WORKSHEET 3 – DISCUSSION POINTS

Instructions: Read the questions carefully. Answer the following questions on the
spaces provided. Limit your answers with 4 paragraphs, 5 sentences each.

1. Are there other ways that the word “natural” is used to justify a particular way of
behaving? How do these approaches compare to the theory of Aquinas? 10pts.

Commercials might try to persuade us on "all-natural whole grain goodness," "natural

remedies," or "non-toxic, all-natural household cleansers" — but what does natural really
mean? In everyday language, the word natural is often used to describe goods that are
wholesome or not made by humans, “or in agreement with the character or makeup of, or
circumstances surrounding, someone or something”, according to Oxford dictionary.
Under the natural law theory, only laws that are just are to be followed, while
unjust laws may be ignored. Natural law theorists believe that it is a basic principle
of human nature to want to live a good life. But the thoughts and emotions that best
served us were programmed into our consciousness and continue to drive many aspects of
human behavior today.

You might be familiar with the term conscience. Today the question must be asked: What is
meant by the term “conscience,” and why should a person be bound to act by his
conscience? First, it must be understood that conscience is not a feeling. With the use of
reason, a person arrives at moral decisions that are not superficial choices which fade as
do feelings. The moral conscience is a person’s judgment about a given action’s ordering to
man’s ultimate end based on the person’s knowledge of the action, its end, and
circumstances. Each person draws from various sources for this knowledge, such as
common sense, basic science, history, law, experience, and religion.

When pressed, many will say, “If my conscience tells me that a particular action is all right, I
can do it.” This is just one way of saying “If it feels good, do it”. We think that it is “natural”
because that idea sprung from us. And that sometimes our conscience is inclined to doing
things “right”. Many of us (not all of us) believe that the conscience is a teacher, not a pupil;
that it is the source of morality. But the belief that the conscience is a moral authority in its
own right has resulted many of us in supporting and promoting many intrinsic evils,
including contraception, sterilization, abortion, homosexual activity, pornography and
euthanasia.

Aquinas wrote most extensively about natural law. He stated, "the light of reason is placed

by nature [and thus by God] in every man to guide him in his acts." Therefore, human
beings, alone among God's creatures, use reason to lead their lives. This is natural law. And
based on what I’ve explained, the moral conscience is a person’s judgment about a given
action’s ordering to man’s ultimate end based on the person’s knowledge of the action, its
end, and circumstances. Our conscience sometimes serves as the source of morality, in
which we based our natural behavior.
2. Can you think of human laws that are proper extensions of the natural law? Explain how
this is so. Can you think of other human laws that violate the natural law? Explain how this
is so. 10pts

When one mentions "natural law," some ask, "where are these natural laws?" Are they "out
there" somewhere? This natural law account of moral "principles of society" assumes, of
course, that "happiness . . . peace and prosperity" are appropriate ends. The natural law is
law with moral content, more general than human law. Natural law deals with necessary
rather than with variable things. In working out human laws, human practical reason
moves from the general principles implanted in natural law to the contingent commands of
human law.

Human rights allow a person to live with dignity and in peace, away from the abuses that
can be inflicted by abusive institutions or individuals. But the fact remains that there are
rampant human rights violations around the world. To further promote the importance of
human rights in the Philippines, December 4 to 10 of each year is marked as National
Human Rights Consciousness Week via Republic Act No. 9201. The rights of Filipinos can be
found in Article III of the 1987 Philippine Constitution. Also called the Bill of Rights, it
includes 22 sections which declare a Filipino citizen’s rights and privileges that the
Constitution has to protect, no matter what. The passed issue over the killings and
displacement of Lumads, however, has put the government’s way of handling human rights
issues under the spotlight.

All problems result from the violation of natural law. Problems of national health, crime,
the economy, education, and the environment — all problems plaguing individual and
national life have their origin in the widespread violation of natural law by the whole
population. When one considers all the protections granted us by modern governments, it
is surprising that so many human rights violations still exist; for example, there is still
forced child labour and slave trading going on in our world. One violation, which often falls
under the radar of human rights protections is abortion, even though it is performed over
100,000 times a year in Canada. Abortion is a direct violation of every human's right to life,
protected by the UN Human Rights Declaration Article 3, because it deprives pre-born
humans of their very lives.

