Philosophy 360, Ethical Theory Donna Chapman

Spring, 2005 FINAL EXAM 000159417

Question 1

Explain Aquinas’ distinction between eternal law, natural law, and divine law. Why do we need divine law, according to Aquinas, even though we have natural law? Why should I be moral, according to Aquinas?

Explain Aquinas’ distinction between eternal law, natural law, and divine law.

Law exists to control behavior usually through the command to act or to the prohibition of action. These commands must be determined somehow either by reason or selection. Therefore law pertains to reason.

Natural Law rests upon three pre-suppositions which Aquinas “borrowed” from Aristotle. The first pre-suppostion is that the world behaves in an orderly and rational way. The second pre-supposition is that there are values and purposes built into its foundational structure (its nature). The third pre-suppostion is that human beings cannot truly understand something until they know what it is for (until they know its purpose). He goes on to say that ultimately God is the cause of all things, therefore man’s true purpose is to understand God. These pre-suppositions compose a mechanism. They are the structure of the way things work in the world. This mechanism is the way that animals function, and the way that nature functions. No thinking, no choices, they just do what they do in a rigidly ordered fashion. These mechanisms function in a causal nexus. For example, rain falls in order to provide water for plants and animals. The purpose of rain is to provide water for anything or anyone who needs it.

If there is a value and purpose to nature, and if we know that God created nature, (is the supreme ruler of nature) then it follows that natures value and purpose is also Gods value and purpose; that nature is governed by divine reason, and that everything in God’s rule has the nature of law. God is not subject to time, but is eternal, therefore any law that comes from it is also eternal. Therefore, law from God is Eternal Law.

All things are ruled by eternal law because all things are created by God. We have eternal law imprinted upon us. We are built with the inclination toward proper action. We inherently know good from evil. This is natural law.

Divine law is the revealed law of God in the form of scripture. This law is provided to us by God because we make mistakes. Because we make errors in the application of natural law, God has provided Her revealed law so that we will know what we ought to do and what we ought to avoid.

Why do we need divine law, according to Aquinas, even though we have natural law?

As mentioned above, divine law is provided to us by God because we make mistakes. But do we need divine law?

Aquinas believes that human beings do indeed need divine law. He has four reasons for believing this.

One: Our destiny is eternal happiness with God, but the attainment of this destiny exceeds our capabilities as human beings. Man needs divine law, therefore, as a map to lead us to our end. A primer to show us how to be better than we can possibly be under our own reasoning alone.

Two: In order to supervene upon cultural differences. Different societies judge behaviors differently and make laws based on these behaviors which can be completely different. Divine law is ONE law, ONE way to behave. ONE set of oughts and ought nots. Because this law is from God, and therefore perfect, man cannot be wrong if he follows it.

Three: Man can only judge what he sees. He cannot judge what goes on in someone’s mind, yet we are creatures which operate in the internal and external. Divine law is necessary to set boundaries on and give direction to our internal activities.

Four: Human laws are imperfect. Sometimes in legislating against evil, good is constrained at the same time. This can effect the advancement of mankind. Therefore, so that all evil (sin) is forbidden perfectly, without impinging on anything good, we need the revealed law of God.

Why be moral?

Aquinas believes that there is a rational plan to nature; moreover he also believes that moral judgments arise out of reason. Natural laws that specify what we should do are laws of reason which we grasp because god made us rational beings. There fore we should be moral because it is reasonable to do so.

The best thing to do in any circumstance is to do the thing with the best reasons on its side.

Our conscience is the voice of God speaking his law within us, the eternal law expressed through the framework of our reason. To ignore it is to ignore God. To ignore God is to burn in hell for all eternity, therefore it is a good idea to be moral.

Information Sources

The Elements of Moral Philosophy, James Rachels, McGraw-Hill Inc, 1993

A History of Western Philosophy, Vol 2, The Medieval Mind, W.T. Jones, Harcourt, Brace, & Jovanovitch, 1969

Question 2

Hobbes thinks that the laws of nature are laws of self-preservation. Why does he think this? What makes these laws binding on us, according to Hobbes? What is the second law of nature? Explain why he thinks they are valid laws of nature.

Hobbes believes that the universe is a mechanism, a machine bound by rigid laws and repeatable patterns. This includes us! He goes on to say that since we are machines, everything that we think about has to be mechanical as well. Even way we think has to be mechanical. So he has decided that the process of thinking begins with information which comes to us through the paths of our senses. This mechanistic approach compels Hobbes to describe “sensation” as the mechanical process of objects emitting particles which hit sense organs. This in turn causes motion on nerves and membranes in the body. Thinking is merely a succession of thoughts – a mental discourse – generated in by mechanistic means. The mechanistic result of thought is physical motion toward or away from the object of thought. For example, if you are hungry, and see or smell food, the result of that input is to move toward the food. Hobbes names this motion desire. is any outward motion toward a thing (inclination toward). Every time we move toward something or away from it, it is desire. Therefore, Hobbes says, everything humans do is driven by desire, and above all, everyone is driven by the desire to survive.

