrong. That
is, Aquinas opts for the first option in the Euthyphro dilemma as stated above.
But then this raises the obvious question: if it is not God's commands that
make something right and wrong, then what does? Does not God just fall out of
the picture? This is where his Natural Law Theory comes in.
Aquinas's Natural Law Theory contains four
different types of law: Eternal Law, Natural Law, Human Law and Divine Law.
The way to understand these four laws and how they relate to one another is via
the Eternal Law, so we'd better start there...
By "Eternal
Law'" Aquinas means God's rational purpose and plan for all things.
And because the Eternal Law is part of God's mind then it has always, and will
always, exist. The Eternal Law is not simply something that God decided at some
point to write.
Aquinas thinks that everything has a purpose and follows a plan. He, like Aristotle, is a teleologist (the Greek term "telos" refers to what we might call a purpose, goal, end/or the true final function of an object) and believes that every object has a telos; the acorn has the telos of growing into an oak; the eye a telos of seeing; a rat of eating and reproducing etc. If something fulfils its purpose/plan then it is following the Eternal Law.
Aquinas thinks
that something is good in as far as it fulfils its purpose/plan. This
fits with common sense. A "good" eye is one which sees well,
an acorn is a good if it grows into a strong oak tree.
But what about
humans? Just as a good eye is to see, and a good acorn is to grow then a good
human is to...? Is to what? How are we going to finish this sentence? What do
you think?
Aquinas thinks
that the answer is reason and that it is this that makes us distinct
from rats and rocks. What is right for me and you as humans is to act according
to reason. If we act according to reason then we are partaking in the Natural
Law.
If we all act
according to reason, then we will all agree to some overarching general rules
(what Aquinas calls primary precepts). These are absolute and
binding on all rational agents and because of this Aquinas rejects relativism.
The first primary
precept is that good is to be pursued and done and evil avoided. He
thinks that this is the guiding principle for all our decision making.
Before unpacking
this, it is worth clarifying something about what "law" means.
Imagine that we are playing Cluedo and we are trying to work out the identity
of the murderer. There are certain rules about how to move around the board,
how to deal out cards, how to reveal the murderer etc. These rules are all
written down and can be consulted.
However, in
playing the game there are other rules that operate which are so obvious that
they are neither written down nor spoken. One such rule is that a claim made in
the game cannot both be true and false; if it is Professor Plum who is
the murderer then it cannot be true that it is not Professor Plum who is
the murderer. These are internal rules which any rational person
can come to recognize by simply thinking and are not external like the other
rules — such as you can only have one guess as to the identity of the murderer.
When Aquinas talks of Natural Laws, he means internal rules and not external
ones.
Natural Law does
not generate an external set of rules that are written down for us to consult
but rather it generates general rules that any rational agent can come to
recognize simply in virtue of being rational. For example, for Aquinas it is
not as if we need to check whether we should pursue good and avoid evil, as it
is just part of how we already think about things. Aquinas gives some more
examples of primary precepts:
Aquinas's Natural Law Theory
1. Protect and preserve human life.
2. Reproduce and educate one's offspring.
3. Know and worship God.
4. Live in a society.
These precepts are primary because
they are true for all people in all instances and are consistent with
Natural Law.
Aquinas also
introduces what he calls the Human Law which gives rise to what he calls
"Secondary Precepts". These might include such things as do
not drive above 70mph on a motorway, do not kidnap people, always wear a helmet
when riding a bike, do not hack into someone's bank account. Secondary precepts
are not generated by our reason but rather they are imposed by
governments, groups, clubs, societies etc.
It is not
always morally acceptable to follow secondary precepts. It is only morally
acceptable if they are consistent with the Natural Law. If they are,
then we ought to follow them, if they are not, then we ought not. To see why
think through an example.
Consider the
secondary precept that "if you are a woman and you live in Saudi Arabia
then you are not allowed to drive". Aquinas would argue that this
secondary precept is practically irrational because it treats people
differently based on an arbitrary difference (gender). He would reason that if
the men in power in Saudi actually really thought hard then they too would
recognize that this law is morally wrong. This in turn means that Aquinas would
think that this human law does not fit with the Natural Law.
