Answer each of the following questions as comprehensively as possible and in your own words, supporting your answers with the readings (citing where appropriate). Write in complete sentences.
Type your answer below each prompt.
1. Describe how natural law stems from Cicero’s Stoicism. Where did Cicero believe we find moral guidance? Where did he say that we do not need to look?
Cisero`s thoughts provided a stoic conception of natural law which he described as having been derived from God, nature, and human reasoning (Fieser, 2000). He warned people from going against the natural law by deciding to use their personal understanding of morality.
2. Describe 3 different realms of law according to Roman law, and give 1 example of each kind. Do not use the examples used in the book.
Roman law is three important principles:
a) Everyone is entitled to the same rights and freedoms under the law such as freedom of speech.
b) When one is accused of committing a crime they are to be considered innocent until the evidence presented proves them to be guilty.
c) The burden of proof is not on the individual that has been accused of a crime but instead on the accuser.
3. Describe Aquinas’s views of natural law and human law. Provide 1 example of each kind. Do not use the examples used in the book.
Aquinas described natural law as an extension of eternal law and is mainly concerned with general rules that guide the acceptable code of conduct such as considered stealing a vice. Human laws on the other hand although derived from natural laws are more specific in nature an example of this is while the general rule is stealing is the general rule, the sale or purchase of stolen goods with prior knowledge that they are stolen is punishable.
4. Consider Aquinas’s synderesis principle
Imagine that you are driving a convertible late at night and see a car stalled on the side of the road. You stop at a stop sign and the driver of the other car asks you to call for help when you get home (Suppose you can call for help in less than a minute and that the call will be free.). You think of your option to call for help, but you also realize that you can lie to him and say that you will call when in actuality you won’t do anything else at all. What would the synderesis principle have you do? Why? What would the synderesis principle not have you do? Why?
The synderesis principle would have me call for help in less than a minute when I get home since in doing so I would be achieving a proper human end by getting the stranded driver the help he needs. Leaving the driver of the other car stranded would be going against the principle because it is an evil thing to do since no proper human end will be achieved.
5. Why does Hugo Grotius care so much about sociability? Suppose that you have a friend who starts lots of physical fights. Imagine that your friend hits people at work and school when she gets mad. What would Grotius think of this? How would he reach his judgment?
Hugo Grotius cared about sociability between human beings since they are social creatures that should and will seek out the company of other humans (Fieser, 2000). Grotius would find the aggressiveness of my friend wrong as it goes against the social nature of human beings since it is an antisocial behavior that people actively seek to avoid which may result in her alienation.
6. What would Thomas Hobbes think of a violent person like the one described in 5.? Explain how this kind of violence would affect a person’s self-preservation. But, for problem 6., imagine that your violent friend is also bad at fighting, that she usually gets injured after she starts fights and sometimes get arrested.
Thomas Hobbes would view the person as having given in to their natural state which directs them to go against other people owing to the insatiable desires that humans naturally have such as the desire for power over others (Fieser, 2000). Starting violent confrontations with other people negatively affects the self-preservation of the friend which is further worsened by the fact that they cannot fight and may therefore, become fatally injured.
7. Hume says that “We cannot derive ought nfrom is.” What does he mean? How is this supposed to be a problem for natural law theories?
Hume explained that many people make the mistake of making claims on what ought to be which are based on what is. This was a mistake because statements that signify what is are positive while those that describe what ought to be are mainly prescriptive in nature and it is therefore, difficult to develop a meaningful relationship between the two statements (Fieser, 2000). The difference between the two statements puts the authenticity of an ought to statement in doubt, since it is derived from statements that show what is; this may discredit natural law theorist such as Grotius.
For problems 8. – 10., suppose you have a doctor friend who volunteers at a homeless shelter in his neighborhood. Imagine that he donates $200 a month to the shelter, and each weekend he spends 4 hours helping people by providing free medical care.
8. What would Aquinas think of your friend’s actions? Is your friend acting morally according to Aquinas’s theory? Explain.
Aquinas would be supportive of the charity efforts by my friend since it is for a proper human end of providing food and shelter to those in need. The friend is acting morally since he is offering help to the helpless through the dedication of monetary resources and his time which is in line with Aquinas’s theory which states that everyone has an inner morality that directs them to do good and avoid evil (Fieser, 2000).
9. What would Grotius think of your friend’s behavior? Is your friend acting morally according to Grotius’s theory? Explain.
Grotius would commend him because he is acting as he should be which is seeking positive social interaction with other human beings. According to Grotius`s theory he can be considered as being moral because he is engaging in activities that promote positive interaction between himself and other people since the theory advocates for the formation and maintaining of positive social relationships among humans (Fieser, 2000).
10. What would Hobbes think of your friend’s behavior? Is your friend acting morally according to Hobbes’s theory? Explain.
Hobbes may view my friend`s good behavior as being occasioned by the order that exists in the society which has reduced his natural impulse to engage in aggressive and destructive behavior such as using aggression to gain power (Fieser, 2000). According to Hobbes`s theory, my friend is not acting morally since he is not in what Hobbes considers as his natural state of impulsively engaging in violent behavior.
References
Fieser, J. (2000). Moral philosophy through the ages. James Fieser.