The UN Declaration of Human Rights clearly states: "Everyone has the right to life, liberty
and security of person". When one considers all the protections granted us by modern
governments, it is surprising that so many human rights violations still exist; for example,
there is still forced child labour and slave trading going on in our world. One violation,
which often falls under the radar of human rights protections is abortion, even though it is
performed over 100,000 times a year in Canada. Abortion is a direct violation of every
human's right to life, protected by the UN Human Rights Declaration Article 3, because it
deprives pre-born humans of their very lives. The UN Declaration of Human Rights clearly
states: "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person" 

WORKSHEETS 3 – PROCESSING QUESTIONS

1. Are there current scientific developments— for example, in biology—that

challenge the understanding of nature presented by Aquinas? List 10
researches/contents that talks about scientific developments that challenge the
understanding of nature presented by Aquinas.

1. Theory of Evolution by Charles Darwin - a fact contradicting spiritual legends of creation

and that its course, a natural selection, was automatic with no room for divine design.

2. Stephen Hawking's "Brief Answers to Big Questions" -states that science has a more
compelling explanation than a divine creator.

3. The Big Bang Theory- supported by numerous unobserved assumptions, and most
importantly, contradicts the biblical assumptions of creation.

4. Francisco Ayala’s argument from Tuesday's New York Times - he said, evolution “is more
consistent with belief in a personal god than intelligent design. If God has designed organisms,
he has a lot to account for.”

5. Harvard geneticist, Richard Lewontin stated in a 1997 book review- “The problem is to get

[people] to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world, the demons that exist
only in their imaginations, and to accept a social and intellectual apparatus, Science, as the
only begetter of truth.”

6. Dr. Herbert A. Hauptman at a recent scientific conference at City College of New York- a
student in the audience rose to ask the panelists an unexpected question: "Can you be a
good scientist and believe in God?" "No!" declared Herbert A. Hauptman. Belief in the
supernatural, especially belief in God, is not only incompatible with good science, Dr.
Hauptman declared, "this kind of belief is damaging to the well-being of the human race."

7. Dr Andrew Harman’s statement in an ABC News science article- I don't see how you can
be a scientist and believe in God, although several of my colleagues do. "Science is about
seeking truth and testing a hypothesis. I don't believe you can prove the existence of God”
8. Particle Physicist Victor Stenger in his 2007 book God: The Failed Hypothesis.  (To make his
position clear, he gave the book the subtitle How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist.)- he
argued, less convincingly, against the existence of a deist God who created the universe
and its laws and then stood back and watched it run. For Stenger, this theoretical possibility
was evidence that God isn’t needed for Creation.

9. Rosalind Franklin, who helped pioneer the use of X-ray diffraction, was born into a Jewish
family in London. In letters to her father, Franklin made it clear that she seriously doubted
the existence of an all powerful creator, or life after death. When her father accused her of
making science her religion, Franklin told him that she had a different definition of faith- “In
my view, all that is necessary for faith is the belief that by doing our best we shall come nearer to
success and that success in our aims (the improvement of the lot of mankind, present and
future) is worth attaining. I maintain that faith in this world is perfectly possible without faith in
another world...I see no reason to believe that a creator of protoplasm or primeval matter, if
such there be, has any reason to be interested in our insignificant race in a tiny corner of the
universe, and still less in us, as still more insignificant individuals.” 

10. Albert Einstein, one of the most well-known physicists of the 20th century, in a 1954
essay for NPR- Einstein wrote: “The most beautiful thing we can experience is the Mysterious —
the knowledge of the existence of something unfathomable to us, the manifestation of the most
profound reason coupled with the most brilliant beauty. I cannot imagine a God who rewards
and punishes the objects of his creation, or who has a will of the kind we experience in
ourselves. I am satisfied with the mystery of life’s eternity and with the awareness of — and
glimpse into — the marvelous construction of the existing world together with the steadfast
determination to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the reason that manifests itself in
nature. This is the basics of cosmic religiosity, and it appears to me that the most important
function of art and science is to awaken this feeling among the receptive and keep it alive.”
2. Is it possible to maintain a natural law theory without believing in the divine
source? Why or why not? Write your answer in 2 paragraphs.

Natural law is a theory of natural rights based on the supposed state of nature. It is a norm
that encompasses a tradition of moral and legal philosophy. It is impossible to maintain a
natural law theory without believing in the divine source, for law, as Aquinas defines it, is a
rule of action put into place by one who has care of the community and as God has care of
the entire universe, God’s choosing to bring into existence beings who can act freely and in
accordance with principles of reason is enough to justify our thinking of those principles of
reason as law.

