Moral Dilemmas, Thomas Aquinas And David Hume And Nel Noddings

. Natural Law is said to exist within all of us with the ability of reason. Contradicting to Aquinas, Hobbes says that in order to do good, we must be forced to do good by the enforcement of laws. Thomas Aquinas says natural law exists in your

"One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws." Martin Luther King's words, which just correspond with the above assertion, perfectly tell us what to do in face of laws, either just or unjust.

Natural law, the idea that man is born with certain rights, began to take hold in Europe during the 18th century. Natural law recognizes the rights that man alone has at birth,

These rights are said to be inscribed in the hearts of all men (Seagrave 2011). Natural law is God’s law that every man can know.

It is also relevant to point out that under Locke’s theory all men are created equal in the sense that we all are entitled to these rights (life, liberty, and property), and this is also the case with the rights of the Declaration of Independence (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness). Because humans are born with these universal rights, Locke argued that a universal standard of morality was present even during the “State of Nature”.

Natural rights is the idea that each individual is born with the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is concluded from the Declaration of Independence that these are basic human rights that no one should be denied of. Though, the concept of these rights, and what is meant by them is open to interpretation. Some may say that the idea of liberty should be the focus of government. It is also said that the right to liberty, is the right to own property and to achieve one’s own goals. Everyone should be granted these basic rights at birth as civilians, and as

The infamous phrase “just following orders” is a symbol of what occurs when conscience is lost in the face of overwhelming state authority: it is a summation of all that can go wrong when man forfeits his conscience. As King wrote in Letter from a Birmingham Jail, “we can never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was ‘legal’ and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was ‘illegal.’” But for every individual who cowers and forfeits his scruples is one who stands firm. King was one example, Thoreau another; and there are perhaps millions more, who violated the Fugitive Slave Act, who sheltered victims of government evil in their homes, who declared that they were people first, citizens second. Today, government overreach make civil disobedience as important as ever.

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN NATURAL LAW AND LEGAL POSITIVISM This essay is going to discuss and analyse the differences between two basic principles- natural law and legal positivism. According to Hume, there are two realms of human enquiry , one in the field of facts which is concerned with what ‘ is ‘ actually the case and the other in the field of ‘ought’ that is, what ought to be the case1. Those who believe in the principle of natural law are known as naturalists while those who believe in the principle of legal positivism or ‘positive law’ are known as positivists. This is a brief overview of the two principles of

At an early age, most children are taught to obey the law. However, many children are also told to follow their conscience. Certain incidents can cause these views to conflict. According to figures like Thoreau, Martin Luther King Jr., and Nelson Mandela, breaking the law is justified when one’s conscience dictates him or her to do so if it is for justice, freedom, and it is non-violent.

All around us laws are being broke; severe, mild, for a good cause, or for a bad one. When a police car, fire truck or an ambulance speeds, they are breaking the law. However, it is allowed since they are doing everything in their power to protect, serve and rescue. As an old saying goes 'For every rule, there will be an exception', it makes sense to have an exception for breaking a morally unjust law in good conscience. In life, multiple paths will present itself and after all else has failed, it is acceptable to move on to the last possible option if no serious harm is done-even if it means breaking the law to do so. After all, An unjust law is no law at

St. Thomas Aquinas argues that an “an unjust law is no law at all.” (Aquinas in Dimock, ed., 2002, p.19) However, Aquinas also acknowledges that a human lawgiver may promulgate a command that has the form of law, and is enforced like a law, yet is unjust. This observation leads to the realization that these are two inconsistent claims. Yet Aquinas believes that these inconstancies can be reconciled. In Aquinas’ view an unjust law is not a law but yet is also able to be issued as law and imposed as law.

Ban animal cruelty! Give aid to the poor! Save the rainforests! Obey the law! As a human race we must strive to fulfill these commands, for they are our moral duties and obligations. Our obligation to morality sometimes leads to a dilemma. What happens when a law contradicts the morally right thing to do? Would it be moral to act illegally by breaking the law? No matter how drastic the measure, we are still required to act morally--even if one must break the law to do so. But why is it so important to be moral that one could justify something as serious as breaking the law?

The first principle of law according to Aquinas is that "good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided. All other precepts of the natural law are based upon this” (ST I-II.94.2). The other precepts are self-preservation, procreation, education of offspring, seek truth avoid ignorance, and live in society. Aquinas believes the natural law is written on every human and every human has equal knowledge of good and evil; however, once individual circumstances are factored in, it is dependent upon humans to follow or ignore it. However, Aquinas believes that “the natural law, in the abstract, can nowise be blotted out from men 's hearts” (ST I-II.94.6) but through bad habits of the society it could be weakened. According to Aquinas, the natural law has two main aspects. The first of these is that “the natural law is altogether unchangeable in its first principles” (ST I-II.94.5), which means God can add to, but not take away from, the law. This only applies to the primary precepts; the secondary precepts may change in some particular aspects. The second aspect is that “the written law is said to be given for the correction of the natural law” (ST I-II.94.6.ad 1); to put it simply, human laws are necessary to fill in the gaps/loopholes left from the natural law. Aquinas’ teachings shows that the actions of human is either good or bad depending on whether it conforms to reason.

dentitfy with Aquinas’ understanding of the law but also with John Locke in terms of the state of nature. Locke emphasized “Self preservation” as the most practical and most effective way of living your life. (Locke, p.141) When life or death is concerned, Locke would say that your life is priority over all. This line of reasoning seems suited for men starving to death in a cave fighting for their lives. “One of the most ancient bits of legal wisdom is the saying that a man may break the letter of the law without breaking the law itself.(Fuller, p.8) This is where the actual purpose of the law is differentiated with the written law itself. Just because one thing is said, it doesn’t mean that other things can’t be insinuated or gathered from

David Hume is considered to be one of the big three British empiricists, along with Hobbes and Locke, and lived near the end of the Enlightenment. The Catholic Church was losing its control over science, politics and philosophy and the Aristotelian world view was being swallowed up by a more mechanistic viewpoint. Galileo found the theory provided by Copernicus to be correct, that our earth was not the center of everything, but the celestial bodies including the earth circled the sun. Mathematicians abounded. Pascal developed the first mechanical calculator and Newtonian physics was breaking new ground. Not even the arts were immune. Within the same era Mary Shelley authored Frankenstein: or the Modern Prometheus. The main theme for this