How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just.
Mill believed it was extremely important that an indivduals free will should not be crushed by society. Mill believed indivduality is what it is to be human and anything that takes away your indivuduality is wrong. Mill state in his book On Liberty “Whatever crushes indivduality is despotism.” Despostism is the idea of dictatorship so Mill is saying that anything that stops our indivduality for example religion is controlling us and not allowing us to be free, which is wrong. Althought we are free we must consider others, this means that we can use our freedom however we must make sure we are not spoiling the freedom of others. This is supported by Paul Kurtz who states humans have the right “to satisfy their tastes” but however they shold not “impose their values on others.” For example you may want to murder someone with your free will however if you go ahead and commit the crime you are negatively effecting others in society and this is wrong.
Immanuel Kant puts forward an argument from deontological ethics and therefore is an ethical theory considered solely on duty and obligations, where one has an unchanging moral obligation to abide by a set of defined principles. Thus the ends of any action do not justify the means, i.e. if someone were to do their moral duties, then it would not matter if it had negative consequences. Thus, rules come above all else according to Kant. Kant argues that only one fact is undisputable, and that simply is that there is a moral law in existence, which then leads to the existence of God.
Aquinas’ Natural Moral Law was developed from the ancient ideas of Aristotle and other stoic philosophers like Cicero, who all claimed that humans have an inherent and rational sense of right and wrong. The main premise of Natural Moral Law is that all humans should do good and avoid evil, and because of this, follows a moral code which can be found by observing nature, this code is what Aquinas called Natural Moral Law. The natural law is said to have originated from God’s eternal law. This then becomes discernable through the divine law (the Bible) and natural law (nature). Humans then incorporate both of these laws into human law, which is the basis for how we act.
He believed that the government had an obligation to protect the citizens natural rights. But that was the only reason that the government existed, and if the people believed that the government was not fulfilling this task, they could overthrow him and find someone new. John Locke believed that good and evil, reward and punishment, are the only motives to a rational human being. These are the guidelines by which all
i) Analyse the key features of Natural Moral Law [18] The basis of Natural Moral Law is rooted ion Ancient Greece and the thinking of the stoics. Further developed by Aquinas in the 13tgh century, he fused Aristotle’s original thinking and his faith in Catholicism which resulted in the recognisable form we are familiar with today. We generally consider Aquinas to be the main exponent of Natural Law. The theory is deontological and is therefore concerned with the action itself as opposed to the consequences that may be caused. Furthermore, Natural Moral Law is absolute in its nature because it allows no exceptions to its rules and can be applied universally.
An example of an absolute moral value that people have is ‘do not murder’. The person who thought of Natural Law Theory was St. Thomas Aquinas, and he had written about this in his book ‘Summa Theologiae’. It was inspired by St. Paul, Aristotle, and the Stoics. St. Paul had influenced Aquinas through his belief in God and Christianity, as well as the Decalogue (Ten Commandments). Aristotle had influenced Aquinas through his beliefs in purpose, reason, and human fulfilment, which was what he referred to as eudaimonia.
Examine two critiques of the relationship between religion and morality. It has long been common thought that there is a distinct link between Religion and the fundamental moral laws upon which we base our lives upon. These heteronomous moral codes were used as the basic principles of everyday life. From this viewpoint then, it is hard to imagine a world without the concept of religion, as sure anarchy and suffering would ensure across the Globe. However, if this link between religion and morality is criticised, then there are sufficient grounds for secularist and atheistic ways of life.
It is a nature that is in all human beings. Natural law is therefore about acting in such ways that we consistently move towards this purpose. A Greek philosopher called Aristotle thought that this end/purpose would result in fulfillment and what he called “eudaimonia.” However a philosopher who furthered Aristotle’s idea of natural law, Aquinas said that natural law was located in the activity of human reasoning. He thought that by applying reason to moral problems, we should find that we act consistently with the natural law. Such acts are deemed good acts, since they are in line with are true human nature and purpose.
He was influenced by Aristotle’s view that humans, like all objects in this realm, have a specific purpose. He argued supreme good is experienced when we fulfil our purpose. It was argued that our supreme good is ‘eudaimonia’ or ‘wellbeing’. So, if we have in mind living such a lifestyle, influenced by reason when making moral decisions then are we not more likely to make the right moral decisions? The second is the Divine law which is important to this issue as it reflects the eternal law as it appears to us through revelation.