Aquinas, Hobbes, and Locke’s Perspectives on Natural and Human Law

Introduction

St. Thomas Aquinas described the law as an ordinance of reason promulgated by a community leader for the common good. Law is a rational plan of action. It encompasses rules and measures of activities that guide a person to act or restrain from acting. There are various categories of law, including eternal, human, divine, and natural laws. Eternal law refers to the celestial wisdom of God, which governs everything and directs the common good. This law is God’s plan to control all creations to His perpetual salvific plan to be blameless and holy before him. On the other hand, Divine law refers to historical laws of scriptures given to humans through self-revelation of God. It is divided into New Law (from the new testament) and Old Law (from the Old Testament). The new law perfects the old law through the teachings and commands of Jesus¹. God governs humans by sharing his rules according to his love and wisdom in divine law.

Natural law refers to the participation of a reasonable being in the eternal law. It is the translation of eternal law by man through instituting principles governed by human nature. Human law is an individual’s judicial translation of natural law. It is the interpretation of natural law from various perspectives. It forms the foundation for civil and moral law². This report will discuss human law and natural law as perceived by Thomas Aquinas, Thomas Hobbes, and John Locke. It will compare and contrast their perceptions of the two laws and explain how they influence human action and decision-making, especially how they view the role of law in society.

A Comparison of Aquinas, Hobbes and Locke’s Perceptions on Human and Law

Thomas Aquinas and Locke perceive human law as a derivative of natural law, while Hobbes’s outlook is legal positivism. Aquinas explains that natural law is eternal, universal, and objective. It is natural law because it comprises reasons issued by divine law, “higher reason.” Natural laws are absolute and permanent throughout periods. Rules in natural law remain substantially valid throughout history³. These sentiments are echoed by Locke, who believes that the government should use people’s natural rights to form just laws for their subjects.

On the other hand, Hobbes’s discussion on natural law is based on legal positivism contractarian theory, which is different from Aquinas and Locke’s outlook. Hobbes postulated that what human beings are after is happiness, which is subject to controversy, but a broad accord could be created around their fears. He observed that natural laws were created as guidelines for rational human beings who sought to prosper and survive. Therefore, according to Hobbes, natural laws were created by considering humankind’s natural rights. Hobbes posits that humans must obey the sovereign’s orders (human law) for natural law to prevail⁴. In his opinion, the ultimate source of law is from the sovereign, which does not need to be founded on morality; it needs legal positivism.

Thomas Aquinas sees humans as driven by the greater good, while Thomas Hobbes states that the need for power drives humans. He posits that every individual is destined to live by his practical nature directed by reason. Natural law articulates a person’s dignity and postulates the foundation of their rights and duties. The first precept of natural law is the continuous pursuit of good and avoidance of evil. All other principles of natural law refer back to the first precept. According to Aquinas, the church is the first transcriber of natural law through the magisterium. He concludes that grace and revelation are vital for humanity because they are prone to sin. It is essential for humans of all creeds to know moral truths with certainty and free from error. The main argument of Hobbes was humans’ need for power directing their actions.

Hobbes, Aquinas, and Locke view natural laws as precepts of human reason. In Leviathan and De Cive, Hobbes opinionates that natural raw is a general law or precept developed from reason. Human beings are prohibited from doing what is destructive to them and undertaking actions that preserve their lives. He establishes that there are nineteen general laws founded on the above principle⁵. Similarly, Aquinas and Locke have stated that society’s need to create harmony and stability has been used to formulate wise and just laws without which there will be chaos and destruction.

Hobbes’s natural law can be viewed as deliberated from egoistic psychology and materialist utilitarian perspective with rational self-interest calculation, while Aquinas and Locke’s perceptions are based on religious beliefs. The moral and political principles and philosophies put forth by Hobbes radically diverge from the previous outlooks of natural and human law, which primarily focused on Christian morals. His discernment of human nature and ultimate goal to do good, his understanding of human rationality and definition of natural law, and his perception of religion and divine providence departure from the traditional views of natural law postulated by Thomas Aquinas and John Locke⁶.

The perceptions provided by the three philosophers are based on their religions and era. Aquinas is a Roman Catholic saint, and this shaped his outlook on the divine, eternal, and natural laws, which led him to conclude that human laws were created with these three laws in mind. Similarly, Locke’s perception of equality and the dynamics of the governed and the state were influenced by his religious teachings as a Protestant Christian. On the other hand, Hobbes’s outlooks were based on his political positivism and arguable atheism. Philosophers such as Skinner have excused Hobbes’s outlook by referring to it as a prototype of utilitarianism, and it will be amiss to judge Hobbes’s perceptions without considering his era. Skinner concludes that taking a deontological interpretation of Hobbes’ perceptions removes any significant contact points between Hobbes’s intellectual milieu and his being. He justifies this by stating that it is paradoxical to look at Hobbes without the context of his timeline and whatever he wrote was contemporary in his era⁷.

