Natural law in Aquinas

Natural law in Aquinas Aquinas Assignment—(Due October 11) Answer one of the following questions in a paper of 4-6 pages. Show an understanding of Aquinas’ themes and ideas, demonstrate reading of the text, and an ability to think seriously about these issues yourself. 1. Aquinas defines law as “an order of reason for the common good by one who has the care of the community and promulgated.” (I-II, Q.90, A.4) What does this definition mean? Is it a good definition? Why? How does it tell us what is truly a law? Why would we want to know this? What would it mean for a legal system to accept this definition? 2. Aquinas claims that all human beings participate in ‘natural law.’ What does he mean by natural law? In what way is it the same for all human beings? How can he say that it is the same, when people have all sorts of different practices in the world? If there is something rational, why do not all people agree with it and/or follow it according to Aquinas? If reason gives us principles, but they are neither persuasive nor self-enforcing to those who don’t agree (i.e. the Athenians) is there any point in talking about them? 3. Aquinas, whose teachings are the official doctrine of the Catholic Church claimed that Natural Law was mutable (I-II Q.94, A.5), that laws are different for different kinds of communities (I-II Q.95, A.4), and that “laws can be rightly revised to suit the changed conditions of human beings.” (I-II Q.97, A.1) In what way can laws vary from place to place according to Aquinas? 4. Aquinas insists that a human law diverging from natural law does not partake of the character of law (I-II Q.95, A.2), that human laws cannot bind in the court of conscience (I-II Q.96, A.4), and that human beings are not obliged to obey their sovereigns in all things. (II-II, Q.104, A.5). But he seems to counsel against rebellion or disobedience. Is disobedience or rebellion ever justified in Aquinas’ mind? 5. What is the use of the concept of a natural law (I-II Q. 91, A. 2; I-II Q. 94 A. 2, etc.)? What is the role ‘reason’ plays in them and can reason actually give us rules for how we want to live? What does Aquinas mean by reasoning and first principles of reason? What is his view of practical reasoning? How is it like the reasoning in physical sciences? How is it different? How close is it to the reasoning behind social sciences? Can reason tell us how to set up a legal system, economy, government, etc.? Why or why not? 6. Aquinas gives us a language to discuss just war (II-II Q. 40). What does he mean by this phrase? Why does war need to be justified? What do you think of his three causes for just war? What does it omit? What would he think of the reasons for warfare offered in the Peloponnesian War? Why? Is his view of this persuasive? Why or why not? 7. Killing is obviously an evil that is a violation of one of the moral precepts of the Ten Commandments. Yet Aquinas (II-II Q. 64) differentiates several legitimate forms of killing, including killing the guilty, self-defense, and accidental killing, from the absolute prohibition upon killing that seems to be commanded. Why are these different? When can the guilty be killed? Is all self-defense legal? When is an accident allowable? Would our doctrines of self-defense and capital punishment be justified by these standards? Are they good standards? Why or why not? 8. Cicero gives us a doctrine of Natural Law and refers frequently to divinity, but not the Judeo-Christian God and without the Bible. Aquinas writes from a Christian perspective and suggests that the Bible (Divine Law) is necessary. How necessary is a belief in a higher power to get something from this doctrine of natural law? If one does not believe in a higher power, is it still useful as a doctrine? If one is not a Christian? If one believes in a divine law, what happens when religious and secular laws conflict? Consider I-II Q. 91 A. 4; I-II Q. 96 A. 4; and II-II Q. 104 A. 6 among others.