ST.

THOMAS AQUINAS’
NATURAL LAW
Natural Law Ethics – The theory and tradition that
says there are universal ethical standards
discoverable through human reflection on human
natural inclinations.
What Is Natural Law and Where Does It Come
From?
 There are a lot of laws in this world. There is what we
called human laws where we are more familiar with.

 Human Laws are designed, proposed, passed, and

enacted by humans. Those laws created by the
legislators and governments are an example of it.

 However, humans are not only the law-maker; there is

God, according to Aquinas, as the supreme law giver.
 God’s plan for all of reality involves laws. Since
Aquinas’s worldview includes a belief in God as
the creator, then everything that exists anywhere in
nature has its ultimate source in God. Another
characteristic of God is that God is all‐knowing
(omniscient). God has a plan or blueprint of some
kind for all of reality, thus God knows why reality
is designed the way it is.
 The Eternal Law is God’s plan as God understands
it.
 But, as a finite creation, humans have certain
limitation on understanding God’s plan.

 How can we understand better the plan of God?

 It is by understanding the natural law according
to Thomas Aquinas.
 Natural Law is the rational creature’s
participation in and (limited) understanding of
the eternal law.

 The natural law is only a partial glimpse into

God’s plan for human beings. But even though
the natural law is only a partial glimpse of God’s
plan, it is nonetheless a reliable guide for
determining the basic outlines of an ethical life.
 There is also another law that is considerably
significant, the divine law.

 Divine Law is the revealed word of God that

provides guidance as to how human beings can
achieve eternal salvation.
 Even though there is a natural law through which all
rational beings know the difference between right and
wrong, yet what human beings can figure out by their
reason and reflection alone will not be sufficient for
them to achieve eternal salvation. In Aquinas’s religious
worldview, it was necessary for God to have revealed
more specific guidance about how human beings ought
to live their lives, because living according to the
dictates of the natural law would not be seen as
sufficient guidance for people to reach eternal salvation.
 Because natural law ethics emphasizes that there
is one natural law that all human beings ought to
follow and the ultimate source of the natural law
is the one God, it is pretty obvious that natural
law ethics, like Aristotle’s virtue ethics, is
another form of universalist ethics.
 For Aquinas, there are indeed universal moral
standards and we come to know these universal
moral standards, not through human law, not
through human feelings or emotions, not
through our society’s customs, but through
human reason. Though we come to know these
standards through reason, their ultimate source is
of divine origin. Aquinas, like Aristotle, holds
that ethics is rooted in human nature and that
human nature is universal.
 If we observe human nature and human natural
inclinations, then we will recognize that humans are
naturally directed toward basic and fundamental
values/goods. In saying that humans are naturally
directed toward certain universal goods, Aquinas is
echoing Aristotle’s view of human nature. Aquinas says
that the things to which human beings have natural
inclinations are naturally apprehended by human reason
as good, and therefore are objects to be pursued, while
their opposites, as evils, are to be avoided.
Aquinas identifies four categories of fundamental
human goods:

life,
procreation,
sociability, and
knowledge.
 The first fundamental human good is our own life.
If we observe human behavior we will notice that
people have a natural inclination to preserve
themselves.
 The second fundamental human good Aquinas
identifies is the human natural inclination toward
sexual reproduction. Like the first inclination to
self‐preservation, this inclination toward sexual
activity (and hence reproduction) can be thought of
as instinctual in human beings.
 The third natural inclination is toward sociability. Here again we
can hear the echoes of Aristotle the notion that humans are social
animals. We have a natural inclination to sociability in that we
naturally have social relationships from the day we are born –
with our parents, our siblings, our friends, our own children, etc.
 The fourth natural inclination Aquinas identifies – our natural
inclination toward knowledge – also has echoes of Aristotle. As
Aristotle said, we are rational animals. “All men by their nature,
desire to know.” Since this is a natural inclination that all human
beings have, we should think broadly about what is claimed here.
A very basic example of this natural inclination is that we are
curious creatures; we want to know things.
Natural inclination is the concept that human
nature directs human beings toward certain
fundamental goods, which human beings then
naturally value.
How should we behave toward these goods, these
fundamental values?

The natural law ethic says we ought to preserve and

promote these values, not destroy them or
contradict them.
 Principle of Natural Law: We ought to perform
those actions that promote the values specified by
the natural inclinations of human beings.

 Given the fact that we are rational beings, we have

the capacity to realize that not only do we have these
natural inclinations, but other human beings have
them too. Thus, we ought not to stand in the way
of others as they pursue their own self‐
preservation.
Principle of the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto
you.

 Confucianism (5th cent BCE): never do to others what you not like them to do
to you.
 Buddhism (5th cent BCE): hurt not others whit that which pains thyself.
 Jainism (5th cent BCE): in happiness and suffering, in joy and grief, we should
regard all creatures as we regard our own self
 Zoroastrianism (5th cent BCE): do not do unto others all that which is not well
for oneself.
 Classical paganism (Plato, 4th cent BCE): may I do to others as I would that
they should do unto me.
 Hinduism (Mahabharata, 3rd cent BCE): do naught to others which if done to
thee would cause thee pain.
Natural law ethics incorporates virtue ethics.
 In Aquinas’s view, our human nature was intentionally
created and designed by God, and our lives only reach
their natural end when they take us closer to God. The
virtues are the fruits of performing actions toward a goal
– our human good.
 The most important difference is that Aquinas’s list, in
addition to having moral virtues, also includes
theological virtues. While moral virtues are formed
through repeated actions and habit, the theological virtues
– faith, hope, and charity – have their origin in God’s
grace.
 TYPES OF VIRTUES