Hence, it is morally wrong to follow a law that says that men can, and women
cannot, drive. So although it is presented as a secondary precept, because it is
not in accordance with Natural Law, it is what Aquinas calls an apparent
good. This is in contrast with those secondary precepts which are in
accordance with the Natural Law and which he calls the real goods.
Unlike primary
precepts, Aquinas is not committed to there being only one set of
secondary precepts for all people in all situations. It is consistent with
Aquinas's thinking to have a law to drive on the right in the US and on the
left in the UK as there is no practical reason to think that there is one
correct side of the road on which to drive.
It is clear that on our own we are not very good at discovering primary precepts and consequently Aquinas thinks that what we ought to do is talk and interact with people. To discover our real goods — our secondary precepts which accord with Natural Law — we need to be part of a society. For example, we might think that "treat Christians as secondary citizens" is a good secondary precept until we talk and live with Christians. The more we can think and talk with others in society the better and it is for this reason that "live in society" is itself a primary precept.
But looking at
what we have said already about Natural Laws and primary and secondary
precepts, we might think that there is no need for God. If we can learn these
primary precepts by rational reflection then God simply drops out of the story
(recall the Euthyphro dilemma above).
Just to recap as
there a lots of moving parts to the story. We now have Eternal Law (God's
plans/purpose for all things), Natural Laws (our partaking in the Eternal Law
which leads to primary precepts), Human Laws (humans making specific laws to
capture the truths of the Natural Laws which lead to secondary precepts) and
now finally Aquinas introduces the Divine Law.
The Divine Law,
which is discovered through revelation, should be thought of as the Divine
equivalent of the Human Law (those discovered through rational reflection and
created by people). Divine laws are those that God has, in His grace, seen fit
to give us and are those "mysteries", those rules given by God which
we find in scripture; for example, the ten commandments. But why introduce the
Divine Law at all? It certainly feels we have enough Laws. Here is a story to
illustrate Aquinas's answer.
A number of years
ago I was talking to a minister of a church. He told me about an instance where
a married man came to ask his advice about whether to finish an affair he was
having. The man's reasoning went as follows — "I am having an affair which
just feels so right, we are both very much in love and surely God would want
what is best for me! How could it be wrong if we are so happy?"
In response, the
minister opened the Bible to the Ten Commandments and pointed out the
commandment that it says that it is wrong to commit adultery. Case closed. The
point of this story is simple. We can be confused and mistaken about what we
think we have most reason to do and because of this we need someone who
actually knows the mind of God to guide us, and who better to know this than
God Himself. This then is precisely what is revealed in the Divine Law.
Or consider
another example. We recognize that we find it hard to forgive our friends and
nearly always impossible to forgive our enemies. We tell ourselves we have the
right to be angry, to bear grudges, etc. Isn't this just human? However, these
human reasons are distortions of the Eternal Law. We need some guidance
when it comes to forgiveness and it is where the Divine Law which tells us that
we should forgive others — including our enemies. Following the Human Laws and
the Divine Laws will help us to fulfil our purposes and plans and be truly
happy.
4. Summary
of Aquinas's Natural Law Theory
For Aquinas everything has a function (a telos)
and the good thing(s) to do are those acts that fulfil that function. Some
things such as acorns, and eyes, just do that naturally. However, humans are
free and hence need guidance to find the right path. That right path is found
through reasoning and generates the "internal" Natural Law. By
following the Natural Law we participate in God's purpose for us in the Eternal
Law.
However, the
primary precepts that derive from the Natural Law are quite general, such as, pursue
good and shun evil. So we need to create secondary precepts which can
actually guide our day-to-day behaviour. But we are fallible so sometimes we
get these secondary precepts wrong, sometimes we get them right. When they are
wrong they only reflect our apparent goods. When they are right they reflect
our real goods.
