Table of ContentsIntroductionNatural LawHuman WillEvilGoals, Ends, and Faulty ReasoningConclusionIntroductionThe Catholic Church teaches that God places natural law in every human being. Every conceived person connaturally possesses natural law (Maritain 13). For human beings, this natural law is part of human nature and it informs its possessor of what is good and what is evil. It teaches us to do good and avoid evil. The human will is therefore oriented towards desire and the good. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay One question arises, however. If every human being has natural law and is oriented toward good, why do humans commit evil? To explore this question, we must first understand natural law, the freedom of human will, and what exactly evil is. Natural Law In order to understand natural law, we must first agree on what we mean when we talk about law. According to Saint Thomas Aquinas, the law is “nothing other than an ordinance of reason for the common good, made by him who cares for the community, and promulgated” (Summa Theologiae I.II.90.4 .co).When this definition of law is applied to God, we find a perfect argument for relevance. God has a perfect intellect that can reason perfectly. He is the all-powerful master of the universe who desires only the supreme good of what he has created. By creating all things, he has access to everything that exists. If He wishes to enact a law to His creation, He can include that law in the nature of that creation. In essence, God is the perfect lawgiver. It is therefore clear that, since the law is "nothing other than a dictate of practical reason emanating from the ruler who governs a perfect community" (Summa Theologiae I.II.91.1.co), it is a law of God. “The world is governed by Divine Providence… [and] the entire community of the universe is governed by divine Reason” (Summa Theologiae I.II.91.1.co). When we look at the world around us, we see order and regularity as if a perfect rational intellect had designed it all. It is as if everything that exists follows a law that requires everything to work in harmony to promote the common good. God's role as creator and all-powerful ruler of the universe "has the nature of a law" (Summa Theologiae I.II.91.1.co). Since God exists outside of time and is eternal, his law “must be called eternal” (Summa Theologiae I.II.91.1.co), so there is an eternal law. To be clear, eternal law is not a law that limits or restrains God because God is a necessary being and "necessary things are not subject to eternal law" (Summa Theologiae I.II.93.4.) Creations of God, however, are contingent beings. Contingent beings must have a law imposed on them, if only to establish the form and nature of a being. Therefore, “whatever is in things created by God, whether contingent or necessary, is subject to eternal law” (Summa Theologiae I.II.93.4.sc). Some will say that since the whole of God is incomprehensible, we cannot understand the eternal law with which he governs creation. They hold that only God knows the eternal law. These people do not know that “a thing can be known in two ways: first, in itself; secondly, in its effects” (Summa Theologiae I.II.93.2.co). Although they are right that no one except God knows the whole of the eternal law, we recognize parts of the eternal law by its effects. Since all creation is governedby eternal law, we can recognize that part of the eternal law that applies to a created being by examining the nature and end of a created being. For example, the end of a rock must exist. The purpose of a plant, in addition to existing, is to live. The purpose of an animal, in addition to existing and living, is to perceive and react to sensory stimuli. Obviously, the whole of the eternal law is not present in any of these things, but each of these created beings participates in some part of the eternal law to the extent that their nature allows. Eternal law governed their nature. This participation in the eternal law in accordance with the nature of a being is called the natural law of being. Robert Sokolowski gives a good example of how natural laws work in non-rational beings when he talks about the end of beings: “The end of a tree is to grow, to sprout leaves, to nourish itself and to reproduce: be active and successful. like a tree, like an entity of this kind. The purpose of a zebra is to grow to maturity, feed, reproduce, and live with other zebras. Trees and zebras work well like trees and zebras when they act this way, and we know what a tree and a zebra are when we can tell what it means to act well in these kinds of things. A zebra may break its leg or be eaten by a lion, but such possibilities do not define what a zebra is. They are not part of what he is, of his essence which manifests itself most fully not when the zebra simply exists but when the zebra acts well" (Sokolowski 511-512) Of all of God's creation on Earth, human beings are the only ones with a rational soul. It is the nature of human beings to engage in rational thought. Like the zebra who achieves his end by acting well like a zebra by correctly using all his faculties, human beings achieve their end by correctly using all their faculties, especially their