Sir Thomas Aquinas 13th C if not a Christian were a heretic in Europe Can Natural Law theory be divided from

rom divine law? Argued not needed important to the GOOD not the God if God is bad what is moral obligation then? BIGGER problem rise of moral relativism Spring board for natural law reasoning BUT vast knowledge of many differences in terms of good/bad, right/wrong sense of history shows differences at different points in history Overarching set of values difficult to formulate Objective morality moved to subjective morality David Hue naturalistic fallacy people reason from is to ought o Is empirical observation what humans want o Ought Nomos what ought to be by considering what is customary from what was regularly done Changing nature of laws MORE to do with regulations Natural laws discuss precepts things that are necessary for self preservation rearing young living together in polis ADMITS as move toward detail LESS about concluding about conclusion on rule/principle RATHER more about judgment the AIM is the common good UNLESS conclusion from what observed in human nature THEREFORE NEED ruler so someone can make judgments for the common good Moral Relativist Position Aquinas answer developed by Finnis SELF EVIDENCE The precepts of natural law are to practical reason what the 1st principles of demonstrations are to the speculative reason, because both are self-evident principles o The 1st principles of natural law are KNOWN axiomatic principles quote is reference to science things cannot be and not be at the same time o Starting point which is self evident BUT cannot be proven (ie. given about two points and geometry) o Here good/evil is this ALL know it but cannot prove it BOTH think that mans knowledge between good and evil is self evident knowledge open to ALL men

Aquinas said that mans inclinations sex, rearing children man has natural inclination to KNOW the good What is meant NOT that men are good need sanctions because cannot trust men to be good o Some people may not know difference between good/bad ALL normative reasoning is based on this reasoning must accept that all men have this inclination to know difference between good/evil NO need to be sophisticated since all people can tell Theory does NOT start with facts RATHER with self evident ought propositions THEN looks around at world and sees how they operate Naturalistic Fallacy Opposition between good/evil does NOT take us very far Aquinas thought NEXT set of precepts preservation, family law, to live in coordinated basis in political community

NEXT set of precepts STILL cannot be proven BUT self evidently good look at it and know are axiomatic AGAIN contained within the language drives us to accept certain conclusions about nature of right and wrong PROBLEM that when someone challenges this ie. abortion is good STILL relying on precepts same principles used in different ways o Issue of moral relativism thus NO one objective consensus Still utilise language of right/wrong EVEN though relativism exists reaffirmed based on precepts carry on using it despite difficulties probably since no alternative Finnis Takes self-evidence a stage further Seven basic values: o Life, Knowledge, Play, Aesthetic Experience, Friendship, Religion, o Practical reasonableness the desire to pursue the 6 other values in an intelligent ordered fashion Supra liberal incredible level of generality empathise with humans because recognise values and make sense of human action Did NOT claim all are good Rather his point is that we understand that bad practices DIFFER from those who express the values o Ie. understand saving of ones life and not require it to be justified = self evidently good o Vs. why kill someone NEED to give reason for that must justify it is NOT self evident Reflective understanding points to common understanding of these 7 values INTERESTING proof for knowledge CANNOT be reduced further and NOT into each other

Religion spirituality a kind of cosmic curiosity there is MORE than just our individual particular human existence

Tied back into law Finnis focal meaning Pg. 68 quote o Within passage Finnis has Harts, Fullers, Dworkin legal theories, and common good refers primarily to rules mainly accordance made in accordance with proper standing o End = Fuller o BUT on top of all that ALL must be oriented to common good = focal meaning Law is like football making sense of different regimes focal case is actual legal system has to be striving for common good and not too radical or opportunistic values o Otherwise cannot talk sensibly about something being law ALSO means that positivists take view that law is all or nothing WHEN meet their criteria in presence of their legal system o Vs. Finnis NO LINE there is focal meaning where if dont agree no point in discussion BUT legal systems approximate to focal meaning o More to expression of common good more legal moving away lose quality of legal Unjust law is not law FITS IN HERE as more corrupt less appropriate to call proper law becomes more controversial **Exam qs positives think all or nothing , centralists 2008 exam Focal Meaning of law allows Finnis to incorporate a range of ideas within it, including those associated with the common good.

Fuller The ideal of law to Fuller is one of a system, which all citizens could obey. NO system on earth achieves the ideal of total obedience. Nevertheless, ideal REMAINS as a value against which to assess the extent to which any real system is legal. Natural law defended in that is and ought melt together Statute involves 2 things a set of words AND an objective sought Simple reaction to moral relativism problem thought to be reaction to WW2 and Nazi regime particularly as Nazi jurists were positivists law is law NOTHING to do with right/wrong Feeling that things went too far and that natural law had resurgence OWN view procedural regulation problem NOT looking for substantive values health/preservation of life, raising children

o RATHER = thinks that law is the rule of law more law as it approximates the rule of law THIzS is the governance of men by rules THEN to be governed by rules parallel conditions include Rex 1 law maker but gets it wrong Fuller proves wrong o Rules must be published CANNOT be secret o 8 conditions for law General Rules, Public, Prospective, Comprehendible, Consistent/not contradictory, Possible, Stable (dont change too often),Applied congruence between the rules and official behaviour