Singh

Philosophy of law
David Hume was a Scottish philosopher who was a major detractor of the theory
of natural law put forth by Thomas Aquinas. In Aquinass theory of natural law he
illustrates 4 distinct types of laws, these laws are eternal law, natural law, human law,
and divine law. Eternal laws regulate the evolution of everything in existence; natural
laws operate within the realm of eternal law, natural laws are laws that encompass
everything that is considered a truth in the world. Natural law is discernable to us
human beings through the employment of reason. Unlike the previous two types of
laws, human laws are laws created and legislated by human beings; human laws must
be in conformity with natural law. This relationship is the essence of the theory of
natural law. The last classification of law articulated by Aquinas was divine law, unlike
the other laws divine law is a bit metaphysical it operates as a fail safe to human idiocy
and is delivered from god to us in a form of revelation, in a case where human reason is
erroneous or elusive. Aquinas believes if anyone capable of reasoning examines natural
truths in the natural law then it is possible to extrapolate objectively true principles of
morality by reason alone.
Humes criticism is concerned with the derivation of natural laws by the use of
reasoning. According to Aquinas reasoning is the process by which humans can discover
certain truths and prove these truths that Aquinas himself claims to be facts of nature,
which are intertwined in the fabric of reality. If something is a truth it can be said it is
also a fact. Aquinas considered a number of these truths or facts to be what are known
as normative truths or normative moral propositions. Normative truths are entirely
different from factual truths, unlike a factual truth a normal truth cannot be justified
under any conventional use of logical reasoning. An example of a factual truth is all
men are not fathers this statement can be proven by simply finding a man who has no
children, the trouble arises with normative propositions, for example, inflicting harm
upon your dog is wrong, this proposition is not a fact in the same way the former
statement was a fact, this statement is a value statement which can also be called a
ought statement. These statements place values upon certain kinds of virtues,
something subjective that cannot be derived by reason, in this case the wrong- ness of
harming a dog is implying this statement has a value. The distinction between a fact and
a value is absolutely imperative to understanding Hume's criticism. Hume utilizes the
process of deductive syllogism to prove his point. An example of deductive syllogism
takes the following form:
1.All apple products are made exclusively by apple factories
2.The iPhone is a apple product
3.The iPhone is made exclusively by apple factories
The conclusion is a logical derivation of the premise. In the case of Aquinas his argument
would look something like this:
1.Dogs do not enjoy harm being perpetrated upon them

2.Bob is a dog
3.Bob does not enjoy harm being perpetrated upon him
4.Therefore, inflicting harm upon your dog is wrong
Within this form of reasoning arriving at a morally objective conclusion through truths
alone is impossible. Aquinas is deriving objectively true principles of morality from
normative claims; this violates the process of a deductive syllogism.
Although it can be said Aquinas conflated facts and truths with values and moral
proposition the truth, as shown by Hume, is facts and values occupy different domains
of reality, this being the reason they dont mix.
In response to Hume, John Finnis argues that the reasoning Aquinas uses in his
theory of natural law is not a form of fact discovering reason, also known as speculative
reason, but rather a different form of reasoning known as practical reason. Practical
reasoning is a form of reasoning in which someone decides how to behave or act by
analyzing the costs and benefits associated with the act in question.
Finniss Practical reasoning had five steps to it, the first is for a person to recognize his
nature, second is to introspect ones one mind and examine your psychology, the third
step is to take the introspective data and determine your inclinations and desire, the
things that are good for you, fourth is to make clear the conditions that will conduce to
your successful fulfillment of that which you inspected to be good for you, and finally
the fifth step is to attain the conditions that will give you fulfillment. Although this form
of reasoning is quite more elaborative than Aquinass it still does not derive objectively
true principles of morality Aquinas set out to derive. The problem with Finniss practical
reasoning is that in step there the structure of his reasoning is relegated from factual
statements to normative statement, because step three asks a person to decide what is
good for them, which is a value statement. Finnis does not think this is the case, he
claims it is non-inferential from a fact statement, but logically this simply cannot be the
case because this problem is emblematic of the same problem Aquinas faces, the
problem of deriving ought propositions from is statements.