most advanced faculty, which is reason. “The ultimate end of man is happiness” (Summa Theologiae I.II.1.8.co). To achieve his end which is happiness, human beings must use all their faculties, including reason. Natural law, which guides every being to achieve its end, is present in every faculty that a being possesses. Natural law is therefore present in the rational faculties of human beings. Furthermore, since it is in the nature of rational beings to comprehend ideas, human beings are capable of reasoning and knowing natural laws, which no other being can do since it is not in their nature of reasoning or grasping ideas. One may ask: what does natural law have to do with morality? Why seek to know natural law rather than simply recognize its existence? According to Saint Thomas Aquinas, “natural law is nothing other than the participation of the rational creature in the eternal law” (Summa Theologiae I.II.91.2.co). God is all good and therefore the eternal law is all good. Participating in the eternal law is thus seeking good and allowing a being to flourish in the nature that God has given them. Natural law therefore helps human beings achieve happiness and avoid what compromises it. As St. Thomas Aquinas says, natural law tells us that “good must be done and pursued, and evil must be avoided” (Summa Theologiae I.II.94.2.co). By following this course of action, we can achieve happiness. Additionally, because natural law guides us to flourish in our nature, it is in our nature to desire to follow natural law. In other words, because following natural law is beneficial, human beings desire to follow it and therefore desire to do good and avoid evil. “When we say that man is a rational animal, we do not only mean that he is an animal that calculates and draws conclusions; we mean, more substantially, that he is an animal concerned with living well and not only with living” (Sokolowski 508). Saint Thomas Aquinas describes the different inclinations of natural law for human beings that guide them toward a good life. First, natural law entails an "inclination to good according to the nature which it has in common with all substances: inasmuch as every substance seeks the preservation of its own being, according to its nature: and because of this inclination, everything which is a means of preserving human life and of warding off its obstacles” (Summa Theologiae I.II.94.2.co). Second, “There is in man an inclination towards those things which belong to him more especially, according to that nature which he has in common with other animals… such as sexual intercourse, the education of offspring, etc.” (Summa Theologiae I.II.94.2.co). Third, “there is in man an inclination to good, according to the nature of his reason, the nature of which is proper to him: thus, man has a natural inclination. to know the truth about God, and to live in society: and in this respect, everything that pertains to this inclination belongs to natural law, for example, avoiding ignorance, avoiding offending those among whom one must live, and other similar things concerning the above inclination” (Summa Theologiae I.II.94.2.co) Those who do not believe in God can argue against the natural law saying that the first two inclinations are simply motivated instincts. by an atheistic evolution while the third inclination is the product of acquired habits and other learned principles. St. Thomas Aquinas disagrees, quoting St. Augustine: ““a habit is that by which something is done when it is necessary.” But such is not the natural law: since it is in children and the damned who cannot act according to it” (Summa Theologiae I.II.94.1.sc). The truth is that recognizing the existence of natural law does not necessarily require belief. in God. The testimony of natural law in human beings is given by extraordinary people who, having grown up in depraved communities with bad role models and raised by immoral people, demonstrate virtuous deeds. These people had no way to learn virtue and, more importantly, no reason to practice it, but they nevertheless found fulfillment and value in living according to these virtuous principles. “'Virtues are natural.' Therefore, virtuous acts are also a subject of natural law” (Summa Theologiae I.II.94.3.sc). But since these acts of virtue often go against the animal desires of the appetitive part of the soul and there is no one to teach virtue to many of those who practice it, natural law must be considered as inscribed “in the hearts” of those. who have become virtuous on their own. Jacques Maritain, speaking of the knowledge known to man, naturally says: “the precepts of natural law are known in an indemonstrable manner. This is how men are incapable of rationally accounting for and justifying their most fundamental moral beliefs” (Maritain 21). In other words, there are people who have common moral values ​​without any idea where these moral values ​​come from or what they are based on. These values ​​often contradict their animalistic desires and interests, but they still view these values ​​as true. It was as if these values ​​were part of the individual from the beginning, just like his limbs and organs. In this logic, “it must be said that