John Locke’s outlook on natural law combines Aquinas and Hobbes’s philosophies. He revised Hobbes’s perceptions using Aquinas’s opinions. He postulated that if the state went against natural law and did not protect its people’s liberties, lives, and property, the people are mandated without ramifications to overthrow that government and create a new one⁸. As much he focused on natural laws, the context of most of his literature was the protection of natural rights. Jeremy Waldron observed that Locke’s philosophies are from a Protestant Christian perspective⁹. In Locke’s view, natural law was the same as biblical ethics, life, and teachings of Jesus and admonitions of St. Paul.

The Perceptions’ Influence Societal Roles

General moral principles of nature are considered when making jurisdictional laws. Aquinas deduces that human law interprets natural law from various perspectives. It forms the foundation for civil and moral law. Government laws use the precepts of natural law to detect practical reason to its subjects. Human laws are not made for individual morality, and legislations should only occur when the vices of an individual threaten the wellbeing of others. Rules of a jurisdiction consider the general moral principles of nature and customize them to their respective states. For example, the hatred of murder is punishable by human law.

Both the government and the governed work together to formulate and enforce laws. According to Thomas Aquinas, all human laws are derivations of natural law. The lawmaker, wise and just, must exercise their prudence and wisdom to create just rules and conform to the higher regulations- eternal and natural. These laws are designed to form the backbone of society. Therefore, the citizens use caution, wisdom, and care to deliberate if the formulated laws are just and applicable to their community. An unjust law is not rooted in the natural and eternal law. He explains that an unjust law is enforced on a minority group, and they had no part in creating or enacting it because their right to vote was hampered. For example, legally keeping slaves as a majority in the society is an unjust law because the slaves, a minority, had no right to vote otherwise.

Harmony and justice are the crucial precepts in lawmaking. Aquinas postulates that there is no ready-made formula appropriate for all cases to be utilized by citizens and lawmakers to decide which law is unjust and justifiable. The two indispensable guides to determine the justice or impartiality of law is wisdom and experience. A state should endeavor to provide the necessary conditions where humans may live in harmony and justice. Rules set in a community should be conducive for its citizens’ spiritual and material wellbeing. To achieve this harmony, laws should be made to attain fundamental human goals in mind. The enactment of human laws that conform to ultimate human justice that men must abide by to fulfill their purpose in the earthly and heavenly city is the Sine qua non of an honest government¹⁰.

However, this outlook has been criticized by scholars such as Wolfgang Friedman. He states that if human law that is not derived from natural and eternal law is unjust, then laws such as denying women’s right to vote and withholding certain rights from military and public servants should be voided because they are divergent from natural law. Nonetheless, Aquinas outlook concludes that as natural law is derived from eternal, divine, and human law derived from the former, they are explicit statements from God to govern and direct man in all their actions, and straying from these laws can cause havoc in the society¹¹.

Universal observation of laws regardless of the penalty. Aquinas did not believe in the existence of purely penal law. The individual’s conscience does not bind purely penal laws. Instead, the individual only observes the law to avoid paying the penalty when they get caught. They are not ad poenam but ad culpam¹². Violation of traffic law when you might not harm anyone and not paying duties when passing goods through customs are examples of purely penal law. These laws do not obligate an individual’s conscience, and they only conform to them to avoid the punishment they will endure once they get caught. Thomas Aquinas does not cite or acknowledge the existence of penal law in his literature. However, from his perspective, all human laws are natural and eternal law derivatives and were created for the common good; all laws should be observable regardless of the penalty. Failure to enact these laws can be dangerous and disruptive to the general welfare of the community.

Ideologies of human and natural law are used in political endeavors. John Locke uses the bible to put forth his points on natural law. For example, he justifies his support of fundamental human equality, including the sexes equality, using Genesis chapter 1 verse 26-28. He explains that human beings are created free equally, and therefore, the government is under the control of the governed and should be formed to serve its subjects and not the other way round. Thomas Jefferson echoed his support of unalienable rights in the declaration of independence. Jefferson attested that every human being was created equal, and their creator endowed them with inalienable rights, including the pursuit of happiness, liberty, and life¹³. The American revolutionaries, when justifying independence, used Locke’s philosophy on equality and the government requiring consent from the governed.

Why Aquinas Views Should Be Favored

Aquinas describes the four laws, human, divine, eternal, and natural, each as a prerequisite of the next. In his definition, human law is a product of natural law, instigated by eternal law. In his descriptions, eternal law comes first, then natural and human laws. Divine law is revered rules of God to man, and natural law is the imprint of these laws in the hearts of men.

