Question

Summa Theologica II-II q. 154 a. 2: Nor does it matter if a man having knowledge of a woman by

fornication, make sufficient provision for the upbringing of the
child: because a matter that comes under the determination of the law
is judged according to what happens in general, and not according to
what may happen in a particular case. In a section of50 Questions for the Natural Law, Dr. Charles Rice references theSumma TheologicaI-II q. 94 a. 4(Whether the natural law is the same in all men?), regarding things that are known in natural law as true but injurious in particular cases. An example Dr. Rice gives isrestoring property to a rightful ownerwho would use it to fight against your country. The fundamental concept of the Natural Law is that certain moral precepts are true whether one sees it, believes it, accepts or not. St. Thomas says that some people may not realize that all the angles of a triangle add up to 180 degrees, but it does nonetheless. People who don't know that are not well formed in math. People may not know that fornication is wrong. In the same way, those people are not well formed in conscience. It is conscience which is the nearest norm we have for knowing what is right and wrong, and the criterion by which God will judge the human soul (Dr. Rice, quoting Fr. John Hardon paraphrasing theSumma), so the rightness or wrongness of a certain act is not relative objectively in the Natural Law (this is the general case). But the test of individual culpability is whether one followed ones conscience (this is the particular case). Because thespeculative reasonis busied chiefly with thenecessary things, which cannot be otherwise than they are, its proper conclusions, like the universal principles, contain the truth without fail.Thepractical reason, on the other hand, is busied withcontingent matters, about which human actions are concerned: and consequently, although there is necessity in the general principles, the more we descend to matters of detail, the more frequently we encounter defects.Accordingly then in speculative matters truth is the same in all men, both as to principles and as to conclusions: although the truth is not known to all as regards the conclusions, but only as regards the principles which are called common notions. But in matters of action, truth or practical rectitude is not the same for all, as to matters of detail, but only as to the general principles: and where there is the same rectitude in matters of detail, it is not equally known to all. An example showing how speculative reason can fail in a particular case: it is right and true for all to act according to reason: and from this principle it follows as a proper conclusion, that goods entrusted to another should be restored to their owner. Nowthis is true for the majority of cases(ut in pluribus): but it may happen in a particular case that it would be injurious, and therefore unreasonable, to restore goods held in trust; for instance, if they are claimed for the purpose of fighting against one's country. And this principle will be found to fail the more, according as we descend further into detail, e.g. if one were to say that goods held in trust should be restored with such and such a guarantee, or in such and such a way; because the greater the number of conditions added, the greater the number of ways in which the principle may fail, so that it be not right to restore or not to restore.—St. Thomas Aquinas,Summa TheologicaI-II q. 94 a. 4(Whether the natural law is the same in all men?) a) Natural law comprises universal moral precepts applicable regardless of individual awareness or beliefs.
b) Specific circumstances may challenge the direct application of general moral principles.
c) St. Thomas Aquinas highlights the complexity of applying universal principles to real-life situations.
d) The passage illustrates how general moral principles may encounter exceptions or limitations in specific contexts.

Answer 1

Natural Law Theory asserts universal moral principles that are true irrespective of human recognition, challenging to apply to individual circumstances. It distinguishes from divine law by being discoverable through reason. The concept and application of natural rights relate to this theory, underscoring the debate about moral laws being objective versus subjective.

Step-by-step explanation:

The question explores the complexities of Natural Law Theory, which posits that certain moral precepts exist independently of human recognition or acceptance, as posited by figures like St. Thomas Aquinas. Aspects such as the application of general moral principles in specific cases highlight the difficulty of aligning natural law with human law, and the challenges posed by various interpretations of human nature, such as those from Hobbes compared to traditional views. The concept of natural rights is also significant, being universal and inalienable, but historically contested by figures like Jeremy Bentham.

While divine law requires revelation, natural laws are discoverable via human reason according to Aquinas, but their application remains subject to the context of individual situations. Nevertheless, natural law principles provide a benchmark against which the rectitude of actions may be assessed, acknowledging that behaviors consilient with natural drives, such as self-preservation, are deemed to be morally upright.