natural law, with regard to general principles,is the same for all, both in rectitude and in knowledge” (Summa Theologiae I.II.94.4..co). The general principles of natural law are the same in every person. “The general principles, whether of speculative or practical reason, of truth or rectitude, are the same for all and are equally known to all” (Summa Theologiae I.II.94.4.co). These general principles cannot be taken away from a person: “natural law, in the abstract, can in no case be erased from the hearts of men” (Summa Theologiae I.II.94.6.co). In other words, a human being would not be a human being if the natural law of a human being could be subtracted from it. That being said, even though the general principles of natural law are universal, immutable, immovable and eternal, the conclusions that flow from these general principles are not always the same for each individual. Since the application of natural law requires reason, reaching the right conclusions about natural law depends on good reasoning. We will discuss later how these failures of reasoning occur and how they affect the conduct of the individual, but first we must agree on certain aspects of the human will. Human will “Man has free will” (Summa Theologiae I.II.83.1. co). This “free will is nothing other than the will” (Summa Theologiae I.II.83.4.sc) itself. “Some things act without judgment; like a stone goes down; and in the same way all things which lack knowledge. And some act by judgment, but not by free judgment; like brute animals… because he judges, not according to reason, but according to natural instinct” (Summa Theologiae I.II.83.1.co). As long as an animal is not deprived of its instincts, all non-rational animals of the same species will react in the same way to the same stimuli. A human being “acts by judgment, because by his power of apprehension he judges that something must be done.” avoided or sought” (Summa Theologiae I.II.83.1.co). A human's act of judgment "in the case of a particular act, does not arise from a natural instinct, but from an act of comparison in reason, therefore it acts according to a free judgment and retains the power to be inclined to various things” (Summa Theologiae I.II..83.1.co). This is why two human beings, faced with the same set of circumstances, can judge the situation in very different ways and be inclined to take different courses of action. One may reason correctly and the other incorrectly. We see this clearly during the “dialectical syllogisms and rhetorical arguments” (Summa Theologiae I.II.83.1.co). Human beings have differences of opinion driven by their different experiences and enabled by their rational minds. Therefore, “as man is rational, it is necessary that he have free will” (Summa Theologiae I.II.83.1.co). “The proper act of free will is choice: for we say that we have free will because we can take one thing while refusing another; and it's up to you to choose. (Summa Theologiae I.II.83.3.co). There are many other things that could be elucidated regarding the human will. In order to discuss the question "Why do humans commit evil if they know and desire good?" » it is enough to establish the freedom of the human will and its ability to choose what is good and what is evil. Which brings us to the final concept that needs to be examined: what exactly is evil? Evil In examining the nature of evil, Saint Thomas Aquinas compares it to its opposite nature, the nature of good. “The nature of good consists in perfection” (Summa Contra Gentiles I.39.5). Therefore “the nature of evil consists in imperfection” (Summa ContraGentiles I.39.5). To say that something is imperfect means that the thing is missing elements that should be attributed to it. In other words, evil is a deprivation of good. “Aquinas views evil or wickedness as a matter of deprivation” (Davies 205). Since God is universally perfect “there can be no defect or imperfection” (Summa Contra Gentiles I.39.5) in God and there can be no deprivation in God. So there is no evil in God. This is an important point because it establishes that no evil principles are included in the natural law since the natural law is a reflection in the eternal law and there can be no evil in the eternal law of the all-God Good. Evil “is violent”. and unnatural” (Summa Contra Gentiles I.39.7) but what is bad for a thing can be “natural to a thing according to something in it” (Summa Contra Gentiles I.39.7). For example, eating unhealthily is bad for the health of the body. But since unhealthy foods taste good, eating unhealthy foods is good for the sense of taste. With all of this in mind, we can finally address the question: why do humans commit evil if they know and desire good? Goals, Ends, and Faulty Reasoning No one chooses evil for evil's sake. Evil is violent and unnatural. Choosing evil for evil's sake would quickly weaken a person and cause them to perish. Instead, one chooses to do evil because one perceives that evil as good. Even a sadist or masochist who commits evil acts does not commit them for the pleasure of the acts themselves but for the pleasure he derives from those acts. At its most fundamental level, enjoyment and pleasure are a good. However, providing pleasure