Chapter 3

NATURAL LAW THEORY

Gatas Laban sa Batas
Nailathala sa PDI and sumusunod na balita: Dalawang Nanay,
Inaresto Dahil sa Pagnanakaw ng Gatas.” Ayon sa pag-uulat
ng reporter na si Michael Lim Ubac, dalawang nanay, edad
43, may tatlong anak at walang trabaho ang una habang
edad 36, may dalawang anak at wala ring trabaho ang
ikalawa ang nagtangkang magnakaw na gatas sa Better
Living Supermarket sa Sucat, Paranaque.
Pareho silang iniwan ng kanilang mga asawa kaya
nagsasamasama sila at ng kanilang mga anak sa isang
bahay.
Habang lumalabas sila ng Supermarket, nahuli sila ng
guwardya at dinala sa himpilan ng pulisya. Agad
silang ikinulong ng mga pulis at pinatawan ng
piyansang sampung libong piso (PhP 10,000) bago
mapalaya. Ito raw ang itinakda ng piskal sa ganitong
kaso.
Mga Tanong
Ano ang gagawin mo kung ikaw ay:
1. isa sa mga nanay
2. guwardya
3. may-ari ng supermarket?
ANO ANG SINASABI NG KASONG ITO SA
KAUGNAYAN NG MGA SULIRANING MORAL AT
SULIRANING PANLIPUNAN?
Basic facts about Thomistic philosophy
Integration of Aristotle with Christianity
Natural Theology, which is the use of reason to
articulate truths of revelation (the Bible and the
Church)
Everything is ordered in a hierarchy with God at
the top.
God is that toward which everything and
everyone ought to be directed
Aristotle + Christianity = Aquinas
By the thirteenth century, there was a trend towards
focusing on the natural world as opposed to calling it
evil as Augustine did.
The philosophy of Aristotle saw a resurgence.
Aquinas’ goal was to Christianize Aristotle.
Aquinas also wanted to show how reason and faith
can work together to explain our world and to explain
how we should live our lives in accordance with our
nature.
Form and Essence
Like Aristotle, Aquinas believed that the form of
things are within substances themselves, not in
another world. He called these essences (what
makes things what they are).
We can use observation and reason to
understand essence. (similar to Aristotle)
Natural theology
The philosopher uses reason alone.
The theologian accepts revelation (the Bible and the
Church) as authority.
– Revealed theology- truths accepted purely on faith (God
sent His only son to save us from sin)
– Natural theology- reason can corroborate revelation
(Nothing can exist unless God (the first cause and
necessary being) exists)
– When faith can’t be explained by reason, then we simply
need to accept them based on faith. Yet, when it’s
possible to understand revelation by using reason, we
should.
Actuality vs. Potentiality
The being of everything in this world has actuality and potentiality.
God is the only 100% actual being.
– Everything else has a different degree of actuality. What’s left is potentiality.
– NOTE: Aquinas never used percentages. I’m simply using these to illustrate the
concept.
– Humans- 85% actual being/ 15% potential being
– House fly- 35% actual being/ 65% potential being
There is no existence without essence and no essence without existence.
Therefore, there needs to be an actual being in order for any potential being
to exist. Therefore, God exists.
The soul is the essence of…
One difference between Aristotle and Aquinas
– The soul, according to Aristotle, is the form (or the essence) of
the body
– The soul, according to Aquinas, is the form (or the essence) of
the person himself or herself.
– In other words, Ben Gerke’s soul exists alongside the body to
make Ben who he is (according to Aristotle)
– In other words, Ben Gerke’s soul exists alongside Ben Gerke’s
personhood to make Ben who he is (according to Aquinas)
• A confusing part of this is that Aquinas believes that a person’s body is a
part of personhood, and the personhood and the body are always
united.
Aquinas’ cosmological proofs for the existence
of God
Five proofs for the existence of God
All begin with observations of the natural world
Example- the second proof
Observe that baby chicks come from mother chickens.
All efficient causes must have a first cause or else there
would be no effects. Therefore, there is a first cause and
that first cause is God.
Teleological Morality
All of Aquinas’ thoughts are teleological, especially his
ethics.
Every action has an end or a purpose (final cause).
All final causes have an ultimate final cause which is God.
God, as the final causes, bestows meaning on every action
that exists since every action ultimately leads to God. Thus,
without God, all actions would be meaningless. Also, human
life itself would be meaningless.
Natural Law
Aquinas defined Natural Law as God’s law applied to human
beings.
God gave human beings freedom; therefore humans are free
to obey the natural law or not.
Going against God also goes against everything it means to
