Lecture #16

St. Thomas Aquinas, Treatise on Law:2. Eternal Law

Definition & Cases

• St. Thomas developed the definition of law with special attention to human beings & the laws human beings make.

• There are many ordinationes. – Are human laws the only ones that constitute law?

• St. Thomas goes on to identify four different ordinationes that meet the definition. – Eternal Law– Natural Law– Human Law– Divine Law

Eternal Law

• Definition (St. Thomas uses several phrases here):– the plan (ratio) [of divine wisdom] that directs all the actions & movements of

created things (93.1) – the plan of governance of the world (91.3)– the supreme plan [existing in God] (93.1)

• The Two Branches of Eternal Law– The laws of nature (as discovered by science)– The moral law (which St. Thomas calls natural law).

“Laws of Nature” & “Laws of Morality”: An Equivocation?

• A popular view– These are not laws in the same sense. (See next slide.)

• Aquinas’ view– These are both laws; they are species of the same general kind of ordinatio.

The Popular (Equivocalist) View: Two Distinct Senses of Law

•The laws of nature (scientific laws) describe the way some object or system does behave.

–E.g., Kepler’s First Law of Planetary Motion: –They are inviolable. A planet that did not have an elliptical orbit would show that the law is false (or needs revision).

•The moral law (& human laws) prescribe how someone ought to behave.

–E.g., “Thou shalt not kill.”–These can be broken. Cain did not show that the law against killing was false (or needs revision). He showed that he was bad.

St. Thomas’ Univocalist View

• The laws of nature & of morality represent a kind of divine ordinatio

– The laws of nature (one part of eternal law) apply to non-rational beings, which

• are affected by this ordinatio through being moved by divine providence

• act (without choice) according to their natures

– The laws of morality (“natural law” which is part of eternal law) applies to rational beings, which

• are affected by this ordinatio through an understanding of God’s precepts

• have free will• can choose to act in a way inconsistent

with that ordinatio

6

Laws of Nature• That there is a ratio (plan) to natural phenomena is knowable from experience.

– The world is not chaotic– It displays two kinds of order.

• Individuals pursue the good of their kinds.– E.g., squirrels gather nuts.

• The properties of various kinds contribute to the functioning of the whole.– The values of many physical constants have to be almost exactly what they are

if the universe is to look anything like it does (with stars, planets, & life). It is remarkably finely tuned. (The Anthropic Principle; see next slide)

• This ordinatio of things to their ends can be seen as law only if certain conditions are met (i.e., only in the context of a larger world-picture).

– Four questions• Do they pertain to reason?• Are they for the common good?• Were they made by the one in charge of the community?• Were they promulgated?

– Only when these four questions are answered does it make sense to talk about physical laws.

• Affirmative answers require a theistic world-picture• Atheistic scientists can talk about physical laws only the way we all talk about the

sun rising.

The Anthropic Principle

• A curious fact: “The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life.”—Stephen Hawking

• Philosophers differ over whether one can use this to prove that the world was created• But given

– these beliefs• that God created the world• the end of the world is to glorify God• God is glorified to the extent that his creatures resembles him in various

respects (e.g., intelligence)– one might argue that the laws of nature serve the common good of creation

8

“When you realize that the laws of nature must be incredibly finely tuned to produce the universe we see, that conspires to plant the idea that the universe did not just happen, but that there must be a purpose behind it.”

John Polkinghorne, Former Cambridge Physicist

& Anglican Priest

“All scientific analyses of physical processes reveal God’s actions. All scientific propositions are thus necessarily coherent with religious ones.”

Arthur Peacocke, former Oxford Biochemist

& Anglican Priest

9

Laws of Morality

• St. Thomas has already shown that it is possible to distinguish good from bad (cf. Q. 18).• The question remains, ought we to do what is good?

– There are two kinds of ought.• The prudential ought tells us to do what is necessary to happiness (in Kant’s terms, a counsel

of prudence, hypothetically imperative).• Another ought (in Kant’s terms, categorically imperative) tells us what has been commanded

by competent authority.– For Aristotle, morality does not have this sense.– For St. Thomas, showing that morality is a kind of law given by God (even implicitly

gives it this character).– Kant tries to avoid this by making each man a law-give to himself.

Kinds of Imperatives (According to Kant)

Hypothetical Imperatives Categorical Imperative

kind of necessity

the practical necessity of a possible action as a means for attaining something else that one might possibly want

the objective necessity of the act in itself, without reference to another end

types problematic assertoric apodeictic

goodness good only for some possible purpose

good for some actual purpose

good independent of any desires of the agent

technical imperatives pragmatic imperatives moral imperatives

Rules of Skill Counsels of Prudence Laws of Morality

form “If you want [this end], adopt [these means].”

“Since you want [happi–ness], adopt [???].” “Do [some action]!”

exampleIf you want to be good at chess, study the endgame.

Since you want to be happy, …

Do not kill innocent people.

Kant on Kinds of Imperatives

Hypothetical Imperatives Categorical Imperative

kind of necessity

the practical necessity of a possible action as a means for attaining something else that one might possibly want

the objective necessity of the act in itself, without reference to another end

types problematic assertoric apodeicticgoodness good only for some

possible purposegood for some actual purpose

good independent of any desires of the agent

the technical the pragmatic the moralRules of Skill Counsels of Prudence Laws of Morality

form “If you want [this end], adopt [these means].”

“Since you want [happiness], adopt [???].”

“Do [some action]!”

St. Thomas’ Integration of the Two Varieties of Eternal Law

• “Everything belonging to created things … belongs to the eternal law.” (93.4)– natural things

• necessary (93.4), e.g., that squirrels eat nuts.• contingent (93.5), e.g., that Squirrel Nutkin eat these nuts.

– human affairs (93.6), e.g., that Beatrix Potter write about Squirrel Nutkin.• The mode of promulgation is distinct (93.5-6)

– Promulgation is “imprinting an inner source of action” (93.5)– “God imprints on all the things of nature the sources of their own activities”

• For non-rational beings, this means– not telling them what to do– but creating them with a certain nature.

• For rational beings, this means– telling them what to do.

– But “Everything shares in some way in the eternal law• insofar as all things have inclinations to their own acts & ends from its imprint on

them” (91.2)

Natural Law

• Definition– “the way in which a rational creature participates in the eternal law” (91.2)

• Why the term “natural law”?– The ancient Greeks already observed that

• Some aspects of law vary from one jurisdiction to another.– E.g., libel law is different in the UK & the US.

» Cf. the fate of Alms for Jihad, which Cambridge University Press in 2007 withdrew from its offerings under threat of a suit for libel by Khalid bin Mahfouz. Libel suits are easier to win in the UK than in the US.

• Others are the same in all jurisdictions.– E.g., murder law is basically the same in both countries.

– From this came the terms• Conventional law (i.e., from local conventional agreement on a point of

law)• Natural law (i.e., from [human] nature which leads to universal

agreement about other points)

Natural Law (cont’d.)

• Examples (any moral rule)– One ought not kill innocent people.

• More specifically, but controversially, the Just-War Theory– One ought not tell lies.

• Relation to Eternal Law– This is a part of the eternal law. (Cf. 91.2 obj 1 & ad 1)