Finally, however
good we are because we are finite and sinful, we can only get so far with
rational reflection. We need some revealed guidance and this comes in
the form of Divine Law. So to return to the Euthyphro dilemma. God's commands
through the Divine Law are ways of illuminating what is in fact morally
acceptable and not what determines what is morally acceptable. Aquinas
rejects the Divine Command Theory.
5. Putting
this into Practice: The Doctrine of Double Effect (DDE)
Let's consider some examples to show that
what we have said so far might actually work. Imagine someone considering suicide.
Is this morally acceptable or not? Recall, it is part of the Natural Law to
preserve and protect human life. Clearly suicide is not preserving and
protecting human life. It is therefore irrational to kill oneself and cannot be
part of God's plan for our life; hence it is morally unacceptable.
Imagine that
someone is considering having an abortion after becoming pregnant due to rape.
The same reasoning is going to apply. We ought to preserve and protect human
life and hence an abortion in this case is morally wrong.
However, as we
will see, Aquinas thinks that there are some instances where it is
morally acceptable to kill an innocent person and therefore there may be
occasions when it is morally acceptable to kill a foetus. But how can this be
correct? Will this not violate the primary precept about preserving life? The
answer is to understand that for Aquinas, an action is not just about what
we do externally but is also about what we do internally (i.e. our
motivations). With this
distinction he can show that, for example,
killing an innocent can be morally acceptable.
To make this
clear, Aquinas introduces one of his most famous ideas: the "Doctrine
of Double Effect". Let's see how this works.
Imagine a child brought up in a physically,
sexually and emotionally abusive family. He is frequently scared for his life
and is locked in the house for days at a time. One day when his father is drunk
and ready to abuse him again he quickly grabs a kitchen knife and slashes his
father's artery. His father bleeds out and dies in a matter of minutes. Do you
think the son did anything wrong?
Many people would say that he did nothing
morally wrong and in fact, some might even go as far as to say that he should
get a pat on the back for his actions. What about Aquinas? What would he say?
We might think
that given the Natural Law to "preserve and protect life" he would
say that this action is morally wrong. But, in fact, he would say the son's
action was not morally wrong (Aquinas discusses self-defence in the Summa Theologica
(II-II, Qu. 64)).
So why is the son
killing the father not in direct contradiction with the primary precept?
Aquinas asks us to consider the difference between the external act — the fact
that the father was killed, and the internal act — the motive.
In our example,
the action is one of self-defence because of the son's internal action
and because of this, Aquinas would think the killing is morally acceptable.
This distinction and conclusion is possible because of Aquinas's Doctrine of
Double Effect which states that if an act fulfils four conditions then it is
morally acceptable. If not, then it is not.
1. The first principle is that the act must
be a good one.
2. The second principle is
that the act must come about before the consequences.
3. The third is that the intention must be
good.
4. The fourth, it must be for serious
reasons.
This is abstract so let's go back to our
example. The act of the son was performed to save his own life so that
is good — we can tick (1). Moreover, the act to save his life came about first
— we can tick (2). The son did not first act to kill his father in order to
save his own life. That would be doing evil to bring about good and that is
never morally acceptable. The intention of the son was to preserve and protect his
life, so the intention was good — tick (3). Finally, the reasons were serious
as it was his life or his father's life — tick (4).
So given that the
act meets all four principles, it is in line with the DDE and hence the action
is morally acceptable, even though it caused someone to die and hence
seems contrary to the primary precept of preserving life.
We can draw a
contrasting case. Imagine that instead of slashing his father in self-defence,
the son plans the killing. He works out the best time, the best day and
then sets up a trip wire causing his father to fall from his flat window to his
death. Does this action meet the four criteria of the DDE? Well, no, because
the son's intention is to kill the father rather than save his own life —
we must put a cross at (3).
We have already
seen that suicide is morally impermissible for Aquinas, so does that mean that any
action you take that leads knowingly to your own death is morally wrong? No.
