|
XIII.
Obligation and Moral Law
Topics:
- A. Nature and extension of moral
obligation
- B. The Natural Law of Mankind
- C. Fixity and variability of laws
A. Nature and extension
of moral obligation
The study of moral obligation is one of the
chief features in which the Schoolmen advance
beyond the Greek philosophers, who confined
themselves to the study of the good. Among acts
which are morally good some are obligatory; others
are not. For instance, all men are not called upon
to be heroes or martyrs, but it is required of all
to respect the rights of other to life and
property.
Psychologically, moral obligation manifests
itself to us in the form of command, or compulsion,
which pushes the will in a certain direction, and
yet does not destroy liberty in those cases where
there is room for freedom. For example, we are all
aware that we should respect our parents, but we
are all nevertheless free not to do so.
To what voluntary acts does this moral
obligation belong? In the first place we are bound
to will our end, i.e., our well-being, and to seek
it where it is to be found -- in that which answers
to the deep-rooted tendencies of our rational
nature -- and not to look for it exclusively in
those secondary goods which cease to be good when
not controlled by reason. In the second place we
are morally bound to will whatever is
indispensable in order to reach this
end, and to avoid that which must of
necessity turn us away from it. Thus
natural religion becomes a duty, since God is the
end in which man finds his happiness, and since we
are obliged to know God and to love Him, with the
entire strength of our nature. With the Schoolmen,
natural religion is a religion of love and inspires
all human conduct. Therefore, God is not merely a
frigid metaphysical skeleton, the changeless being
which explains all change, but He enters into the
whole moral life of man. Obligation in the case of
the necessary means is a corollary
from the obligation to seek the end. But obligation
stops there. In order to get from Boston to New
York, I must somehow cover the
distance which separates the two cities, but I can
get to New York by train or by airplane. So also I
can freely choose between different means, when
each of them leads to the end and no one is the
exclusive way to reach it. This is the reason why
all states of life are good, why neither marriage
nor celibacy are obligatory, and why a man may
choose any career which he thinks will enable him
to reach his destiny. Hence moral obligation
consists in the necessity of willing our supreme
good, combined with the liberty of choosing the
concrete objects wherein it is in fact
realized.
What is the basis of moral obligation? The
psychological fact of compulsion reveals moral
obligation, but cannot be a sufficient reason fir
it, since we may ask further: upon what does this
feeling rest? For the Schoolmen, moral obligation
is founded upon human nature itself and its need of
well-being. Such is at any rate the proximate basis
of obligation. But the ultimate foundation is a
Divine decree. God alone can dictate a law which
binds morally; He alone can add the necessary
sanction to it. Obligation and moral law stand to
man in the same relation as the natural law to all
beings: they concern the application of the eternal
law to a nature which is rational and free.
B. The Natural Law of
Mankind
Thomas Aquinas distinguishes between two kinds
of commands dictated by the natural law to man. (1)
First we have the fundamental command to act
according to reason, "to do good and to avoid
evil," and to follow some general precepts which
flow from this fundamental obligation. For instance
men are obliged "to preserve their own life and to
ward off its obstacles...to know the truth about
God and to live in Society" [1]. These
commands are the same for all men and for all time.
They may become clouded over in certain cases, but
they can never be altogether effaced, for they are
a corollary of our inborn tendency towards our
real well-being. It follows from this
that human nature is radically sound, and that the
worst of criminals is capable of moral
reformation.
(2) In the second place we have principles which
we may describe as circumstantial, since human
conduct is necessarily bound up with conditions of
space and time, and physical and social
surroundings. Human reason must take the
circumstances into consideration in enunciating a
moral law. The more closely a law is applied to
particular circumstances and cases, the more
numerous will be the exceptions to the law, and
these exceptions will be justifiable at the bar of
reason. Accordingly, Thomas says that a moral law
governs only the majority of cases, "ut in
pluribus." "Consequently, in contingent matters
such as natural and human things, it is enough for
a thing to be true in the greater number of cases,
though at times, and less frequently, it may fail"
[2]. "From the principle that we must act
according to reason, we can infer that we ought to
return things entrusted to us, and this is true in
the majority of cases. In certain instances,
however, restitution would be dangerous and
therefore unreasonable, as in the case where the
one to whom the article was returned would make use
of it to put an end to his life, or do harm to his
country" [3].
III. Fixity and
variability of laws
These conditions explain why in circumstantial
laws -- which after all are the only ones which
regulate our daily life -- we find both change and
fixity. The historical and social circumstances may
vary, and thus some elasticity in the moral laws
becomes possible. But the fundamental precept, and
the immediate corollaries from it, which are known
by all and bind all, are fixed and invariable. They
are as permanent as human nature and human reason
themselves. They form a deposit in the depths of
every human soul and an interior voice [4]
informs us of them. They correspond to the
unwritten dictates spoken by Sophocles in Antigone,
Cicero, the Stoics, and the Fathers of the Church,
and which the Schoolmen incorporated into their
comprehensive system of metaphysics.
Notes:
1. Summa Theol., Ia IIae, q. 94, art.
2.
2. Ibid., q. 96, art.1.
3. Ibid., q. 94, art. 4.
4. The mind possesses a natural facility and
permanent disposition to know the first moral
precepts. It is called synteresis, which
Thomas defines: lex intellectus nostri inquantum
est habitus continens praecepta legis naturalis
quae sunt prima operum humanorum, q. 94., art.
1.
<
Previous Page
---- Next
Page >
|