(An excerpt from the book “Ethics” by Pasco, M.O.

et al, 2018, with some minor modifications and discussions

by the teacher for the purpose of simplifying ideas for the students)

MODULE III. The Natural Law: St. Thomas Aquinas

Learning Outcomes

At the end of this module, the students should be able to

1. Recognize the meaning of natural law and its relation to ethics;

2. Explain how natural law is an imprint of the Divine Will on the free person;
3. Appreciate and articulate the role of natural law in crafting an ethical life; and
4. Discuss conscience and how this is defined by natural law.

INTRODUCTION

St. Thomas Aquinas (1225 – 1274 A.D.)

He is an Italian Catholic priest who belongs to the religious Order of Preachers (OP) or Dominicans. He was
born in 1225. The title, Aquinas identifies his place of origin, Aquino which belonged originally to the kingdom
of Naples and about 120 km. south of Rome. He was born to an affluent family; his father was recognized as
the count of Aquino.
His early studies were under the tutelage of the Benedictine Abbot of Monte Cassino, but at the age of 14, he
enrolled at the University of Naples. He was deeply impressed by the Dominicans whom he later met at this
University that Thomas decided to join the Order of Preachers at the age of 19 in 1244 instead of the
Benedictines who were his first teachers. After the struggle with his family who did not agree with his being a
priest was settled. Thomas in 1248 studied with Albert the great (1205-1280) in Cologne. Recognizing his
student as a genius, Albert took Thomas with him to the University of Paris. Thomas later became the master of
Theology in this University (1256) and the remaining 18 years of his life were spent on lectures, instructions,
writings, and quodlibets (the tradition of answering questions posed by participants who were in dialogue
somewhat akin to the ancient symposiums of the Greeks)
Thomas died on March 7, 1274 leaving behind him notable works like Summa Contra Gentiles, and De
Veritate. The Catholic Church honors him as a Doctor, a title given to saints who are recognized as giver of
particularly important insights in the understanding of Christian doctrine or faith.

Albert Camus (French philosopher, author and journalist, November 7, 1913 – January 4, 1960)

Albert Camus opened hi 1942 seminal book, The Myth of Sisyphus, by posing the question, “Why will I not kill
myself today?” It is a recognition of the absurdities of the world. This was echoed by Rina-Jimenez-David in the
daily broadsheet PHILIPPINE DAILY INQUIRER on October 25, 2003 when in frustration she asked “why would we
not just close down the Philippines.
These two personalities have the parallel experiences of frustrations and absurdities of human existence. For
Camus, he experienced the two series of wars: world war I from 1914 to 1918 and world war II from 1939 to 1945
and thus highlights the bitterness of his times and the task of man to live in sincerity, moderation, and justice with
a playful heart even while confronted with utter meaninglessness in life. While Jimenez-David saw two Philippine
people power revolutions (February 22 – 25, 1986; and January 17 – 20, 2001) and some years after, she got so
frustrated in the country the she simply wanted to ask every Filipino to live elsewhere.
Our present age is not impervious (impenetrable) to such attacks of absurdity, frustration, and near
desperation. History, however, is gracefully replete (filled) with people with people who have exerted effort in
pointing out a viable way out of such darkness and confusion.
One of the options was arrived at through the meeting between Philosophy and a religion of revelation that is
Christianity. The best representative of this integration and arguably also, and excellent thinking through of a
reasonable way that addresses the questions of the human person, is the philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas.
Thomas’ systemic approach that is meant to guide human action is known as an ethics of natural law. While his
metaphysics harks back to medieval time of belief in God, his ethical system endures until contemporary times in
the moral guidelines followed and lived out by religious believers who belong to the Catholic tradition.
A. “Etsi Deus non daretur”

It is literally translated as “as if there were no God” or “even if there is no God.” The basic presupposition is
the claim that this ethical system of Natural law is valid and acceptable even for those who do not believe in
God.
1. From the standpoint of faith

Thomas Aquinas begins from the standpoint of faith. His perspective presupposes the existence of a God
who is the author (source) and the goal (end) of all reality. This creator for Thomas, however, relates in
freedom with the human person and so enable him/her in freedom to recognize through reason, the very
principle of foundations of all things. In accordance with this foundational knowledge, the human person
can choose to act in such a way that is worthy of one’s very reality – a human being.

