Index IntroductionNatural lawHuman willEvilAims, ends and faulty reasoningConclusionIntroductionThe Catholic Church teaches that God places natural law in every human being. Every conceived person possesses natural law connaturally (Maritain 13). For humans, this natural law is part of human nature and informs those who possess it about what is good and what is bad. It teaches us to do good and avoid evil. The human will, therefore, is oriented towards desiring and doing good. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay. However, a question arises. If every human being possesses natural law and is oriented towards doing good, why does man commit evil? To explore this question, we must first understand natural law, the freedom of human will, and what exactly evil is. Natural Law To understand natural law, we must first agree on what we mean when we talk about law. According to St. Thomas Aquinas, law "is nothing other than an ordering of reason for the common good, made by the one who cares for the community, and promulgated" (Summa Theologiae I.II.90.4.co).When this definition of the law is applied to God, we find a perfect argument from congruity. God has a perfect intellect that can reason perfectly. He is the almighty ruler of the universe who desires only the highest good of what he has created. In creating all things, he has access to all things that exist. If He desires to promulgate a law to His creation, He can include it as part of the nature of that creation. In essence, God is the perfect lawgiver. It is clear then that, since law "is nothing other than a dictate of practical reason emanating from the sovereign who governs a perfect community" (Summa Theologiae I.II.91.1.co), there is no law of God. "The world it is governed by Divine Providence… [and] the whole 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 everything. It is as if everything that exists follows a law according to which all things work in harmony promoting the common good. God's role as creator and omnipotent ruler of the universe “has the nature of 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) therefore there is an eternal law. To be clear, eternal law is not a law that limits or restrains God since God is a necessary being and “necessary things are not subject to eternal law” (Summa Theologiae I.II.93.4.). God's creations, however, are contingent beings. Contingent beings must have a law imposed on them, even if only to establish what form and what nature a being has. Therefore, “everything in the things created by God, whether contingent or necessary, is subject to eternal law” (Summa Theologiae I.II.93.4.sc). Some might object that since the totality of God is incomprehensible, he cannot possibly understand the eternal law by which he governs creation. They argue that only God knows eternal law. They ignore that «a thing can be known in two ways: first, in itself; secondly, in its effects” (Summa Theologiae I.II.93.2.co). While they are right that no one but God knows the entirety of eternal law, we recognize parts of eternal law by its effects. Since all creation is governed by eternal law, we can recognize the part of eternal law that applies to a created being by observing the nature and purpose of a created being. For example, the end of arock is to 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 in none of them is all the eternal law things present, but each of these created beings participates in a part of the eternal law as its nature allows it. Eternal law governed what their nature is. This participation in the eternal law according to the nature of being is called the natural law of being. Robert Sokolowski provides a good example of the functioning of natural law in non-rational beings when he talks about the purposes of beings: “The purpose of a tree is to grow, put forth leaves, feed itself, and reproduce: to be as active and successful as a tree, as a entities of this type. The purpose of a zebra is to grow to maturity, feed, reproduce, and live with other zebras. Trees and zebras do as well as trees and zebras when they behave like that, and we know what a tree and a zebra are when we can say what it means to behave as well as such a thing. A zebra might break a leg or be eaten by a lion, but possibilities like these don't define what a zebra is. They are not part of what is, of its essence which manifests itself most completely not when the zebra simply exists but when it behaves well” (Sokolowski 511-512) Of all of God's creation on Earth, human beings are the unique with a rational soul. It is the nature of human beings to engage in rational thinking. Like the zebra who achieves its goal by acting well as a zebra by correctly using all its faculties, human beings achieve their goal by correctly using all their faculties, especially their most advanced faculty, which is reason. “The ultimate goal of man is happiness” (Summa Theologiae I.II.1.8.co). To reach his goal which is happiness, the human being must use all his faculties including reason. The natural law, which guides every being to achieve its goal, is present in every faculty that a being possesses. Therefore natural law is present in the rational faculties of the human being. Furthermore, since it is the nature of rational beings to learn ideas, human beings are capable of reasoning and knowing natural law, which no other being can do since it is not in their nature to reason or learn ideas. One may ask: what does natural law have to do with morality? Why should one seek to know natural law beyond simply recognizing its existence? According to St. 