Cardinal Virtues: prudence, justice, temperance,

courage

Theological Virtues: faith, hope, charity

Overall then, the virtues have a place in Aquinas’s
natural law ethics: when one is working to develop
one’s moral virtues, one is living in accord with the
natural law. When one is putting oneself in a
position to receive God’s grace, one is preparing
oneself for the theological virtues.
In his writing, Aquinas deals with ambiguous moral
situations. He recognizes that even if we are trying to
follow a natural law ethic, there are still times when it is
difficult to decide on the right thing to do. For Aquinas,
this is a very real aspect of living a human life. Just as we
saw in Aristotle’s virtue ethics, living a human life can be a
zigzag. As human beings, we have many ethical
responsibilities and we have a great deal of potential that
requires our efforts before it can manifest itself in virtues.
There are times, though, when these responsibilities pull us
in different directions.
There is an important New Testament principle that
Aquinas incorporates into his natural law ethic. It is
called the Pauline principle because we find it in
Paul’s Letter to the Romans.

 Pauline Principle: It is not morally permissible

to do evil so that good may follow. (The end does
not justify the means.)
Take a more extreme example: a lifeboat situation. A
group of people have survived a cruise disaster. The
lifeboat can only hold 20 people but right now there
are 28 people in the boat. It appears that the lifeboat
is sinking and will not hold this many people. There
are some survivors who are severely injured and have
now become comatose. One of the healthy survivors
suggests throwing some of the injured overboard in
order to save the majority of survivors. Is such an
action morally justifiable under natural law ethics?
We know that this is a direct action of killing – throwing
people overboard will certainly lead to their death. The
natural law would say that directly killing is wrong. But yet,
if a few sick and comatose people were sacrificed, then 20
healthy people would be saved. Isn’t that worth it? Here is
where the Pauline principle can remind us that we should
not do evil in the hopes that good may come from it.

So, it means, when the natural law is unclear, follow the

Pauline principle.
We know from above that it is in accord with
natural law to protect our lives. And we also know
that it is against natural law to take another’s life.
But how about a situation where we are being
physically attacked? Is it morally permissible to kill
in self‐defense? Is it contrary to natural law to kill
others who are attempting to preserve themselves
(even if they are attacking)?
In a situation when an attacker is threatening our life,
if we struggle to protect ourselves and in that process
our attacker gets killed, we have not committed an
action inconsistent with natural law ethics. If our
intention is genuinely to protect our lives, then we
are acting in accord with the natural law. If an
accidental by‐product of this morally good action
involves the destruction of a human good, this is
unfortunate, but it does not render our action
immoral
Principle of Double Effect: It is morally
permissible to perform an action that has two
effects, one good and the other bad, if certain
conditions are met.
The first condition is that the act itself must be
good; the second is that we must be intending the
good outcome, not the bad; the third is that the
action must not violate the Pauline principle (the
evil effect is not pursued for the sake of a further
good effect); and fourth, it must be a serious
situation, for, after all, a basic human value or good
is being destroyed.
Conclusion
When applying natural law ethics, the main element
to focus on is one’s intention – are we intending to
follow the natural law? Another aspect that
differentiates medieval natural law ethics from
ancient virtue ethics is that natural law ethics is cast
into a religious framework. Thus, according to
natural law ethics, when we as individuals develop
the virtues, we are following a law that ultimately
stems from God’s will.
Natural law as a moral law does have limitations even from
the perspective of Aquinas himself, because, as he points
out, the divine law and the theological virtues are aids from
God that are necessary to achieve supernatural happiness.
Today, natural law ethics is thought to have even more
limitations. One major reason for this is that today many
moral theorists are skeptical about any kind of reasoning
that proceeds from observations about human natural
inclinations to moral conclusions. Individuals who share the
religious worldview that undergirds natural law ethics,
however, will be less skeptical about this kind of reasoning.
Natural law ethics offers solutions to all four philosophical problems in
ethics. Its solution to the philosophical problem of the origins of ethics is
that ethical standards have their ultimate origin in God’s plan for the world.

Ethical standards are not solely derived from one’s society. Since God has
created human beings, Aquinas believes we can discern God’s plan for us
by examining and reflecting upon the natural inclinations of human beings.
Natural law ethics therefore has a considerably developed solution to the
problem of human nature. Human beings are rational and social beings that
are naturally striving toward basic goods. Ethical standards are importantly
rooted in human nature, though human nature is not their ultimate origin,
since God is responsible for human nature being what it is.
With regard to the problem of relativism, Aquinas maintains that
the apparent relativity of ethics does not detract from the
ultimate universal features of ethics, which are grounded in the
universal features of human beings. Like the other universalists
we have looked at, Aquinas will accept the fact that there is
cultural diversity and disagreement in ethical standards, and will
advise us not to take the ethical disagreement and cultural
relativity we observe as conclusive proof that there are no
permanent and universal standards in ethics. For Aquinas, the
standards exist just as surely as God exists, and human
skepticism alone concerning these matters does not disprove
their existence.
As a solution to the problem of conduct, natural law ethics
answers questions about how to determine the right thing
to do and how one should live a life, in terms of the
natural law. An action is right when it is consistent with
the natural law. As a highly developed solution to the
problem, natural law ethics offers several ethical
principles that offer guidance in making such a
determination: the Principle of Natural Law, the Golden
Rule, the Pauline Principle, and the Principle of Double
Effect. As an ethical theory, it offers much practical
guidance.