Thomas Aquinas Argument

958 Words4 Pages

Thomas Aquinas was one of the few philosophers to interpret theology as a whole distinguishing the difference between theology and philosophy by explaining Law in general in a detailed account, focusing on kinds of law which he classified as Eternal, Human, Divine and Natural law. In summation to these readings, Thomas Aquinas provided adequate information and supporting evidence proving why people obey the law and why they should. As a philosopher, he understands and describes law as, "being influenced by certain actions that man chooses to act upon or refrain from, which is entirely up to us or as he may put it, an ordered rule" (Aquinas, 47). But, I would like to narrow it down to two important laws discussed by Aquinas, which are Human and Divine law as they are key elements in proving my thesis and how the reading from John Patrick Shanley’s Doubt: A Parable is related and interpreted. "Human law cannot prohibit, or punish every evil action" (Aquinas, 47), stated Augustine which is the main focus when looking at the reading Doubt. In this context, Aquinas shows how this statement by Augustine is believed to be true, because Father Flynn is portrayed as being a Divine Law interpreter, he knew that …show more content…

Thomas explained Natural law as being born with or "what nature has taught all animals"(Aquinas, 50). In a way this Law provides the satisfaction of doing what you know first, acting upon a situation straight from the soul. Thomas suggests, "in order for Natural Law to succeed, reasoning should be implemented in Human Law because of Natural Law being in a way more perfect" (Aquinas, 57). Natural Law simply explains the type of evil humans should avoid and the good to be done. In Doubt, Father Flynn proves how natural law was also part of his decision, because we are humans and make mistakes he didn't avoid the evil which evolved from teaching physical