by causing suffering and pain is evil. A new question arises: how do these people come to consider these bad actions as good? If the human end is happiness, how did these people come to believe that their behavior would lead them to happiness? Professor Robert Sokolowski explains that in addition to having an end like all other beings endowed with a natural law, human beings can give birth to ends. Often these ends are deprived of good and are therefore evil. The difference between ends and endings is this: “an end, a telos, belongs to a thing in itself, while an end only appears when there are human beings. Goals are intentions, something we want and deliberate or act to achieve. The ends, on the other hand, are there, independently of all human wish and deliberation” (Sokolowski 508-509). “Goals arise when human beings thoughtfully set out to do something” (Sokolowski 509). Whereas “ends, on the other hand, are not born from human foresight. They are not born at all; they arise concomitantly with the things to which they belong” (Sokolowski 509). In other words, goals are the things a human being decides to strive for, while ends are what God has commanded a human being to strive for. Additionally, because human beings have free will, goal setting has a moral dimension. Our choices about what we set out to do and why we decide to do it can be good or bad. Good goals are those that conform to or, at least, do not contradict the ultimate end of man or the thing he uses. Evil designs are those which contradict and/or undermine the purpose of the man or thing he uses. The way people come to set a goal for themselves or other objects is the same way that natural law reasons. The human mind prefers sound logical arguments. General principles of lawnatural are the premises of moral arguments. These premises, when used in a valid argument, lead to a strong conclusion about moral action. In the case of goal setting, the conclusion is a good goal in accordance with the end of a being. We know, however, that people make errors in reasoning. Any philosophy professor who has graded undergraduate research papers can attest to the fact that human beings frequently engage in faulty reasoning. Furthermore, the general principles of natural law that serve as premises, although known, can be ignored because humans have free will to ignore them. Most often, it is the third type of inclination of natural law, which concerns more complex social considerations, that is ignored. The conclusion that results from such deficient internal reasoning is unfounded. After including some of the general principles of natural law (since it is impossible to completely ignore and erase natural law), the deliberator will falsely see the conclusion as good and therefore consistent with his goal of happiness. For example, the second inclination of natural law states that sexual intercourse is good. The third inclination of natural law indicates when and with whom these sexual relations can take place. If one considers both sets of natural law inclinations, he comes to the conclusion that sexual intercourse with one's spouse at the appropriate time is a good. On the other hand, if one ignores some or all of the general principles of the third type of inclinations and considers only the second type of inclinations of natural law, he might come to the conclusion that the evil act of the rape is good. This is not to say that the conclusions of human reasoning cannot be trusted, but rather that all moral deliberation and discernment of natural law should include an examination of whether all premises have been included and whether those premises are validly used in the argument. This is exactly why the Catholic Church calls upon the wisdom of ecumenical councils and synods when developing teachings on morality and faith. The multitude of people allows errors in reasoning to be identified and rectified. It is worth exploring further how it is that certain premises are ignored and how failures of reasoning occur. Sokolowski gives four examples of how people reason incorrectly when setting a goal. The first is when we are impulsive. These are people who “have not developed this power of reason, this power of practical categority. Their future collapses into their present. Children are naturally impulsive, but some people remain childish even as they get older” (Sokolowski 515). The second type of reasoning failure occurs when a person "may have become sufficiently adult to establish distinct goals and determine the steps that lead to them, but we may still be unable to appreciate the presence of other people with their goals. We allow only what we want to enter our consciousness. We remain unable to see that others have their points of view and their needs, that we are not the only agents involved in our situations. To fail to be “objective” in this way is to be what I would like to call “morally obtuse” as opposed to being vicious…such obtuseness is a failure of practical thought” (Sokolowski 515). An example of such a person is someone who double parks a car. We assume that he did not want to hurt another person, but that in deciding to park his car he did not take into account the end of.