In other words, we are expected to decide, choose and act fitting to our nature as a human being. One
who can reach the wisdom at the very heart of all things is obliged to act in accordance with his/her
dignity. The human being then is said to be gifted with “the ability to know the highest good” that
engages him/her in freedom in “choosing to act on the good that he/she ought to do.” Freedom here is
knowing the best goal and being able to reach for it through decisive action. This is expressed interiorly,
that is in the very heart, of every human person as the dictate of “doing good and avoiding evil.”

2. The Goodwill of God as the Eternal Law

God reveals His Goodwill as the Eternal law which is reflected in the order of reality. So here, relating
with the law as governing all is relating with God Himself whose Will emanates to govern all that is. So,
the reality of life as growth, nutrition and reproduction is founded on the will that is eternal. Even the
reality of sensitive consciousness as ruled by instinct that is true of animals is also in accordance with the
same Goodwill of God. The “plants persist to carry themselves out to the fullness of being plants” is an
imprint of the governing will that come to human understanding as law. That “animals governed by
instinct behave in such and such a way” is also recognize by the human person as following the dictate of
a law that guides all creation.
 The Goodwill of God as the Eternal Law is reflected in the order of reality. Relating with the law as
governing all is relating with God Himself whose will emanates to govern all things.

3. The Reality of the Human Person

The reality of the human person who is able to, through his/her intellect, to decide in freedom and,
through his/her will, to move himself/herself voluntarily in accordance with the good that he/she can
know follows the very Will of God who has “created man in His own Image” (Gen.1;27). Man, in his
fullness shares life with plants and animals but goes beyond the plants and the animals in his voluntary
action and freedom in decisions.

4. Human freedom

Human freedom for St. Thomas is an imprint of the Divine Will in the very being of the human person.
This sharing of the human person in the Divine Will or Eternal Law is for him/her the Natural Law. The
relationship between the eternal Law and Natural Law for him/her is expressed in the sacred book for
Christians thus, “since the creation of the world God’s invisible Will – His power and nature – has been
clearly seen being understood from what has been made visible so that people are without excuse”
(Romans 1; 20). The Divine Will or Eternal Law, according to this passage in the Bible, can be understood
as governing everything. The task of man is to act in such a way that his/her participation in the full
unfolding of nature directs it to fulfillment.

This Eternal Law impinges (touches) on the very freedom of the human being who can know his/her
options and voluntarily will to take action. The rational human person’s participation, ability to discern
what is good from what is not good is the very presence of the dictate of the Eternal law within him/her,
and it is also the imprint on him/her of the Creator (Divine Will).

5. Positive Laws

Positive laws refer to laws made by man that require some specific action. These are statutes, codes, and
regulations that have been enacted by a legislature. The human person who is able to draw up specific
laws that govern himself/herself, govern his/her society and govern his/her society and govern his/her
 relationship with all creation, is the author of positive laws. But Natural Law necessarily takes precedence
over positive laws. Not all that is legal in human society reflects the law that dictates on human person as
ethical in accordance with natural law – what is legal then is not necessarily moral.

For example: The use of contraceptives in family planning is permitted and allowed by law in the
Philippines and in some other countries. Thus, the use of contraceptives of the wedded couples as a
means of birth control and as part of their family planning is legal but as to the question of whether it is
moral, it will be another story. It will require deeper and serious moral evaluation.
Another example: In some countries, same sex marriage is legalized but as to the question, is same sex
marriage moral or ethical? Again it will require serious and deeper moral evaluation. If it does not
conform to the norms of the Natural Law, then from the stand point of the ethical system of Natural Law,
same sex marriage is immoral or unethical.

6. “Even if there is no God”

This ethics of natural law has gained wide acceptance at one point in the history of western civilization
that it has come to be espoused even if one prescinds (detaches) himself/herself from the faith system
that has engendered it (engender means to beget or to bring into being). “Etsi Deus non daretur” is an
expression that highlights the validity of this ethical system with or without faith in the Creator God.
Literally, “etsi Deus non daretur” means “even if there is no God.” This implies that the wisdom of the
ethical system that is Natural Law is valid and binding for the human person even if we bracket belief in
God.

Those who come up with the expression “etsi Deus non daretur” do not necessarily advocate atheism or
protest against the faith. They simply mean that the deposit of knowledge or “Divine Wisdom” that
comes to us as “Natural Law” is valid in itself and is, therefore, the reasonable code of conduct even for a
man of goodwill who may be without faith.