Because even though the external act of your own death is the same, the
internal act — the intention — might be different. An action is judged via
the Natural Law both externally and internally.
Imagine a case
where a soldier sees a grenade thrown into her barracks. Knowing that she does
not have time to defuse it or throw it away, she throws herself on the grenade.
It blows up, killing her but saving other soldiers in her barracks. Is this
wrong or right? Aquinas says this is morally acceptable given DDE. If we judge
this act both internally and externally we'll see why.
The intention —
the internal act — was not to kill herself even though she could foresee
that this was certainly what was going to happen. The act itself is good, to
save her fellow soldiers (1). The order is right, she is not doing evil so good
will happen (2). The intention is good, it is to save her fellow soldiers (3).
The reason is serious, it concerns people's lives (4).
Contrast this
with a soldier who decides to kill herself by blowing herself up. The intention
is not good and hence the DDE does not permit this suicidal action.
Finally, imagine
that a woman is pregnant and also has inoperable uterine cancer. The doctors have
two choices; to take out the uterus and save the mother, but the foetus will
die; or leave the foetus to develop and be born healthy, but the woman will
die. What would Aquinas say in this instance? Well using the DDE he would say
that it is morally acceptable to remove the cancer.
The action is to
remove the cancer; it has the foreseeable consequences of the foetus dying but
that is not what is intended. The action — to remove the cancer — is good (1).
The act of removing the cancer comes before the death of the foetus (2). The
intention to save the woman's life is also good (3). Finally, the reasons are
serious as they are about the life and death of the woman and the foetus (4).
So even though
this is a case where the doctor's actions bring about the death of the foetus
it would be acceptable for Aquinas through his Natural Law Theory, as is shown
via the DDE.
6. Some
Thoughts about Natural Law Theory
There are many things we might consider
when thinking through Aquinas's Natural Law Theory. There are some obvious
problems we could raise, such as the problem about whether or not God exists.
If God does not exist then the Eternal Law does not exist and therefore the
whole theory comes tumbling down. However, as good philosophers we ought always
to operate with a principle of charity and grant our opponent is
rational and give the strongest possible interpretation of their argument. So,
let's assumefor the sake of argument that God exists. How plausible is
Aquinas's theory? There are a number of things that we can pick up on.
Aquinas's theory
works on the idea that if something is "natural", that is, if it
fulfils its function, then it is morally acceptable, but there are a number of
unanswered questions relating to natural.
We might ask, why
does "natural" matter? We can think of things that are not
"natural" but which are perfectly acceptable, and things which are
natural which are not. For example, wearing clothes, taking medication and body
piercing certainly are not natural, but we would not want to say such things
are morally wrong.
On the other hand
we might consider that violence is a natural response to an unfaithful
partner, but also think that such violence is morally unacceptable. So it is
not true that we can discover what is morally acceptable or not simply by
discovering what is natural and what is not.
Put this worry
aside. Recall, Aquinas thinks that reproduction is natural and hence
reproduction is morally acceptable. This means that sex that does not
lead to reproduction is morally unacceptable. Notice that Aquinas is not saying
that if sex does not lead to pregnancy it is wrong. After all, sometimes the
timing is not right. His claim is rather that if there is no potential
for sex to lead to pregnancy then it is wrong. However, even with this
qualification this would mean a whole host of things such as homosexuality and
contraception are morally wrong. We might take this as a reason to rethink
Aquinas's moral framework.
There is, though,
a more fundamental worry at the heart of this approach (and Aristotle's) to
ethics. Namely, they think that everything has a goal (telos). Now,
with some things this might be plausible. Things such as the eye or an acorn
have a clear function — to grow, to see — but what about humans? This seems a
bit less obvious! Do humans (rather than our individual parts) really have a telos?
There are certainly some philosophers — such as the existentialists, for
example Simone de Beauvoir (1908-1986) — who think that there is no such thing
as human nature and no such thing as a human function or goal. But if we are
unconvinced that humans have a goal, then this whole approach to ethics seems
flawed.
