Difference Between Morality and Law - Assignment Example

Philosophy Part I Aquinas believes that there is no difference between morality and law. To him, a good person is required to act according to the law. In addition, the lawgivers, in all societies, determine what is wrong and right. Therefore, law is used to shape morality. Natural law is a concept brought by Aquinas in relation to creation of moral values. He defines natural law as “an ordinance of reason for the common good made by a person who has the care of the community, and promulgated”. In its definition, Aquinas reveals four components which include an ordinance of reason; an end to the common good; and the person with the care for the community; and promulgation of law (Copleston 124). However, Nietzsche critique Aquinas’ understanding of morality, in the context of national law, as one that does not agree with his own understanding. Nietzsche understands morality based on two claims. The first one is that morality, as an objectively justified standpoint, delivers objective truth about what people ought to do. The second one is that morality is based on the idea that people are responsible for what they do because they have free will. Nietzsche believes that morality is a bad thing and dangerous because it does not enhance life. Instead, it prevents people from accomplishing the advanced forms of life; which he refers to as the ‘splendour and highest power of the human type’. In addition, Nietzsche claims that people who are capable of realizing such advanced forms of life are ‘higher types’ or ‘free spirits’. Therefore, demanding people’s morality is precisely like encroaching the higher sort of a human being (Copleston 101). Aquinas argues that natural law is an ordinance of reason in the sense that it involves measures and rules of acts that induces people to act or restrains them from acting. As a result it fosters their moral values. However, the measure and rule of people’s action is the reason. Furthermore, it is the major principle of human acts because it involves reason for directing to the end; which is the major principle in every matter of action. According to Aquinas, it therefore, follows that natural law pertains to reason. He also understands an ordinance of reason as the practical reason. This is because it gives practical directions involving how a person is required to act, instead of speculative reason, which give people the propositional knowledge of the reality (Copleston 212). However, it follows that, law directs actions while practical reason govern the way people ought to act. Therefore, natural law is greatly connected to reason. Nietzsche’s understanding of morality, based on natural law, is totally different from that of Aquinas. This is because while Aquinas claims that moral values are as a result of natural law, which is as a result of an ordinance of reason, Nietzsche claims that morality creates its own status. He says that law ignores the fact that each person has his or her level of indifferences. Therefore what can be good to a certain person can be bad for another. Nietzsche believes that it is immoral to conclude that what is good for a particular person is good for another because what can be right for a certain person, can be wrong for another person. With this regards, there should be no measures and rules to restrict or direct the actions of the people. Instead, self-understanding should govern the actions of an individual. It is important because people are different; different things are bad or good to different people. Furthermore, Nietzsche says that an individual may flourish depending on the particularities of such a person. He believes that for a person to know what to do in order to flourish, he or she needs to understand what makes him or herself. Therefore, the person needs an accurate assessment of his or her character and nature (Copleston 193). Aquinas says that people involved with practical reason need to specify an end at which their action aims; an objective or goal that they hope to achieve. It is the reason that directs them to take the steps needed for the achievement of their end. This end is referred by Aquinas as the ‘common good’. He believes that natural law belongs to a principle of human acts. This is because it is their measure and rule (Copleston 201). Since reason is a human acts’ principle, law need to be referred. Now in practical matters, the first principle- an object to a practical reason- is the last end. In this case, the last end to human life is happiness. Eventually, the law principally need to regards its relationship with happiness. Aquinas, therefore, believes that happiness is the last in the line of human action but the first principle for practical reason. Consequently, the end of what all people do when acting according to reason is happiness. This implies that since law is “an ordinance of reason” it also needs to aim at happiness. However, Aquinas argues that this happiness should not be for group of persons or individual, but the general happiness for the community (Copleston 241). The notion of ‘common good’ contradicts with what Nietzsche understands about morality. To him morality as a result of natural law should not be a common good rather as an individual good. This is because an individual has a self-understanding character responsible of taking charge of his or her own ways of life rather than being controlled by anyone. Self-understanding of a person involves understanding of who a person is and what he or she can make of his or her self. However, Nietzsche believes that to flourish, a person must set his or her own goals. These goals should express who a person is and reflect what he or she can make of his or her self. Therefore, there is no need for a natural law to direct peoples’ actions and govern what they ought to act. Instead, an individual should be creative and create his or her own goals that express creativity. It is through this creativity that a person will recognize his or her potentials without being guided and restricted in life. Nietzsche argues that even if a person’s efforts are relatively mediocre, he or she can still express who he or she is in reality (Copleston 206). Aquinas believes that natural law, that shapes a person’s morality, should be created by a person caring for the community. On the other hand, Nietzsche believes that morality should not be the creation of a single person or a group of people trying to dominate other groups. Instead it should be independent in the sense that individuals should create morality depending on what they want and think. According to Aquinas natural law regards the order from the common good. Order is made by the whole people and therefore creation of law involves the whole people or a public personage responsible for caring the entire community. He claims that the relationship between the lawgivers and the people being ruled is natural. This is because there are people who naturally fit for the rule position while others fit the