Thomas Aquinas And Thomas Hobbes Interpretation Of Natural Law

Topic sentence. Thomas Hobbes interpretation of natural law is not only radically different, but inconsistent with the traditional view. This can be seen through the similarities and differences found when comparing Thomas Hobbes theory, and Thomas Aquinas’ theory in regards to their view of man’s ultimate goal, their definition of natural law in regards to its relationship with human rationality, and lastly how they view the meaning and relationship of divine providence and religion in natural law. The following pages will define natural law, and will analyze all three issues listed above through comparing and contrasting Hobbes and Aquinas’ view. Hobbes view is utilitarian. The Leviathan is the marking of when traditional natural law ends, and a new scientific version from a realistic perspective begins through Hobbes.

The roots of natural law lye in Aristotle’s doctrine that state hat ever substance or nature contains a telso, or in other words a “law of development” (Baumgarth, Regan 1988: xvii). Thomas Aquinas is known for being one of the most influential moral philosophers of natural law; his theory is based on Aristotle’s concentration on the final cause of things, which in turn created a new branch of theology dedicated solely to moral supremacy of the Catholic Church. (O’Connor, 1967: 5) The basic principles of natural law tradition is that all men should strive to do good, and evil should be avoided at all costs, because human nature strives to do good and have a “natural end” which can happen in life only when mans goal is of the vision of God after death (source). Aquinas sates that “…a man is ordained to an end of eternal happiness… directed to his end by a law given by God.” Add some text here.

Thomas Hobbes i...

... middle of paper ...

... that forbids them” (Hobbes, 1958: Ch. 13, 107). This view definitely conflicts with the Catholic Church’s and Thomas Aquinas view of natural law. They reveal that in the state of nature there is no supernatural being that can truly, mathematically defined good and bad or justice and injustice. This question then leads to arguably an even more interesting subject, Hobbes’ belief in divine providence.

Aquinas argues for the human consciousness of good and evil, and uses the following biblical quote in his argument: “Although they have no written law, yet they have the natural law, whereby each one knows, and is conscious of, what is good and what is evil” (a gloss on Rom. 2:14, cited in Aquinas, 1988: 19). The above thus implies that Hobbes does not share the same idea of divine providence, as Aquinas and is therefore not in line with the tradition of natural law.