Our thoughts are regulated by desire. Whenever we deliberate about something, it is always about whether or not we can get what we want, and the passion we apply to getting what we want is always relative to our fear of death.

Hobbes’ version of Natural Law is: precept found out by reason. For Hobbes reason is that part of you that thinks about the future and calculates – based on your desires – the prudent thing to do to get what you want. As previously stated: above all else, we are driven by a desire to survive. He asserts that every law of nature says “do what you need to do to survive, and here’s what it is…”. There are universal actions. These are doing self preserving things, and NOT doing self destructive things. In a nutshell then, Hobbes’ Natural law are as set of rules that you need to abide by to protect your life. The force of the law of nature is fear of death (self preservation). The authority and power of natural law is: survival. These laws are binding on us for one reason and one reason only: fear of death.

Hobbes’ first law of nature is: seek peace, as long as you think you have a chance of getting it. (And also because in the long run you get what you want – the chance to survive). He believes this law is valid because war is risky; you might get killed. His purpose for seeking peace has nothing to do with the good of mankind; it has only to do with ensuring ones own survival. Therefore this is consistent with his premise that we seek what is in our best interest, and again above all the first best interest is survival.

Hobbes’ second law of nature is: be willing to lay down your liberties to the extent that others are willing to do so as well. He cites this second law for two reasons. One: because everyone’s strongest desire is not to die. And second,

reason calculates that desire vs. the probability of attainment. There is a contingency to the second law; there must be an authority figure to whom we give our liberties. There must be a king or other type of governing official which the masses hold in awe, and therefore respect enough to make concessions to in terms of what we want in order to secure the greater long term goal of survival.

Information Sources

The Elements of Moral Philosophy, James Rachels, McGraw-Hill Inc, 1993

A History of Western Philosophy, Vol 3, Hobbes to Hume, W.T. Jones, Harcourt, Brace, & Jovanovitch, 1969

Question 3

Hobbes says that one would have to be a fool to think it prudent or rational to disobey the laws of one’s polity. Explain in detail his argument for this position. Do you find his argument convincing? Why or Why not?

We are after our own best interest. If there is no government in charge, we can do what we want. But what happens when two people want the same thing? The primary drive of both is to get what they want, but they both can’t have the desired thing. There is no option but that they become enemies. One of them will get the goodie. Over time, the chaos will put not only the first two at risk of death, but as groups faction together, the whole community (in the case of confederacies, as opposed to authoritative governments) becomes at risk as well as factions fight each other over property or power.

It would seem that we need a government to over see this sort of situation. Hobbes’ second law constitutes a “social contract”. The social contract ensures that people living together, all looking after their own best interest, don’t destroy each other and the world around them to that end. In this case, the contract (law of the community) is binding because we have a strong authority in place to enforce it. We choose to submit to them (give up some of what we want) a) as long as everyone else does because b) in the long run we get what we want – to survive.

Hobbes goes on to argue that bad government is better than no government. If a bad government goes after some small group within the community, it’s all right as long as it’s not me. And if they come after me, I get to think about my possibilities if I fight them. If I can get my friends together, and our probability for success (survival) is good, we can and should go defend ourselves against the government. If our probability for survival is poor, then we must lay down our arms.

What happens though if a person living in the social contract asks themselves “why should I keep my promises”? This is the perspective of Hobbes’ “fool”. There is no such thing as “obligation” in Hobbes’ philosophy. All actions and decisions are regulated by what we want relative to our survival, or relative to our fear of not surviving. So the question is better asked as: “ why should I keep my promises, if I think I can get away with it, and as long as you keep yours”? This is a legitimate question, if someone can avoid death by lying or cheating. If there is no government in place to enforce these promises, then there is no moral obligation to keep your word. But if there is a strong government in place, then it is rational to keep your promises because of the calculated possibility of getting caught and the subsequent punishment to come. The government response to the broken promise is so severe that it is just not reasonable to break it. (you put yourself at risk of death) It is also rational to keep your promises because if you take advantage of your neighbors, sooner or later they will catch on and stop helping you. You will be on your own, and at risk of death. Hobbes argument in this case is that it is not rational to assume that the community won’t notice that you’re not keeping your promises.