exist and everything it means to be a human being.
In Thomas’ moral philosophy, both reason and Biblical
revelation lead to the same conclusion. Thus natural law stems
from natural theology.
Scholasticism
Aquinas’ theology is part of scholasticism, which is the
thirteenth century quest to explain Catholic theology
through reason.
This emphasis on observing the natural world began a
movement which ironically would eventually reject
speculative thinking about God and eternity. This
movement flourished during the Renaissance.
The Renaissance was characterized by a fascination of
this world and a disdain for speculative metaphysics.
The Four Causes
A cause for Aristotle is a factor that partly
determines a result.
Aristotle identified four causes as the
explanation for anything (or event) that is.
How and why something came to be is
understood by examining its four causes.
The Four Causes
The causes are:
– The Material Cause – basically the stuff out of which
anything is made.
– The Formal Cause – the form, size, and shape of the
thing.
– The Efficient Cause – what put the material into the form
it is in.
– The Final Cause – the purpose of the thing.
The Four Causes
An example: The causes of a knife.
– Material: The metal, e.g. iron, steel.
– Formal: The shape of a knife – sharp edge, long shaft,
pointed end, rounded handle, etc.
– Efficient: The tool maker that fashioned it.
– Final: To cut or slice.
The Four Causes
Man-made things are easy enough to classify,
but natural objects become more difficult.
– What is the efficient cause of a tree?
– What is the final cause of a rain shower? Or a human
being?
– What is the material cause of a statue?
– The formal cause of sunlight?
The Four Causes
For Aristotle, the most important cause was the
final cause, that for which the thing exists.
Anything is explained only by understanding its
purpose.
– Examples: a chair, a blackboard, a piece of chalk, a
shoe.
– Or, a planet, a drought, a mountain, a leopard.
Magbigay ng tatlong pinakamahalagang "utos"
ng iyong mga magulang na kailangan mong
matutunan sa buhay.
Ipapaliwanag kung bakit ang mga ito ang
pinakamahalaga para sa iyo.
BATAS
Kahulugan ng salitang “batas” ayon kay Thomas
Aquinas, isang relihiyosong pilosopo.- isang kautusan na
ipinatutupad para sa kabutihan ng lahat- tuwirang nag-
uutos sa tao kung ano ang kailangan niyang gawin at
kung ano ang ipinagbabawal at ang kaparusahan sa
sinumang lalabag nito.
pinag-iisipan at ipinapasa ng lehitimong
awtoridad na namamahala sa lipunan o
pamayanan na may kapangyarihang gumawa ng
batas- ipinaaalam o ipinalalaganap sa lahat ng
nasasakupan
Ayon kay Aquinas ang tunay na
pinanggagalingan ng mga batas ng tao ay mula
sa Batas ng Diyos(God’s Law) at Batas ng
Kalikasan (Natural Law)
 Voice of right reason or voice of conscience
Interpreters of St. Thomas’s moral doctrine regard right reason or the
voice of reason as the moral norm, insofar as an individual’s natural capacity
to determine what is right from what Is wrong (synderesis) is no less than
the manifestation of the moral law. In short, the moral law is the dictate of
the voice f reason; and this dictate is expressed In the moral principle “The
good must be done, and evil, avoided”.
How are we to determine whether we are acting rightly or wrongly? We
know we are acting rightly if we heed or follow the voice of reason; we
know we are acting wrongly if we act against it. Other Thomists would view
the voice of reason as the voice of conscience, insofar as the latter refers to
the immediate Judgment of practical reason applying the general principle
of morality “DO good, avoid evil” to individual concrete actions or decisions.
 Man’s threefold natural inclination
What is the good? St. Thomas asserts the human good is that
which is suitable to or proper for human nature. Thus, whenever
an act is suitable to human nature as such (as being endowed
with reason and freewill), then it is good and it must be done;
whenever it is not proper for human nature, however, then it is
evil and it must be avoided.
In other words, how does one know that a particular act is or
is not suitable to human nature as such? By means of whether
one is following and obeying the voice of reason (conscience) or
acting contrary to it. Hence, it is for this reason; too, that other
Thomists consider human nature as the proximate norm of
morality.
 In St. Thomas’s view, the good is built into human nature, and it
is that to which we are directed by our natural inclinations as both
physical and rational creatures. We have three natural inclinations: (1)
self-preservation, (2) just dealings with others, and (3) propagation of
our species.

