Aquinas

Question 1

natural law

Answer 1

-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

Question 2

primary precepts + synderesis

Answer 2

-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.

Question 3

conscientia

Answer 3

-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

Question 4

invincible ignorance

Answer 4

-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.

Question 5

his view on conscience

Answer 5

-conscience is ratio (reason) used to understand+apply gods nl
-the whole process of synderesis and conscientia together.
-its fallible bc human reason is

Question 6

witness
testiflari

Answer 6

by knowing wether we have done or not done something

Question 7

bind+incite
instigare

Answer 7

-‘through the conscience we judge that something should be done or not done’

Question 8

accuse, torment + rebuke
a causare/exusare

Answer 8

‘by conscience we judge that something done is well done or ill done’
-conscience either accuses or exuses me

Question 9

guilt

Answer 9

-. 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

Question 10

infallibility

Answer 10

-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

Question 11

real vs apparent goods

Answer 11

-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)

Question 12

act against conscinece quote

Answer 12

“Every judgment of conscience, be it right or wrong … is obligatory … he who acts against his conscience always sins”

Question 13

Vincible vs invincible ignorance

Answer 13

-Whether errors in conscience that lead to sinful acts will be forgiven or pardoned depends on the type of ignorance that caused the error.

Question 14

Invincible ignorance

Answer 14

-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

Question 15

Invincible ignorance quote

Answer 15

“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’”

Question 16

vincible ignorance

Answer 16

-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

Question 17

vincible ignorance quote

Answer 17

“[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.”

Question 18

evaluation

Karl Barth’s critique of Aquinas

Answer 18

• 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.

Question 19

evaluation

too optimmistic

Answer 19

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.

Question 20

evaluation

psychological more accurate

Answer 20

Psychological accounts of human behaviour seem more accurate, such as that our moral views result from our social conditioning. Skinner argued this.

Question 21

evaluation

defence of aquinas

Answer 21

-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

Question 22

aquinas natural theology

Answer 22

-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

Question 23

natural theology

karl bath

Answer 23

-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.

Question 24

natural theology

aqunas defence

Answer 24

-he doesnt suggest r finite minds can understand god (or eternal law). he suggests reason can undertsnad NML god created within r nature

Question 25

aquinas defence natural theology

tillich

Answer 25

-Barth was too negative in denying the possibility of reason discovering anything whatsoever of the natural law.

“there is self-deception in every denial of the natural moral law … The very statement that man is estranged from his created nature presupposes an experience of the abyss between what he essentially is and what is existentially is. Even a weak or misled conscience is still a conscience, namely, the silent voice of man’s own essential nature, judging his actual being”