Hobbes’s argument is very convincing based on the assumptions that people really do act only in their own best interest, that the primary driving force of their self interest is survival, and all decisions are the result of a reasoned calculation based on the likelihood of getting what I want weighed against the consequences of what I have to do to get it relative to my staying alive. But this is not the case. Too often humans decide to just do the easiest thing possible (good or bad) to get what they want (good or bad) as soon as possible. The survival factor never enters in. The result ranges from auto accidents because my need to get to home depot via my usual route is more important than that road crew who has a “no left turn” sign posted, trying to force me to take a detour which will cause me to take considerably longer to get there, so I turn left anyway and run a worker over with my car, to freeway shootings. So in the real world, no, this idea is not valid.

Information Sources

The Elements of Moral Philosophy, James Rachels, McGraw-Hill Inc, 1993

A History of Western Philosophy, Vol 3, Hobbes to Hume, W.T. Jones, Harcourt, Brace, & Jovanovitch, 1969

Class Handout: Hobbes’ Answer to the Question: “Why be Moral?” from Leviathan, CH. XV

Question 4

Kant says that “everything in nature operates according to laws, but only rational beings act according to the idea (conception) of law”. Explain what he means by this. Explain how he uses this idea as the foundation of his moral theory. Why should we be moral according to Kant?

Hobbes and Kant are in agreement in that everything in nature works according to laws. Hobbes however differentiates human beings as rational beings, and qualifies us separately from the rest of the world of plants and animals. Kant would say that he does as well, and the differentiating word that they both use is “freedom”. In using the word freedom, Hobbes and Kant mean entirely different things. For Hobbes, freedom is no more than physical liberty. The ability to get up and walk out of a room – mechanistic physical motion. Hobbes would call his freedom the ability to choose action, but for him that choice is based on the calculation of the probability of getting my needs met versus insuring my survival and driven by the desire to get what I want. There is no morality to it except from the standpoint that getting what I want IS Hobbes’ morality. For Kant freedom is the ability to choose. The freedom of Kant assumes dynamic control of a situation. This decision is up to me. It is an active process.

For Kant there is a significant difference between acting on a desire and acting on a principle. When we act out of principle, we are acting out of freedom. When Kant says we act according to the “idea” a law, he is not talking about the letter of the law, in a mechanistic sense, as Hobbes did, he means the “principle” behind the law. He knows that we want to survive, and we want to be happy. He knows that we are inclined to do anything in our power to avoid the risk of death, however he goes on to ask: “But should we?” As rational beings we have freedom to act according to principle. Acting according to principle means making a rational choice.

Every choice we make presupposes 3 things. Our lives as relational

beings depends on these. One, the soul exists. Two, there is a God who rewards, or punishes as it sees fit based on merit, in the afterlife. Three, We are free to choose. Kant’s mechanism of “choice”, the engine that drives it, is composed of two elements. These elements are positive and negative freedom. Positive freedom is our ability to override the prime directive – what we want, or survival, in the name of another person, goal or ideal. Negative freedom is freedom from being bound by desire. Desire has no power to drive us to do anything. Once the decision making process begins, positive and negative freedom are invoked. I will leave behind the first and second presuppositions at this time.

Kant goes on to say that it is not enough to act on principle; the principle must be a noble one. The determination of this “nobility” comes from the perspective under which a decision is made. For example, it is not enough to “want to do the right thing”. “Wanting” to do the right thing throws the decision back into a result driven by my desire. Doing something in my own self interest is not noble. Doing something because “it is the right thing to do” and nothing else, is truly noble. Now, Kant does say its ok to want to do the right thing, it just can’t be the first priority.

Out of these concepts come the basis for Kant’s morality the Categorical Imperative and the Hypothetical Imperative. The Categorical Imperative, the first principle of decision making is: respect the rational nature of others. In other words, seek the divine in every human being, value them, treat them with dignity. Respect everyone and every thing around you. Respect our rational nature as human beings, our ability to make choices. This includes ourselves. It is not a selfless statement but is a fully actualized statement of awareness of self and the world around us. This weights all the choices we make.

The second principle, the Hypothetical Imperative, is simply: seek your own happiness.

In a perfectly rational world, we should be able to operate successfully under both imperatives 100% of the time, however the world is not rational, and our happiness usually gets compromised. Now we return to the first and second presuppositions mentioned 4 paragraphs back. Kant believes that since the world is not rational, then we must have a God who in the afterlife will reconcile with us for the compromised happinesses we experience in this life. God accomlilshes this by bestowing grace and blessings on us in heaven. By virtue of the presupposition of immortal soul, and God’s reward or punishment in the afterlife, we are confident that by being moral we are not sacrificing our happiness, for our happiness will be made complete by God in heaven.