position of being ruled. Those under ruling position are responsible of providing order and unity required for those under commands. This helps those under command to achieve intellectual, material, and moral well-being. In addition, Aquinas believes that the ruler need to lead by instructions and example and that he has the power to threaten those transgressing the law, through penalties in order to compel obedience (Copleston 133). The power to deprive people of their liberty, property, or life, was therefore annexed to the ruler by divine authorization. However, Nietzsche believes that natural law that is created by a lawgiver thwart excellence for those being under command. He claims that natural law demands an individual to comply with values, ideals, duties, and norms irrespective of whether it will conflict with what seems good to such an individual or not. (Copleston 177). In his definition of natural law, Aquinas believes that it must be promulgated. A law is imposed through measures and rules. However, imposing a measure or rule require its application to those being measured and ruled. Similarly, in order for a law to have a binding force it needs to be applied to people being ruled. This application requires notification of the law to the people through promulgation. Furthermore, promulgation is important for the law in obtaining its force. The aim of promulgation is based on normative instead of pragmatic. Aquinas believes that it is the obligation of people to obey just laws and that punishments need to be done to disobedient individuals. This binding force is referred to as normative (Copleston 161). Part II ≠ in the Apology, how does Socrates criticize the supposed wisdom of the craftsmen? Socrates criticizes craftsmen as being wiser than him. His reputation has been brought about by the fact that he had a particular kind of wisdom. This is evident even from the god at Delphi who confirmed the nature and existence of Socrates’ wisdom. Socrates says that at one time Chairephon, one of his best friends and impulsive in any given course of action, went to Delphi to ask the oracle if there was any person wiser than Socrates. The oracle said that the god confirmed that no other person was wise than Socrates. This response made Socrates investigate on the level of his knowledge by comparing himself with other people with reputations. The results of his investigations show that none of the reputable people were wise than him. However, Socrates discovered that the craftsmen were wise than him. He also says that they were wise than those who had high level of reputation. This is because the craftsmen possessed knowledge of very many fine things yet they did not claim that they knew much. The reason as to why Socrates view the most reputable people as not being wise than him, is because they think of themselves as being wise, but they are not. Socrates says that none of them, including himself, knows something that is worthwhile as craftsmen does, and if they do not know, they do not think of knowing. Craftsmen prefer to be as they are and when successful, they do not think of themselves as being very wise. ≠ Aquinas argues that human law requires the support of both divine and natural law. Why? Human law requires the order from the common good which is created by the whole people or a public personage representing the whole community. A common good provide general moral principles that all people are required to follow. Furthermore, these principles act as practical directions for people’s acts and govern the way they ought to act. However, human law also require the support of divine law. This is the natural relationship that exists between the ruler and the people being ruled. In a divine law there are individuals who naturally fit for the ruling position while others fit on the position of being ruled. The rulers have the obligation of creating order and unity for those being ruled. Divine laws provide the measures and rules that help those being ruled to achieve intellectual, material, and moral well-being. The rulers exercising divine law need to lead by instructions and example. Furthermore, the divine law gives them the power to threaten those transgressing the law, through penalties in order to compel obedience. ≠ how does Machiavelli defend the importance of “effectual truth” against other claims? Machiavelli argues that “effectual truth” reveals the reality of the political world rather than how it should be. In his work on the “effectual truth” Machiavelli contravenes all social respectable forms of political notions. For instance, he says that it is safe to fear a prince instead of loving him. This is because subjects love the prince at their own pleasure while fear him at his own pleasure. Machiavelli, further, defends the “effectual truth” by claiming that cruelty and violence are important means for effective political actions. He says that Moses and Romulus were the most famous princes in history. They were the most successful founders of republics, religions and empires. Their success was determined by their horrendous crimes which earned them immortal fame. In his work on “the effectual truth” Machiavelli also argues that he is formulating unprecedented political doctrine that will help modern politicians succeed in their political game. For instance, he says that it will assist in development of new orders and modes. In addition, it will help in wielding fraud and force that will assist in overcoming sway of fortune over the external world. Machiavelli relates fortune with unexpected events that originate from conditions of human affairs. By knowing the effective political truth, the prince or a political leader is be able to develop laws and impose order. He will also have the courage and power to eliminate individuals who prevents him from achieving his goals. ≠what is prerogative power? Why does Locke insist it is necessary but dangerous to a republic? Prerogative power is the ability of an executive to protect the public good by acting in cases which seems difficult for legislature to act upon. Prerogative also gives the executive the power to act on areas where the law is ineffective or even act against the law itself. Locke insists that prerogative is necessary to the republic because at certain circumstances it can be used to safe public good in cases where there is a contradictions with the national law. For instance, in a case where a residence house is attacked by the fire, and the law do not allow pulling down of a neighbour house, prerogative can apply in order to allow pulling down the neighbour house and preventing the spread of the fire to the rest of the houses. However, prerogative power can be dangerous to the republic. This is because it is not usually bound by the law. As a result an executive can assert great authority either over the citizens or the legislative. This may lead to great consequences in cases of national crisis. Work Cited Copleston. “Friedrich Nietzsche.” Philosophy 17.67 (1942): 231-244. Print. Read More