Natural Law theory is outdated and of no use today. (40)
The theory of Natural Law, a beginning step in the path encircling theology and philosophy,
penned by arguably one of the greatest philosophers and pioneers of all time; St. Thomas
Aquinas, who was seeking to unite the Christian doctrine with a more secular model of
thought and interpretation of our universe as we see it. What an achievement for humanity,
to assess the world around us and come to the conclusion that all sense of morality that we
express is governed by the very laws binding our universe together, but the real question, to
begin with, lies with Aquinas’ incredible sense of intellectual direction: how did just one man
comprehend the governing powers of our universe simply by looking around him? Simple
answer is, he didn’t. Or rather it wasn't just one man working alone, as brilliant as Aquinas is;
he employed the assistance of the long dead philosopher Aristotle to support, qualify and
add to his ideas and theories. What a controversial move for a man of God to even consider
looking into the inner circle of secular philosophy, and as a result there are a large amount of
criticisms surrounding his ideas.
To start off, what actually was Aquinas hoping to achieve by combining these seemingly
polar opposite subjects? Natural law theory is a deontological ethical proposition that
recognizes law and morality as deeply connected, if not one and the same. Morality relates
to what is right and wrong and what is good and bad. Aquinas believed that the ‘human laws’
governing our world are defined by morality, and not by an authority figure, like a king or a
government. Therefore, we humans are guided by our own individual human nature to figure
out what the laws are, and to act in conformity with those laws.
The term 'natural law' is derived from the belief that human morality comes from nature, and
by default, God. Everything in nature has a purpose, including we humans. Our purpose,
according to natural law theorists, is to live a good, happy life, ‘flourishing,’ as Aristotle would
have referred to it. Therefore, actions that work against that purpose - that is, actions that
would prevent an individual from flourishing - are considered 'unnatural', or 'immoral,’ thus
diverting the laws governing our existence; this is why this argument requires the
combination of philosophy and theology; the lack of supporting evidence is difficult to
overcome without having some form of governing eternal force to lay out the initial laws, that
is to say, a god.
But why would such a theory be of use today? There are quite a few flaws that label this as
an outdated concept, such as the emergence of new beliefs such as Darwinism (that
combines science and philosophy, take that Aquinas), removing the necessity of a
benevolent God figure entirely. In an increasingly more secular society, is there still such a
need for a God, or have we finally realised as a species that we are capable of making our
own way through life, without having to adhere to strict rules that have a small chance of
actually improving our lives? This may be my own biased opinion, but to me it sounds like
the concept of God is becoming less required by our species as we make advancements
and become more comfortable with our existences, we may no longer have to look up for
help in our troubled times to this slight and debated benevolent figure who may or may not
even exist. To me, it feels as though the concept of our existence would be more easily
explained through an evidence-based argument, something that can be rationally explained
through use of fact, rather than the a priori form of reasoning that relies heavily on reasoning
and analogy instead. This doesn’t mean that I’m completely nullifying the existence of a
benevolent Christian God, more stating that I believe it appears to follow the analogous
route, where somewhere along the line the analogy is lost and it is taken as a real and
physical embodiment of what actually caused our universe. My opinion somewhat follows
The theory of Natural Law, a beginning step in the path encircling theology and philosophy,
penned by arguably one of the greatest philosophers and pioneers of all time; St. Thomas
Aquinas, who was seeking to unite the Christian doctrine with a more secular model of
thought and interpretation of our universe as we see it. What an achievement for humanity,
to assess the world around us and come to the conclusion that all sense of morality that we
express is governed by the very laws binding our universe together, but the real question, to
begin with, lies with Aquinas’ incredible sense of intellectual direction: how did just one man
comprehend the governing powers of our universe simply by looking around him? Simple
answer is, he didn’t. Or rather it wasn't just one man working alone, as brilliant as Aquinas is;
he employed the assistance of the long dead philosopher Aristotle to support, qualify and
add to his ideas and theories. What a controversial move for a man of God to even consider
looking into the inner circle of secular philosophy, and as a result there are a large amount of
criticisms surrounding his ideas.
To start off, what actually was Aquinas hoping to achieve by combining these seemingly
polar opposite subjects? Natural law theory is a deontological ethical proposition that
recognizes law and morality as deeply connected, if not one and the same. Morality relates
to what is right and wrong and what is good and bad. Aquinas believed that the ‘human laws’
governing our world are defined by morality, and not by an authority figure, like a king or a
government. Therefore, we humans are guided by our own individual human nature to figure
out what the laws are, and to act in conformity with those laws.
The term 'natural law' is derived from the belief that human morality comes from nature, and
by default, God. Everything in nature has a purpose, including we humans. Our purpose,
according to natural law theorists, is to live a good, happy life, ‘flourishing,’ as Aristotle would
have referred to it. Therefore, actions that work against that purpose - that is, actions that
would prevent an individual from flourishing - are considered 'unnatural', or 'immoral,’ thus
diverting the laws governing our existence; this is why this argument requires the
combination of philosophy and theology; the lack of supporting evidence is difficult to
overcome without having some form of governing eternal force to lay out the initial laws, that
is to say, a god.
But why would such a theory be of use today? There are quite a few flaws that label this as
an outdated concept, such as the emergence of new beliefs such as Darwinism (that
combines science and philosophy, take that Aquinas), removing the necessity of a
benevolent God figure entirely. In an increasingly more secular society, is there still such a
need for a God, or have we finally realised as a species that we are capable of making our
own way through life, without having to adhere to strict rules that have a small chance of
actually improving our lives? This may be my own biased opinion, but to me it sounds like
the concept of God is becoming less required by our species as we make advancements
and become more comfortable with our existences, we may no longer have to look up for
help in our troubled times to this slight and debated benevolent figure who may or may not
even exist. To me, it feels as though the concept of our existence would be more easily
explained through an evidence-based argument, something that can be rationally explained
through use of fact, rather than the a priori form of reasoning that relies heavily on reasoning
and analogy instead. This doesn’t mean that I’m completely nullifying the existence of a
benevolent Christian God, more stating that I believe it appears to follow the analogous
route, where somewhere along the line the analogy is lost and it is taken as a real and
physical embodiment of what actually caused our universe. My opinion somewhat follows
