Main Flashcards
What is Aquinas’ concept of Natural Moral Law?
Aquinas’ Natural Moral Law suggests that God designed a moral law within human nature, which inclines us to certain moral behaviors. Ethics involves using reason to discover this natural law to fulfill our purpose of glorifying God.
What is a critique of Aquinas’ Natural Moral Law regarding human actions?
The extent of human evil, such as slavery and Nazism, challenges the idea that human nature has an innate orientation toward the good.
How does Aquinas defend against the critique that human evil disproves an innate orientation toward good?
Aquinas acknowledges that humans fail to do good due to original sin, mistakes in conscientia, lack of virtue, and corrupt cultures, which does not negate the innate orientation toward good.
What are secondary precepts in Aquinas’ theory?
Secondary precepts are specific applications of the primary precepts to particular situations, derived through conscientia.
What challenge arises with secondary precepts in Aquinas’ theory?
Mistakes can be made in conscientia, leading to erroneous secondary precepts due to original sin, unvirtuous habits, and corrupt culture.
How does Aquinas mitigate the problem of errors in secondary precepts?
Aquinas maintains that the synderesis rule and primary precepts remain intact, guiding correction of errors in conscientia through reason and virtuous habits.
What is the distinction between real and apparent goods in Aquinas’ theory?
Real goods align with our nature’s goal and are truly good, whereas apparent goods only seem good due to faulty reasoning.
What is a potential issue with distinguishing real and apparent goods?
If human reason is fallible, it may be challenging to consistently distinguish between real and apparent goods.
How does Aquinas address the fallibility of human reason in distinguishing goods?
Aquinas argues that despite fallibility, the guidance of synderesis and primary precepts provides a reliable framework to discern real goods from apparent ones.
What is the difference between vincible and invincible ignorance in Aquinas’ theory?
Invincible ignorance is unavoidable ignorance for which one is not culpable, whereas vincible ignorance is avoidable ignorance due to negligence, leading to culpability.
How might Aquinas’ distinction between vincible and invincible ignorance be critiqued?
The distinction can be subjective, making it difficult to determine when ignorance is truly invincible or vincible.
How does Aquinas justify his distinction between vincible and invincible ignorance?
Aquinas argues that moral responsibility requires a practical assessment of one’s ability to know better, emphasizing the role of reason and context in evaluating ignorance.
Three ways our conscience follows from our knowledge of Natural Moral Law.
Witness – by knowing whether we have done or not done something.
Bind & incite – “through the conscience we judge that something should be done or not done”
Accuse, torment & rebuke – “by conscience we judge that something done is well done or ill done”
What is Freud’s view on the conscience?
Freud views the conscience as the result of psychological forces, particularly the internalized societal values stored in the super-ego, rather than the voice of God.
How does Freud’s view of the conscience differ from Aquinas’ religious perspective?
Freud’s view undermines the divine aspect of conscience, suggesting it is a product of social conditioning rather than a reflection of God’s moral law.