First, We are naturally inclined to preserve our life. Self-destruction, first of all, is
unnatural as far as St. Thomas is concerned. This natural inclination urges us to care for our
health, not to kill ourselves or put ourselves in danger. Thus, any act that violates this basic
inclination is wrong; it contradicts human nature as the Creator intended it to be.

Suicide, self-immolation, and putting oneself in unnecessary jeopardy are by nature evil;
whereas any act that promotes health, vigor, and vitality (physical exercise, walking), on the
other hand, is by nature good. We may add that even smoking and habitual drinking, which are
detrimental to one’s health (for example, smoking causes lung cancer) are not suitable to human
nature; hence they are evil.
 Secondly, reason by nature leads us to treat others with
the same dignity and respect that we accord ourselves. This
is the basis of justice which arises Out of human relations.
Thus, any act of injustice, such as subjecting others to
indignities, degradations and inhumanities, is against
human nature.
Moreover, all forms of man’s Inhumanity to man--such as
exploitation or “sexploitation,” oppression, seduction,
abduction, deception, swindling, cheating, kidnapping for
ransom, murder, harassment and intimidation—are by
nature evil.
 Thirdly, we are naturally inclined to perpetuate our species
which is viewed as a natural good. We are obligated not to
pervert or thwart this natural inclination. Following Aristotle’s
teleological concept of nature, St Thomas argues that each
member of the human organism serves a purpose intended by
nature. The reproductive organs are by their very nature
designed to reproduce and to perpetuate the human species.
Any act of intervention, therefore, that will frustrate and stifle
the very purpose for which the human reproductive organs have
by nature been designed is unnatural, and hence is evil.
Accordingly, in line with this thinking, any form of
contraceptive would defeat the very purpose of reproduction. It
would destroy the reproductive organs’ reason for being, and
hence its use is against the natural moral law.
 Three determinants of moral action
On St. Thomas’s ethical principles, there are three factors
which determine the rightness or wrongness of a concrete
individual human act:
(1) the object,
(2) the circumstances, and
(3) the end of the agent.

For a given act to be truly morally good, it must be good in

all its three elements. A defect in any of these three
determinants will make an act morally wrong.
 The Object. That which the will intends directly and
primarily is the object of the moral act; it may be either a
thing (for example, money), or an action (such as surgical
operation). The very act of operating on a patient for a
particular disease—say, a tumor or cyst--is directly and
primarily intended by the physician. The circumstances
and the end are also intended, but not as directly and
primarily as the object. Another example Is the
physician’s act of injecting a drug into an ailing patient in
which case the act is primarily intended by the doctor.
The physician here is moved to action specifically and
primarily by the object rather than by the circumstances
of the act or the end of the agent.
 The Circumstances. There are conditions which, when
superadded to the nature of the moral act, will affect its
morality. “Will affect its morality” means that a given
circumstance or a set of circumstances will either
mitigate or aggravate the goodness or badness of a
particular act; an act whose object is morally good may
further be judged as good because of some
circumstance; likewise, an act whose object is morally
wrong may further be judged as wrong because of some
circumstance.
 Who?