Is it natural to be homosexual? Is it natural to be violent? Is it natural to commit suicide?

These are some of the questions that need to be consider why natural law cannot be
maintained without divine source. It is universally accepted that to kill someone is wrong,
and that to punish someone for killing that person is right, and even necessary, for it is the
natural law that needs to be follow and clearly based from the commandment of God.
These laws were also practiced with ancient people right before this era. We tend to know
what is morally right and wrong, we know immediately, by inclination, that there are variety
of things that count as good and thus to be pursued. It is true that we are the recipient of
the natural law so we are free to act for ourselves and we have the right to live our lives. On
the other hand, we are also accountable with these actions and whenever it is wrong or
right, we should take the consequences
Empty Outline 3

Instructions: This space is provided for your 500 words work journal. At the end of
the chapter you need to right 500 words about the things you have learned, your
thoughts and even your questions about the concept being discussed.

Have you ever told a lie? Or taken something that didn't belong to you? If so, you probably
weren't proud of how you acted in those moments. But why? What was it about doing
something 'wrong' that made you feel bad deep, down inside?

Natural law theory is a legal theory that recognizes law and morality as deeply connected, if
not one and the same. Morality relates to what is right and wrong and what is good and
bad. Natural law theorists believe that human laws are defined by morality, and not by an
authority figure, like a king or a government. Therefore, we humans are guided by
our human nature to figure out what the laws are, and to act in conformity with those laws.

The term 'natural law' is derived from the belief that human morality comes from nature.
Everything in nature has a purpose, including humans. Our purpose, according to natural
law theorists, is to live a good, happy life. Therefore, actions that work against that purpose
-- that is, actions that would prevent a fellow human from living a good, happy life -- are
considered 'unnatural', or 'immoral'.

In every man there is an innate sense of right and wrong buried within him. This sense
guides people, culture, and even whole countries to act in certain ways. Thomas Aquinas
called this innate sense the natural law. The natural law is established by God in order to
make men more virtuous. When examined closely it is found that the natural law contains
the precept of all law and, is at odds with certain laws that exist today, specifically abortion in
other countries. The “natural law is appointed by reason” and given to everyone. This is very
contrary to popular belief that right and wrong are comparable; however, the idea of an
absolute right makes sense. For instance, it is naturally understood that it is wrong to
murder.

The concept of morality under the natural law theory is not subjective. This means that the
definition of what is 'right' and what is 'wrong' is the same for everyone, everywhere.

The natural law approach to solving ethical dilemmas begins with the basic belief that
everyone has the right to live their life. From there, natural law theorists draw a line
between an innocent life and the life of an 'unjust aggressor.' The natural law theory
recognizes the legal and moral concept of self-defense, which is often used to justify acts of
war.

Natural law theory is not always a simple school of thought. It should come as no surprise
that the ethics associated with natural law are equally complicated. The idea that the
definition of what is 'right' and what is 'wrong' is the same for 'every person' is sometimes
difficult to apply to complex ethical dilemmas. For example, You are a passenger on a ship
sailing across the ocean. Suddenly, your ship is overtaken in a powerful storm. You escape
to a lifeboat with 25 other passengers. You notice that four of the passengers are badly
injured, and unlikely to survive for more than a week. You also know that the lifeboat only
has enough food and water to sustain 22 passengers. Some of the other passengers are
considering throwing the four injured passengers overboard in order to save the other
survivors. If you were a natural law theorist, how would you solve this ethical dilemma?

Acts of violence, like murder, work against our 'humanly purpose' to live a good life.
Therefore, throwing the injured passengers overboard is an unnatural act and contrary to
natural law. Even if their deaths would ensure the survival of the 22 other passengers, the
act of murder is against our human nature. Natural law forbids killing the injured
passengers under any circumstances. A law against murder is a just law under the natural
law theory. Appropriate law is always aimed at general good, is in compliance with
Aristotle, the purpose of human life, the common interest is happiness. It provides the
necessary basis for the civil law, for civil law forbids many acts, such as rape and torture
and slavery, because they are morally wrong and harmful to human nature’s health and
flourishing. Without a natural law basis for civil law, civil law becomes based on power,
whether collective or individual.