Aquinas Flashcards
(25 cards)
natural law
-theory god has designed a moral law into human nature such that we r naturally inclined to certain moral behaviours
-its abiut using reason to discover NL within r nature so we conform r actions to it in order to fulfill r purpose of glorfying god, by following his law
-everyone thru r conscience have access to NL
primary precepts + synderesis
-reason=power of human soul+ synderesis
-Reason has a power called synderesis which allows us to first know the synderesis rule (or ‘key precept’) and then the primary precepts
-synderesis rule= ‘do good+avoid evil’
-they r: protect and preserve human life, educate, reproduce, live in an orderly society and worship God.
conscientia
-power from primary recepts
-allows us to apply the primary precepts to moral actions/situations and figure out what we should do.
-Conscience is the whole process of synderesis and conscientia together.
-judgement we then acquire is a 2nd precepts eg euthanasia
invincible ignorance
-We shouldn’t feel guilty for all bad things we do though
-if we do bad due to ignorance but we couldn’t have known better, then that’s not our fault.
-Aquinas calls that ‘invincible ignorance’ – ignorance that could not have been prevented.
his view on conscience
-conscience is ratio (reason) used to understand+apply gods nl
-the whole process of synderesis and conscientia together.
-its fallible bc human reason is
witness
testiflari
by knowing wether we have done or not done something
bind+incite
instigare
-‘through the conscience we judge that something should be done or not done’
accuse, torment + rebuke
a causare/exusare
‘by conscience we judge that something done is well done or ill done’
-conscience either accuses or exuses me
guilt
-. Conscience is ability to know whether we have done something, if we should have done it, and if it was done well
-if done something wrong r conscience will accuse, torment + rebuke us
=cause guilt
infallibility
-human reason is fallible, the conscience thereby becomes fallible.
-could be mistaken for example when we don’t know how a general rule applies to a certain situation
-synderesis rule + the primary precepts cannot be mistaken/lost from human mind
-but conscientia can make mistakes- can come from og sin, virtous habits + corrupt culture
real vs apparent goods
-might reason something is in accord with r nature’s goal + is thus good, when really is not.
=apparent goods (only appear good to someone engaged in faulty reasoning)
act against conscinece quote
“Every judgment of conscience, be it right or wrong … is obligatory … he who acts against his conscience always sins”
Vincible vs invincible ignorance
-Whether errors in conscience that lead to sinful acts will be forgiven or pardoned depends on the type of ignorance that caused the error.
Invincible ignorance
-circumanstance where person couldnt know better+so not to blame
-eg drunk+jumps infront of ur car, ur not responsible for hitting them
-Actions that go against the natural law but r II arent voluntary + thus not sin
Invincible ignorance quote
“It is not imputed as a sin to man, if he fails to know what he is unable to know. Consequently ignorance of such like things is called ‘invincible’”
vincible ignorance
-circumanstance where person couldve known better+ r to blame for action
-involves a ignorance of which morl principle is relevant in situation
-eg fire breaks out in a bad built building= builders fault-ignorant fire would happen so should know better
=sins as shouldve known better
vincible ignorance quote
“[invincible ignorance] not being voluntary, since it is not in our power to be rid of it, is not a sin … On the other hand, vincible ignorance is a sin, if it be about matters one is bound to know.”
evaluation
Karl Barth’s critique of Aquinas
- Karl Barth thinks he is dangerous for relying on human reason.
- Reason is corrupted by og sin + is therefore dangerously unreliable.
- Christians should only have faith in the Bible and that’s all.
- We shouldn’t use our reason to try and figure out right + wrong.
evaluation
too optimmistic
overly optimistic about human nature when he claims that it has an orientation towards the good.
look at terrible things humans have done throughout history, e.g. slavery and Nazism.
If synderesis really existed in r nature, we shouldnt expect to find the extent of moral evil that we do.
evaluation
psychological more accurate
Psychological accounts of human behaviour seem more accurate, such as that our moral views result from our social conditioning. Skinner argued this.
evaluation
defence of aquinas
-he doesnt say we do moore good than bad, nor that we will never do terrible things
-he thinks we r corrupted by og sin+ entire cultures can be corrupt-nazis
-we may have an orientation towards good+yet fail to act on it. so fact that humans do terrible things doesnt counter aquinas theory
aquinas natural theology
-human reason could never know or understand God
-but he is a proponent of natural theology through reason which he claimed could support faith in God
-reason can gain knowledge of gods NML via ability of human reason to know synderse rule+ precepts
natural theology
karl bath
-A’s NL was false natural theology which placed an overreliance on human reason
-if humans were able to know God or God’s morality via their own efforts, then revelation would be unnecessary. Yet, God clearly thought revelation necessary as he sent Jesus.
-“the finite has no capacity for the infinite”;
-after the corruption of the fall, human reason cannot reach God or figure out r/w by itself. Only faith in God’s revelation in the bible is valid.
natural theology
aqunas defence
-he doesnt suggest r finite minds can understand god (or eternal law). he suggests reason can undertsnad NML god created within r nature
