To compare Thomas’ natural law to Hobbes’ law of nature, the origins of each
law must be considered. Thomas’ shared his notion of natural law in his most famous
work, the Summa Theologica, published in (….). Centuries and several intellectual shifts
later, most notably( …….) in (….) Hobbes wrote the Leviathan, in which he presented
his law of nature. Many contemporary authors have noted similarities between the two
laws, and have unofficially named Hobbes’ law of nature as a revised version of Thomas’
natural law. In contrast, there are also many notable differences between the two laws. If
the law of nature can be rightfully considered as Hobbes’ revision of natural law, then
there must be fundamental similarities that can be drawn from the two laws. Furthermore,
of the differences that can be observed, if the two laws are of the same root, the
differences must be a result of the different authors and not a result of different origins.
Are all of the differences between Hobbes’ law of nature and Thomas’ natural law a
result of their respective views on human nature?
To begin, we will examine the most general, easily-identifiable differences.
Thomas and Hobbes offer different sources as the source of morality. For Thomas,
natural law has been inscribed in our hearts. He explains this in the Summa Theologica
“…the natural law is nothing else than the rational creature’s participation of the eternal
law” (Aquinas, 1988: 20-21). This quote demonstrates Thomas’ view that the natural law
is God-given. Thomas presents eternal law as the collective of laws that govern the earth,
for example the law of gravity and the law of physics. In accordance with Thomas’ faith,
these laws were bestowed to mankind with God’s creation of the earth. The natural law is
part of the eternal law….
In contrast, Hobbes presents his reexamined natural law as a voice of reason that humans
can access, but is not inscribed within them. In the Leviathan, Hobbes argues that the
ultimate source of law is the sovereign…. Find some quotes….
The two authors provide contrasting arguments to explain the central source of morality.
Although this difference is fundamental, (and could be evidence that Hobbes’ law of
nature does not in fact have it’s origins in the natural law) this difference can also be
accounted for by the different views Thomas and Hobbes hold on human nature.
In accordance with Thomas’ religious beliefs, he contends that all of mankind is God’s
creation.
…….hobbes……
Subsequently, another significant difference between the law of nature and natural
law. Unlike Thomas’ natural law which is composed of a set of succeeding principles
intended to guide rational beings to follow their natural, and good inclinations, Hobbes’
law of nature is a contract. The two laws have very distinct forms. A simplified way to
understand the different forms would be to refer to Thomas’ principles as a list of ‘dos’,
and Hobbes’ principles as a list of ‘do nots’. Another way to distinguish them would be
to consider Thomas’ natural law as a series of guidelines or permissions, while Hobbes’
law of nature bears similarity to a long list of prohibitions.
Thomas positive view of the natural state of man can explain why his principles aim to
guide, as opposed to restrict. Thomas believes that human beings possess reason, and
must use it to distinguish right from wrong. In the Summa Theologica he wrote, “…the
will which disobeys the reason, whether true or mistaken, is always in the wrong. To
Thomas, morality can be reduced to rational beings acting in accordance with their best,
natural inclinations.
In harsh contrast to Thomas’ view, Hobbes laid out the principles to form the law of
nature as a social contract that naturally self-seeking humans must agree to. Hobbes
depicts morality as an agreement
The distinct formats of Thomas and Hobbes’ laws are a result of their distinct
The discussion of differences in Thomas and Hobbes’ (…….the previous two things
mentioned) have shown to be attributed to Thomas and Hobbes’ contrasting views on
human nature. Self-preservation is a principle that is common to both the natural law and
the law of nature. Notwithstanding, Thomas and Hobbes treat self-preservation in a
different manner. Thomas’ natural law allows the use of any means to preserve your own
life, while Hobbes’ law of nature obliges the use of any means to preserve your own life.
The application of their principles, which seem similar, will produce distinct results.
Imagine the following scenario: a man is sitting on a bench waiting for a train. When he
hears the train getting close he stands and approaches the tracks. At this moment he
realizes there is a baby in the middle of the tracks. He quickly looks back to the train and
recognizes that the train has not slowed enough to make a full stop before reaching the
point of the track where the baby has been placed in a carrier. Without hesitation the man
jumps onto the tracks and pushes the baby out of harm’s way. Consequently, he does not
have enough time to save himself and he is hit by the train.
This is an extreme scenario. However, it is useful to employ circumstances that
are not simple to best understand the application of a law. Moreover, to identify
differences between Thomas’ and Hobbes’ laws, the results of the applications of their
laws to this scenario will reveal differences between Thomas and Hobbes’ laws.
For Thomas, with respect to his natural law, would this man’s act be considered
moral or immoral? To accurate employ Thomas’ moral law the man’s act cannot be
considered exclusively, the circumstances which led to the man’s action must be
recognized. The man voluntarily chose to put his own life in the way of danger, to protect
someone else’s life. The first of the secondary rules of natural law describes human
beings’ natural inclination towards preservation. In a separate part of his Summa, Thomas
describes morality as acting in accordance with our best natural inclinations. If morality
is acting in accordance with our best natural inclinations, and self-preservation is a
good(support this)? natural inclination, then an act that goes against self-preservation
goes against morality. This is a flawed use of Thomas’ natural law. Thomas offers a
solution to ensure that the natural law is properly applied, he contends that “…it happens
sometimes that something has to be done which is not covered … it is necessary to judge
of such matters according to higher principles.”findcitationforthis.p230. In this passage
Thomas explains that all uses of the natural law must comply with the first principle, “Do
good, and avoid evil”.
The primary, above-all, use of the first rule will provide different answers then
the use of the principles in a non-hierarchical arrangement would. The peculiar
circumstances of the man who jumped in front of the moving train, properly applied to
the primary principal initially will yield a different conclusion.
In contrast Hobbes’ the law of nature obliges the use of any means for selfpreservation. The man voluntarily acted in a way that was destructive to his own life, he
failed to preserve his own life. This
In other scenarios, when Thomas and Hobbes’ principles are applied, the results do not
vary as much. In some scenarios the application of the two principles oblige the same
action. For instance, imagine this scenario: during the peak of the Rwandan genocide, a
young woman is approached by Hutu men, armed with weapons, and questioned if she
belongs to the Hutu or Tutsi tribe. The young woman, who is a Tutsi, tells the men she
belongs to the Hutu tribe.According to Thomas natural law, and Hobbes’ law of nature,
was this woman’s act moral?
As mentioned, to properly apply Thomas’ moral law to a particular situation, the
circumstances must be considered and the conclusion drawn from the application must be
in accordance with higher principles. In this case, the woman’s act alone disobeys a rule
that is derived from Thomas’ tertiary rule, do not lie. To apply Thomas’ law properly, the
intentions of the woman’s act must be considered, in addition to the verification that