His definitions provide a clear guideline of his mindset with tangible evidence, making it more believable to the proponents and opponents. For example, his defiance of penal law shows his perceptions of the greater good. Unlike other philosophers such as Hobbes, he believes that following rule should be from one’s conscience to prevent disruption and jeopardy of other members of the society and should be observed regardless of the punishment. Additionally, his positive outlook rather than pessimism (like Hobbes) shows positivity rather than egoistic notions.

Aquinas’s perceptions should be favored because they are more expansive than Locke and Hobbes and form the basis for developing their perceptions. Hobbes used Aquinas outlooks to create his perceptions, albeit in contradiction. On the other hand, Locke used Aquinas views to develop his philosophies, most of which he supported. He clearly explains what constitutes a just and unjust law and the roles of the government and the governed.

In the nineteen laws, it is observable that Hobbes’s opinions are somewhat primitive and unconnected to the nature of the state that men live. His perspectives: “Human beings have a natural proclivity to hurt one another,” and “people have a right to everything including another person’s body” and “whatever is not unjust is just” are primitive and pin humans against each other¹⁴. The belief that just because something is not illegal is not wrong is utterly preposterous. For example, discrimination and gender and race gaps in employment rates are not unlawful but do not make it just.

Conclusion

In conclusion, each scholar provided a different perspective, and it is upon the reader to deliberate on them with the philosopher’s mentality, personal views, and era in mind. While Aquinas was a devout Roman Catholic, Locke was a Protestant Christian, and Hobbes was arguably an atheist. The beliefs of these men and the period they lived in shaped who they were and their outlook on life and society.

References

Aquinas, T. (1988) Saint Thomas Aquinas: On Law, Morality, and Politics (Indianapolis, Indiana: Hackett Publishing Company).

Bradley, R. (1975). The relationship between natural law and human law in Thomas Aquinas. The Catholic Law, 21(1): 42-55

Byrne, J. (1964). The Basis of the Natural Law in Locke’s Philosophy. Catholic Lawyer, 10(1), 55-63.

Chroust A.H. and Collins Jr. F.A. (1941). The basic ideas in the philosophy of law of St. Thomas Aquinas as found in the “Summa Theologica.” Marquette Law Review, 26(11): 10-29

Dyzenhaus, D. (2012). Hobbes on the authority of law. In David Dyzenhaus & Thomas Poole (eds.), Hobbes and the Law. Cambridge University Press.

Hobbes T. (2006). Leviathan, or The Matter, Forme, & Power of a Common-Wealth Ecclesiastical and Civil. Mineola, N.Y., 2006; Orig. 1651: pp. 21, 70

Loughlin, M. (2012). The political jurisprudence of Thomas Hobbes. Hobbes And The Law, 5-21.

Footnotes

1. Aquinas, T. (1988) Saint Thomas Aquinas: On Law, Morality and Politics (Indianapolis, Indiana: Hackett Publishing Company).
2. Aquinas, T. (1988).
3. Aquinas, T. (1988) Saint Thomas Aquinas: On Law, Morality and Politics (Indianapolis, Indiana: Hackett Publishing Company).
4. Loughlin, M. The Political jurisprudence of Thomas Hobbes. Web.
5. Hobbes T. (2006). Leviathan, or the Matter, Forme, & Power of a Common-Wealth Ecclesiastical and Civil. Mineola, N.Y., 2006; orig. 1651: pp. 21, 70.
6. Dyzenhaus, D. (2012). Hobbes on the authority of law. Cambridge university press: pp. 186-209. Web.
7. Loughlin, M. (2012). The Political jurisprudence of Thomas Hobbes. Cambridge university press: pp. 5-21. Web.
8. Byrne J.W. (1964). The basis of the natural law in Locke’s philosophy. The catholic lawyer, 10(1): 55-63.
9. Byrne J.W. (1964).
10. Bradley, R. (1975). The relationship between natural law and human law in Thomas Aquinas. The Catholic Law, 21(1): 42-55.
11. Bradley, R. (1975). The relationship between natural law and human law in Thomas Aquinas. The Catholic Law, 21(1): 42-55.
12. Chroust A.H. and Collins Jr. F.A. (1941). The basic ideas in the philosophy of law of St. Thomas Aquinas as found in the “Summa Theologica.” Marquette Law Review, 26(11): 10-29.
13. Byrne J.W. (1964). The basis of the natural law in Locke’s philosophy. The catholic lawyer, 10(1): 55-63.
14. Dyzenhaus, D. (2012). Hobbes on the authority of law. Cambridge university press: pp. 186-209. Web.