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 eternal law is all good. Participating in eternal law therefore means seeking good and making one's being prosper in the nature given to him by God. Natural law, therefore, helps human beings to achieve happiness and avoid what undermines it. As St. Thomas Aquinas says, natural law tells us that "good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided" (Summa Theologiae I.II.94.2.co). By following this course of action, we can achieve happiness. Furthermore, since natural law guides a person to thrive in their own nature, it is in one's nature to want to follow natural law. In other words, because following natural law is beneficial, humans 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 mean only that he is an animal that calculates and draws conclusions; we mean, more fundamentally, that it is an animal that is concerned with living well and not just with living” (Sokolowski 508). St. Thomas Aquinas describes the different inclinations of natural law for human beings who therethey guide you to live well. In the first place, natural law pushes us towards an "inclination to good according to the nature that it has in common with all substances: insofar as every substance seeks the conservation of its own being, according to its nature: and by reason of this inclination, any may it be a means of preserving human life and removing its obstacles” (Summa Theologiae I.II.94.2.co). Second, “There is in man an inclination towards the things that belong to him more particularly, according to that nature which he has in common with other animals… such as sexual relations, the education of offspring and so on” (Summa Theologiae I .II.94.2.co). Thirdly, “there is in man an inclination to good, according to nature his reason, which nature 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 concerns this inclination belongs to natural law; for example, to shun ignorance, to avoid offending those among whom one must live, and other similar things concerning the aforementioned inclination” (Summa Theologiae I.II.94.2.co). Those who do not believe in God can argue against natural law which says that the first two inclinations are simply instincts driven by godless evolution while the third inclination is a product of acquired habits and other learned principles. St. Thomas Aquinas disagrees in quoting St. Augustine: “'a habit is one whereby one does something when it is necessary'. But such is not the natural law: for it is in newborns and in the damned that they 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, raised in depraved communities with bad role models and raised by immoral people, perform acts virtuous. These people had no way to learn virtue and, more importantly, no reason to practice it, but they still found fulfillment and value in living by those virtuous principles. “'Virtues are natural.' Therefore even virtuous acts are subjects of natural law" (Summa Theologiae I.II.94.3.sc). But since these acts of virtue often go against the animalistic 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 written "in the hearts" of those who who became 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 way. This is why men are unable to rationally account for and justify their most fundamental moral beliefs” (Maritain 21). In other words, there are people who hold 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 continue to believe them to be true. It is as if these values ​​were part of the individual from the beginning, like his limbs and organs. In line with this "it must be said that natural law, as regards general principles, is the same for everyone, both as regards rectitude and as regards knowledge" (Summa Theologiae I.II.94.4..co). The general principles of natural law are the same in every person. «The general principles of both speculative reason and practical reason, truth or rectitude, are the same for all, and equally known by all» (Summa Theologiae I.II.94.4.co). These general principles cannot be removed from the person: "natural law, in the abstract, cannot in any way be erased from the hearts of men" (Summa Theologiae I.II.94.6.co). In other words, a human being would not be a beinghuman if its natural law could be removed from it. That said, while the general principles of natural law are universal, immutable, immovable and eternal, the conclusions derived from those general principles are not always the same for each individual. Since applying natural law requires reason, reaching the right conclusions about natural law depends on good reasoning. We will discuss later how these failures in reasoning occur and how they affect the individual's conduct, but first we must agree on some 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 will" (Summa Theologiae I.II.83.4.sc).si. “Some things act without judgment; like a stone it moves downward; and likewise all things without knowledge. And some act according to judgment, but not according to free judgment; like brute animals…because he judges not with reason, but with 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 the same way to the same stimuli. A human being “acts on the basis of judgment, because by his apprehensive power he judges that something should be avoided or sought” (Summa Theologiae I.II.83.1.co). Man's act of judgment "in the case of any particular act, does not come from a natural instinct, but from some act of comparison in reason, therefore he acts according to free judgment and retains the power of being inclined to various things" ( Summa Theologiae I.II..83.1.co). This is why two human beings, faced with the same circumstances, may judge the situation in very different ways and be inclined to different courses of action. One may reason correctly and another incorrectly. We see this clearly in the course of “dialect 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 mind. Therefore "since man is rational it is necessary that man has free will" (Summa Theologiae I.II.83.1.co). “The act proper to free will is choice: in fact we say that we have free will because we can take one thing while rejecting another; and this is choosing." (Summa Theologiae I.II.83.3.co). There are many other things that could be clarified about the human will. For the purposes of discussing the question "Why do human beings commit evil if they know and desire good?" it is sufficient to establish the freedom of the human will and its ability to choose what is good and what is bad. Which leads to the last concept that needs to be explored: what exactly is evil? Evil In examining the nature of evil, Aquinas compares it to its opposite, 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 Contra Gentiles I.39.5). To say that something is imperfect means that the thing is missing components that should ascribe it. In other words, evil is a deprivation of good. “Aquinas thinks of 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 nor can there be any privation in God. Therefore there is no evil in God. This is a significant point because it establishes that in natural law no evil principles are included, since natural law is a reflection of eternal law and there can be no evil in the eternal law of the all-good God. Evil «is violent and unnatural» (Summa Contra Gentiles I.39.7), but what is evil can first of all