This circumstance has something to do with the special quality,

prestige, rank or excellence of the person involved in the moral
act. It is morally bad to rape a woman but even worse to rape
one’s own daughter. The worst is to rape one’s own
granddaughter. The act of a physician who treats a hospital
patient entrusted to him is morally good, but that of one who
extends medical assistance to an indigent unable to afford
confinement is even better and more commendable. To mistreat
one’s own patient is bad in itself, but to mistreat him, and take
advantage of his ignorance, is even worse.
 What?
This circumstance refers to the quantity or quality of the moral
object. The very act of surgical operation on a sick person who needs
it is good in itself but to perform the act as excellently as a skilled
surgeon is capable of heightening the goodness of the said action.
The former may be done simply as a daily, routinary function of a
resident surgeon on duty, whereas the latter is performed with a
sense of service, dedication, and concern for the well-being of the
patient, irrespective of his socio-economic status in life. Let’s
consider another example: The act of a taxi driver who returns a
wallet containing two hundred pesos to its rightful owner is good in
itself; but that of one who takes the initiative of returning fifty
thousand dollars left behind by a tourist is even better.
 Where?
This circumstance denotes the place where the act occurs. It
makes a big difference, for example, when a doctor extends
medical assistance to someone brought to the emergency room
for stab wounds, and when a doctor selflessly goes out of his
way to take the wounded victim to his clinic or to a nearby
hospital. The former is a perfunctory role, while the latter is the
act of a “Good Samaritan.” To abuse a patient maliciously is a
corrupt medical practice, but to assault her or him sexually in
one’s own clinic is even more heinous and outrageous. It likewise
makes a difference if an assassin kills his victim in a restaurant, or
inside a church while mass is being said.
 By what means?
This refers to the means used in carrying out the act. To take
advantage of one’s weakness is bad enough; but to deceive and
seduce someone in order to take advantage of that person
‘makes matters much worse. To extend medical help to an
indigent patient is good; but to give him/her the money needed
for his/ her medication makes the goodness of the act much
greater. Car napping, on the other hand, is in itself bad; but to
use the proceeds from the sale of the car napped vehicle to hire
an assassin to kill the car’s owner makes the act even more
horrendous and inhuman.
 Why?

The end or purpose is considered as a circumstance affecting

the goodness or badness of the action. If the act itself is bad and
is still carried out with a bad purpose, the said act becomes much
worse. To seduce a destitute girt is in itself bad; but to do so with
the intention of making her one’s querida or number two makes
the act of seduction doubly evil, so to speak. On the other hand,
helping this girl to finish a vocational course is in itself good; and
doing so with the intent of employing her later in one’s garment
factory, enabling her to help her own family, makes the act even
“more” legitimate and righteous.
 How?
This circumstance indicates the manner in which the action is
done. When facing death through starvation, for example, the
famished or starving individual may take surplus goods from
another in order to avoid death. In a case of extreme necessity,
the ordinary right to private property no longer holds. Similarly,
in the case of unjust aggression, it is legitimate to kill the
aggressor who unjustly attacks and attempts to kill another
person. It makes a difference whether a resident physician has
been inadvertently remiss in his hospital duties due to a hectic
schedule or other unforeseen causes, or he has been advertently
remiss in bad faith due to personal indifference to his medical
function. Has he committed an error in good faith or in bad faith?
 When?
This circumstance refers to the time element involved in
the performance of an action, not only with regard to
quantity but to quality as well. To commit rape under the
cover of darkness is even worse than when it is done In
broad daylight. To abuse one’s patient under sedation is
much worse than mere seduction. It makes a difference
whether one commits a crime in the church when the mass
is being said or when there is no mass at all.
 The End or Purpose
Here we take end in the sense of end or purpose of the doer or
agent. The end or purpose may be taken either as a circumstance or
as the end of the agent, for it is an integral part of every moral act in
either case. A good act with a bad motive makes the moral action
bad. Likewise, we may not employ an evil means in order to attain a
good end. Marrying the person one is engaged to is in itself a good
act; but doing it while motivated by ulterior and selfish ends—say,
the possibility of obtaining a big share of his/her inheritance—makes
the whole action bad. To inject a lethal drug into a terminally ill
patient, supposedly for purposes of ending his/her misery, may be
argued to be legitimate; but to do so with the end in view of
profiting from his/her death makes the act morally evil.