Even the Sacred Scriptures of Christians reflect this, “For when non-believers who do not have the law by
nature observe the prescriptions of the law, they are a law for themselves even though they do not have
the law. They show that the demands of the law are written in their hearts” (Romans 2; 14 – 15).
(elaboration on the whole Christ Event)

B. CONSCIENCE and NATURAL LAW

Conscience is traditionally described as the little voice of God in each and every one of us. So that every time
that a one can commit an immoral act or a sinful act, this little voice will make a noise. It will create
disturbance giving the person a signal that he/she committed a sin.

1. The ability of man to know

The ability of man to know is important in his/her acting ethically. Our ability to know is important in
living an ethical life. Hence, if one follows St. Thomas’ discussion on conscience, one is inclined to
conclude that “it is the proper functioning of reason in moving the human person towards and end goal
that is fitting to his/her dignity.” One cannot do the right thing if one does not know what it is. The
famous dictate then to follow the conscience absolutely is tied to an obligation to educate it. Not
knowing St. Thomas is not an excuse. Even if one does not know, he/she is obliged to know. If one acts
badly out of ignorance and does not do anything to rectify the situation by bothering to learn, that person
is to be held accountable according to St. Thomas.

2. Types of Ignorance

There are types of ignorance some of which can mitigate and even erase the degree of a culpability of
certain actions.

a. Vincible ignorance

Vincible ignorance is a kind of ignorance that can be overcome by ordinary human effort. This kind of
ignorance can not be used as an excuse for a culpability of one’s action – by commission or one’s
omission (not doing what one ought to do).
For example: A student who ask the teacher for an excuse of his absence and eventually ask for a
special exam for the exam that he missed during his absence because he/she was not aware about
 the schedule of that particular exam. His/her being unaware of the schedule of the exam is a kind of
vincible ignorance because it can easily be overcome by ordinary human effort of asking any of
his/her classmates or the concerned teacher handling the subject about the schedule of that exam.
The student does not deserve any excuse neither for his/her absence nor for the exam that he/she
missed.

b. Invincible ignorance

Invincible ignorance is a kind of ignorance that cannot be overcome by ordinary human effort. This
kind of ignorance can be used as an excuse for a culpability of one’s action or of one’s omission. In
other words, there is no ordinary human effort that can overcome this type of ignorance.
For example: a tribe man who belongs to a tribe that is practicing cannibalism. The tribe settled at
the top of a mountain that can not be reached by 2 weeks-walk from the civilized communities. This
tribe man had no chance to be in contact with the civilized world so there is no ordinary human effort
for him to know that cannibalism is morally wrong. So, the tribe man is excuse from the culpability of
his immoral act of eating human flesh because what he has is an invincible type of ignorance.

c. Pretended ignorance

This kind of ignorance is just a pretense with the hidden malicious intension of using it as an excuse of
the culpability for an evil action. This kind of ignorance cannot be used as a mitigating circumstance
of the culpability of the immoral act. But instead it will add malice to the evil act and thus add weight
to the gravity of the culpability. For example: A man who pretends to be asleep while maliciously
touching the private parts of a woman’s body. His pretensions of being asleep while doing the
malicious sexual abuse against the woman cannot be used as an excuse for the culpability of his evil
act.
3. Conscience

Traditionally it is being referred to as “the little voice of God in us,” so that every time a person commits
immoral act, conscience will make a noise that will lead to remorse.

Conscience, absolutely binds us in doing the good and avoiding evil and like “reason” is also absolutely
tasked to be given formation. The conscience can be mistaken, but being so does not exempt the human
person from culpability. If the person is able to know but fails to act his/her obligation to do so, then
he/she is not free from blame and responsibility for what was done.

Kinds of Conscience that may lead us to wrongdoing:

a. Ignorant conscience
It is an uninformed conscience that simply lacks education.
b. Perplexed conscience
It is a kind of conscience that needs guidance in sorting out one’s confusion. The guiding principle
here is “when you are in doubt do not act.”
c. Callous conscience
It can lead itself to being malformed in being too lax. Callousness of the conscience results in the
long-time persistence in doing evil that the self is no longer concerned whether what he/she does is
good or bad.
Example: The kind of conscience being possessed by the hired killers, swindlers, robbers, thieves etc.
d. Scrupulous conscience
It is a malformed conscience in being too strict. Scrupulousness of conscience is due to the fact that it
fails to trust one’s ability to do good and hence, overly concerns itself with avoiding what is bad to the
point of seeing wrong where there is really none. This kind of conscience is over sensitive.
Example: Tawo nga makonsyinsya bisag igo rang nakapatay ug lamigas.