be“natural to a thing according to something in it” (Summa Contra Gentiles I.39.7). For example, eating unhealthy foods is bad for the health of the body. But since unhealthy food tastes good, eating unhealthy food is good for your sense of taste. With all this in mind, we are finally able to address the question: why do humans commit evil if they know and desire good? Goals, Ends, and Flawed 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 their death. Instead, one chooses to commit evil because one perceives that evil as good. Even a sadist or masochist who performs evil acts does not perform them for the sake of the acts themselves but for the pleasure he derives from performing such acts. At its most fundamental level, enjoyment and pleasure are a good. However, providing enjoyment by inducing suffering and pain is bad. A new question arises: How did this happen? Do these people come to consider these evil deeds good? If the human goal is happiness, how did these people come to believe that their conduct would lead them to happiness? Professor Robert Sokolowski explains that, in addition to having a purpose like all other beings with natural law, humans can bring purposes into existence. Often these purposes are deprived of good and therefore are bad. The difference between ends and purposes is this: “an end, a telos, belongs to a thing in itself, while a purpose arises only when there are human beings. Goals are intentions, something we desire and are deliberating about or acting to achieve. Ends, on the contrary, exist independently of any human desire and deliberation” (Sokolowski 508-509). “Goals arise when human beings set out to do something” (Sokolowski 509). While “ends, on the contrary, do not arise through human foresight. They are not born at all; they arise in conjunction with the things to which they belong” (Sokolowski 509). In other words, goals are those things that a human being decides to strive for, while ends are what God has commanded him to seek. Furthermore, because human beings have free will, setting goals has a moral dimension. Our choices about what we intend to do and why we do it can be good or bad. Good purposes are those purposes that are in line with or, at least, do not contradict the ultimate purpose of the man or the thing he uses. Evil purposes are those purposes that contradict and/or undermine the purpose of the man or the thing he uses. The way people come to set a purpose for themselves or other objects is the same way we reason about natural law. The human mind prefers valid logical arguments. The general principles of natural law are the premises of moral arguments. Such premises, when used in a valid argument, lead to a correct conclusion of the moral action. In the case of goal setting, the conclusion is a good purpose in line with a being's purpose. However, we know that people make reasoning errors. Any philosophy professor who has evaluated 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 the free will to ignore them. Very often, inclinations of the third type of natural law, which deal with more complex social considerations, are ignored. The conclusion resulting from such deficient internal reasoning is unfounded. Having included some general principles of natural law (since it is impossible to ignore and erasecompletely natural law) the deliberator will mistakenly see the conclusion as good and therefore in line with his own goal of happiness. For example, the second inclination of natural law informs that sexual intercourse is good. The third inclination of natural law informs when and with whom sexual intercourse can occur. If someone takes into account both sets of natural law inclinations, he or she comes to the conclusion that sexual intercourse with one's spouse at the appropriate time is a good thing. On the other hand, if someone 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 or she might come to the conclusion that the evil act of rape is good. is not to say that the conclusions of human reasoning cannot be trusted, rather that every moral deliberation and every 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 draws on the wisdom of Ecumenical Councils and Synods in developing teachings on morality and faith. The multitude of people allows errors in reasoning to occur and be identified and corrected. It is worth further exploring how certain premises are ignored and how failures in reasoning occur. Sokolowski provides four examples of how people reason incorrectly when setting a goal. The first is when you are impulsive. These are people who «have not developed this strength of reason, this strength of practical categoriality. Their future collapses into their present. Children are naturally impulsive, but some people remain childish even as they grow older” (Sokolowski 515). The second type of failure in reasoning occurs when a person “may have become adult enough to establish distinct goals and determine the steps leading to them, but we may still be unable to appreciate the presence of other people with their own goals. We allow only what we want into our awareness. We remain unable to see that other people have their own views and 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 call “morally narrow-minded” rather than being vicious…such narrow-mindedness is a failure in practical thinking” (Sokolowski 515). An example of such a person is someone who double parks their car. We start from the assumption that he did not want to hurt another person, only that in deciding to park his car he did not take into account the fate of the individual he blocked. The third type of failure in reasoning occurs when a person has "state of mind in which we are unable to distinguish what we (and others) want from the demands and obligations of the world itself, that is, we fail to distinguish the our purposes from the purposes of things... If we simply recognize other people and recognize that they too have purposes, all we would want is a world of conflicting purposes and extreme violence, which would amount to a war against everyone" (Sokolowski 516). A prudent recognition of “the ends of things and the ends of our nature, however, would help to pacify this conflict” (Sokolowski 516). involved in deliberation. If tools are to be used to establish the premise, then the ends of those tools must be included in the premises. If people, including themselves, are involved in defining the purpose, the human goal of happiness must be.