Next we might
raise questions about DDE. Go back to our example about abortion. For Aquinas
it is morally acceptable to remove the uterus even if we know that in
doing so the foetus will die. What is not morally acceptable is to intend to
kill the foetus by removing the uterus. On first reading this seems to makes
sense; we have an intuitive feel for what DDE is getting at. However, when we
consider it in more detail it is far from clear.
Imagine two
doctors who (apparently) do exactly the same thing, they both remove the uterus
and the foetus dies. The one intends to take out the uterus — in full knowledge
that the foetus will die — the other intends to kill the foetus. For the DDE to
work in the way that Aquinas understands it, this difference in intention makes
the moral difference between the two doctors. However, is there really a moral
difference? To put pressure on the answer that there is, ask yourself what you
think it means to intend to do something. If the first doctor says "I did
not intend to kill the foetus" can we make sense of this? After all, if
you asked her "did you know that in taking out the uterus the foetus would
die?" she would say "yes, of course". But if she did this and
the foetus died, did not she intend (in some sense) to kill the foetus? So this
issue raises some complex question about the nature of the mind, and how we
might understand intentions.
Finally, we might
wonder how easy it is to work out what actually to do using the Natural Law. We
would hope our moral theory gives us direction in living our lives. That, we
might think, is precisely the role of a moral theory. But how might it work in
this case?
For Aquinas, if
we rationally reflect then we arrive at the right way of proceeding. If this is
in line with the Natural Law and the Divine Law then it is morally acceptable.
If it is out of line, then it is not. The assumption is that the more we think,
the more rational we become, the more convergence there will be. We'll all
start to have similar views on what is right and wrong. But is this too
optimistic? Very often, even after extensive reflection and cool deliberation
with friends and colleagues, it is not obvious to us what we as rational agents
should do. We all know people we take to be rational, but we disagree with them
on moral issues. And even in obviously rational areas such as mathematics, the
best mathematicians are not able to agree. We might then be sceptical that as
rational agents we will come to be in line with the Natural and Divine Laws.
Aquinas is an intellectual giant. He wrote
an incredible amount covering a vast array of topics. His influence has been
immense. His central idea is that humans are created by God to reason — that is
our function. Humans do the morally right thing if we act in accordance with
reason, and the morally wrong thing if we don't.
Aquinas is an
incredibly subtle and complex thinker. For example, his Doctrine of Double
Effect makes us to reflect on what we actually mean by "actions",
"intentions" and "consequences". His work remains much
discussed and researched and typically still plays a central role in a
Christian Ethics that rejects Divine Command Theory.
• Thinking that Aquinas is a Divine
Command Theorist.
• Thinking that Eternal Law is
something that God decided to write.
• Thinking that Natural Laws
are laws of science — e.g. law of thermodynamics.
• Thinking that all the
"laws" are absolute.
• Thinking that it is
always morally required of us to follow secondary precepts.
• Thinking that Aquinas is
committed to there being only one set of secondary precepts for all people in
all situations.
1. If God exists then what —
if anything — do you think that has to do with what is right and wrong?
2. We might answer the
"arbitrariness" dilemma by citing God's nature. Why might this answer
be problematic?
3. What is the Eternal Law?
4. What are Natural Laws and
primary precepts?
5. What are Human Laws and
secondary precepts?
6. What are Divine Laws?
7. Just as a good eye is to
see, and a good acorn is to grow then a good human is to...? Is to what? How
are we going to finish this sentence?
8. People often talk about
what is "natural"? What do you think they mean by this? How useful is
the notion of "natural" in a moral theory?
9. Think of a descriptive
claim. Think of a prescriptive claim. Why might it be problematic moving from
one to the other?
10. If people thought long
enough, do you think there would be convergence on what is morally right and
wrong?
11. What is the Doctrine of
Double Effect?
12. What is the difference — if anything — between intending to bring about some end and acting where you know your action will bring about that end?
No comments:
Post a Comment