All these malformed consciences that can lead to bad actions can readily be rectified by education or
by formation. Putting effort in forming one’s own conscience helps a person to exit from such
malformations.

QUESTION: Given such propensity to error of the human conscience, can we then disobey the
Dictates of our conscience?
 St. Thomas Aquinas still insists, “absolutely not!” Conscience remains to be our proximate norm that
bids us to do the good and avoid evil; simply put, going against one’s conscience is doing the contrary
of the dictate of what one knowingly elects as good.

If the extent of what one knows determines what is the good to be done and the evil to be avoided,
the self is obliged to act accordingly, i.e., “act on the good and shun the bad.” Again these occasions
manifest the necessity to educate one’s conscience, basically because one cannot do the good if one
does not know it. Since one’s norm for acting is the obligation that is set by one’s conscience:
acquisition of knowledge as what ought to be done through education is critical for ethical living,
according to St. Thomas.

Lawrence Kohlberg (Psychologist) echoes St. Thomas in insisting that “education is crucial for moral
living.”

C. Three Contemporary Questions

There are relevant questions that can help us appreciate the ethical system of Natural law. If we follow what
has been earlier said, that natural law is man’s participation in the execution of the good and avoidance of evil
through the use of his reason and will, then three questions that originated from the writing of Alasdair
Macintyre can be appropriated to highlight the relevance of Aquinas today:
Who am I?
Who do I want to be?
How can I get there?
1. Who am I?
Thomistic Natural Law interrogate the identity of the human person. If one is endowed with his /her own
facticity, history and abilities, his/her present reality is accessible to him/her through self-knowledge and
reflection. This assessment of one’s own strengths and weaknesses is critical in being able to do good and
avoid evil. This ethical task is not only an outward truth. Doing good determines the actor in the reality
that is good and doing bad determines the actor in the reality that is bad – doing bad malforms him/her.
The reality of the human identity is that it is something defined yet also always in process.

The task of knowing the self is the point of departure for the task of building up the identity of the human
person. Ethics here does not only cover the issues that usually call our attention, such as abortion,
euthanasia, or other burning moral questions of this sort. Ethics for Aquinas is primarily a question of
human identity. “All human acts are moral acts,” according to him. Since it is through his/her acts that
man defines himself/herself, the ethical man is the task of his/her free acts.

Defining the self gives one a chance to clarify his/her goal; hence, it is important to raise the second
Question:
2. Who do I want to be?
The human person’s self-knowledge is dynamic, that is, it is always open to the direction set by what one
wants to make of himself/herself. Self-knowledge here is malleable towards self-determination. Ethical
acts give direction through freedom to build up the self towards a particular goal.

The human reason is so gifted that it is able to discern through options and daily realities. Decisions are
the basis of one’s freedom in choosing what one wants to be. The self also considers the truthful
transition to what one ought be. Given this knowledge of himself/herself and the ability to evaluate
his/her options and possibilities, the self can also better give direction of himself/herself.

3. How can I get there?

The third question is not very far from the other questions. In truth, “How can I get there?” also fully
utilizes the sound judgment of human reason and evaluate the best route to get to the goal decided upon.
The last question breaks down that the task to be done into the particulars of actions and daily routine.
Self-knowledge and self determination are here bridged by self-governance.

The human person does not only access reason to assess his/her personal identity and personal goal;
he/she is also gifted with the will to command the self to go through the steps and, hence, be able to do
the transition from knowledge to a fully determined self. Goal setting through reason and decision is
complemented by the ability to freely move the self and command the body in action. It is in
orchestrating the actions to be consistent with the end in mind that the self reaches improvement.
 For instance, if one wishes to get to the goal of finishing a degree, one starts with the reality of the self.
Knowing what one needs to improve on, supports the goal of graduating. A sound decision helps the
student to maximize the training and studies that go with being enrolled in the university. One knows in
honesty that a paper diploma that reflects a degree is hardly a value without true knowledge and mastery
of what one is expected to know. Hence, if one’s goal is to graduate with competence, one elects the
daily, monthly, semestral, or even yearly task that ought to be completed. Professors, lectures, and even
exams are then seen in this light as aids in reaching the goal. Furthermore, the self is not only a passive
receiver of what transpires externally: one designs the path and cooperates with the situation to reach
the end that has been reasonably set by the self.