Why be moral? We should be moral because it is rationally required of us by virtue of the Categorical Imperative. If in the process our happiness is compromised, it will be perfected by God in the after life.

Information Sources

The Elements of Moral Philosophy, James Rachels, McGraw-Hill Inc, 1993

A History of Western Philosophy, Vol 4, Kant to Witgenstein, & Sartre, W.T. Jones, Harcourt, Brace, & Jovanovitch, 1969

Question 5

Does Nietzsche think we have good reasons to be moral? (HINT: This is a trick question!) Do you agree or disagree with his position? Why?

The answer to this question is “it depends”. What it depends on is who you are, or rather what social class you are in. In order to explain this, we need to look at Nietzsche’s version of social structure because Nietzsche believes that there is no morality contained in the nature of things, but rather that morality is a construct invented by a specific social category for the purpose of survival.

Nietzsche believes that morality divides the world into superiors and inferiors Out of this notion he derives two categories of people. Caste is probably a better term, because in the same fashion that the caste structure of India is rigid and impenetrable, so are Nietzsche’s social categories. You are born, you live and you die within your social category. There is no upward mobility. Your social category is in your nature.

The first category of people are the “Overmen” or sometimes the “Supermen”. The nature of the Overman is derived from Aristotle’s idea that some people are just plain better than other people, and some virtues are only accessible to the wealthy and powerful. The greatest virtue – the grandest state of soul is pride. Pride in this case is self satisfaction from the attainment of virtue. It is perfectly ok to be glad that you are better than everyone else and it is ok to look down on people who are inferior to you. In a Greek sense, morality has an internal direction. To be moral is to be good. The value is not in being good to others, but in act of my being excellent. The nature of morality for this group rests with people who are good, rather than with the people you are good to.

The basic nature of the Overman is the drive to express who they are in the way they act. The goal of the Overman is to reshape the world to reflect who they are. They want to leave their imprint on the world. This is an autonomous state. Overmen rule themselves; bound only by their own will, no law applies to them.

The second category of people are the Slaves. These are the powerless, those at the bottom of society. These are the worker bees. They work because it is all they are capable of. The life of a person in the Slave category is one of fear, powerlessness, impotence and frustration.

Out of these intense and generational feelings of frustration and anger is born “ressentiment”. Ressentiment is a process whereby the anger of the Slave class at their state is pointed at the ideals of the nobility, and they become viewed as evil. Virtues such as pride, beauty, wealth and power come to be considered immoral or sinful. Over time, the antithesis of the ideals of nobility: humility, poverty, and powerlessness, selflessness/personal invisibility rise into position as values. They become desirable. Ideas like “God loves the humble” come into existence. Evil redefines itself as everything a slave is not: rich, powerful, proud, or happy. Nietzsche calls this “Slave Morality”.

Slave morality is a set of invented restraints grown out of ressentiment. The nature of slave morality rests in an external direction..in the doing good to others, and in the denial of self. The act of doing good becomes defined as “not doing evil”. In other words, not being proud etc. This state is a reaction to an oppressed life, so Slave Morality is considered to be reactive morality. In Slave Morality virtue is found in being less than others rather than superior like the Supermen.

This inversion of values gives value to the life of the Slave class. Slaves are moral to survive. In order for the Slave to be happy and manageable, they have to be successful in practicing their morality – except – that Slave Morality never brings true happiness because of its roots in ressentiment. It is still pointed at what they have not and what they are not, and rooted in anger about it. As such ressentiment is never soothed, it is only put off for a while. This delayed or camouflaged ressentiment is seen in Judeo Christian morality where morality is a list of thou shalt nots. It works for a while, until you can’t take it anymore, and a person sins.

In my opinion, I actually like Nietzsche’s term ressentiment. And having been raised Catholic, it makes sense. I disagree with Nietzsche’s blaming of Judeo Christian influence for its introduction however. I believe that human nature would dictate its spontaneous generation over time with or without Jewish influence. Seems that the “have nots” always resent the “haves”.

Information Sources

The Elements of Moral Philosophy, James Rachels, McGraw-Hill Inc, 1993

A History of Western Philosophy, Vol 4, Kant to Witgenstein, & Sartre, W.T. Jones, Harcourt, Brace, & Jovanovitch, 1969

Class Handouts: Notes on Nietzsche, Propositions 4 & 5

Excerpt from “Ressentiment and Rationality”

By Elizabeth Murray Morelli

Loyolla Marymount University