D. The Relational and Perfection of Love in Aquinas

1. Perfection in a relationship with God

Although we have suspended God-talk to make the case that natural law is relevant even for the human
person without faith, the discussion of Thomistic Ethics is incomplete if it does not end with the love that is
directed towards God. Thomistic natural law is not Christian simply because it is an ethics reconcilable or
compatible with faith. It is a disciplined system that finds ultimate foundation and perfection in the reality of
God. While through “etsi Deus non daretur” we are afforded the autonomy of a reasonable ethics
independent from faith, ultimately this ethics is given full meaning and perfection in a relationship with God.

 In other words, even if we claim that this ethical system of natural is valid and acceptable even for the
people who have no faith but its full meaning and perfection in a relationship with God. Its ultimate
foundation and perfection are in the reality of God.

2. Human Person’s Full Realization

The autonomy of ethics from faith afforded a level of disciplined reflection that enables man to not only copy
the perfection that is God and apply it to himself/herself and his/her surroundings. The independence that is
given in the ethical order also allows the human person in particularity to be himself/herself, as the singular
that he/she is. That is through personal reflection, decisions, goal setting and praxis, the human person
attains the full realization of who he/she is. In this sense, the human being is not merely a stand-in
(substitute) for the Creator God. One is not a robot who learns the direction from everything else and applies
it to oneself to function as a tool for “Deus ex machina,” or the God of the machine. The subjectivity of man
and one’s search for fulfillment readily rest on the decisions and voluntary willing that one makes.

3. Humans to be in all and exist for all

On the other hand, however, the Divine Will and also the entirety of all creation cannot be limited by the
scope of satisfaction that is exclusively chosen by man. The human being remains to be one particular being
among the multiplicity of beings. One cannot, given one’s limits, be the fulfillment of everything. Here a
protest may arise. Is not his/her goal setting inclusive of “the desire to be everything?” Truly, he/she may
have the longing, even the potential, to be what he/she wants to be, stretching it so far as embracing through
his/her desire all that is. This potential, however, derives from what is actual in the reality of being; wanting
to be all in all is not the same as truly being all in all. Yet the desire for this has to come from somewhere.
Human beings are not capable of desiring all in all because they are limited. Who evokes this thirst in the
human person? This desire, therefore, has to come from somewhere or someone else who awakens this in
him/her.

4. Relational
Here relational that is inherent in the natural order finds value. The human person is not only bound to find
full maximum capacity of one’s being in a search for self-actualization. He/she is not designed to find
perfection on his/her own but thoroughly relates with other human persons and all of creation. He/she is not
designed to be a Pharisee who is perfect unto himself/herself. He/she is open to be in all and to exist for all.
One’s goal, therefore, is not only to be the “self-made man/woman” but, in his/her full effort, “be open and
available for everything else” and “be open for the love or fullness that is beyond him/her.”

5. Gratuitous Perfection Beyond the Human Person

Ultimately, as held by St. Thomas himself, the true destiny of man lies in a gratuitous perfection that is
beyond the human person yet relates with him/her thoroughly in freedom and, therefore, in fullness of love.
This relationship and loving invitation exceed the possibilities of achievements and realizations that are
reachable by the human person in himself/herself. It may be called spiritual, beatific, or heavenly but in the
expanse of what is desired and what is reasonably attainable by the human person. It is available for him/her
only through relating with someone who is beyond him/her. The highest perfection of man for St. Thomas is
in his/her wanting to be with God. In the words that are used by believers, “The ethical man is not the perfect
man but one who wants to be saved by cooperating in freedom with what is attainable for him/her.”

CONCLUSION

Thomas Aquinas was influential in his articulation of the theory of natural law. He showed us that the
universe was determined by an order of love that ought to define the sense of the good of the human being.
Whether one believes in a transcendent, loving God or not, he showed how people could intuit an order to
things that was inherent to all beings that existed. Whether one was a believer or not, one could see that
there is this order which is the ground od people’s wholeness and self-realization. Many philosophers up to
this day build upon this idea of a natural order upon which is founded a natural law. Even in legal theories,
this foundational idea is influential. However as Western civilization evolved, other theories also evolved
which insisted that the foundation of norms for the good should be rooted in human reason alone. In this
school of thought, Immanuel Kant would be one of the most important thinkers.

Exercise 1 (Natural Law)