Can anyone take a look at my ethics mock essay

"Critically assess Aquinas' view that human nature has a natural inclination towards the good."

Aquinas believes that an innate inclination towards good is what drives humanity towards a natural moral law. However, it is evident that there are fundamental issues with this notion, raised by scholars who take both religious and non-religious stances. Therefore, there are no tangible grounds to believe that human nature has a natural inclination towards the good, we are simply more complicated than that. In the sense that humanity has the capacity for evil and good, even at times opting to weave between them interchangeably.*

Aquinas believes that the telos of human beings is to achieve beatitude (unity with God). He believes that the primary way of achieving this is through following natural law. According to aquinas’ theory of natural law, human beings are all wired to be inherently good. This makes his primary precepts an easy foundation of* rules to adhere to, as biologically humans tend to gravitate towards good, making nature law a matter of following innate instinct. Aquinas gives five primary precepts that he argues can be and should be abided by, so long as people harness the internal good that exists within us all. This is a strong argument as it relies heavily on observation of human behaviour and human instinct. It appears undeniable that the five precepts Aquinas mentions of: preservation of life, reproduction, ordered living in society, education of children, and worshipping God, are all behaviours that occur almost by default within the natural world. Everywhere we turn there is empirical evidence suggesting that we live in an ordered world, and Aquinas would argue that this order is fundamentally good as it is a reflection of God’s nature. This capacity to observe what Aquinas stipulates suggests that there is logic to his theory, and that perhaps, his notion of synderesis and innate knowledge of divine good has wired humans to have an awareness of the rightness and wrongness of their actions, and therefore strive to do good.*

Augustine would fundamentally disagree with the notion proposed by Aquinas. Due to the corruption of humankind, facilitated by Adam and Eve’s fall from grace, humankind became fundamentally bad, leaving us all predestined to be sinners. In regards to life on earth, this inherent corruption doesn’t significantly take its toll until judgement day, where the only viable means humankind has of attaining heaven is through God’s grace. However, as God’s grace often manifests in the form of unearned mercy, it leaves no room for any form of reconciliation through works, hence where the concept of limited election comes into play. This concept entirely subverts the works of Aquinas, and suggests that humans are so innately malevolent, that we simply have no way of navigating moral right and wrong, and by extension entirely erasing the possibility of any form of innate good that may lie at the foundation of humanity. Augustine’s theory does a better job at justifying the malignant acts of the divine, than it does to prove the innate badness of humanity. On a daily basis we see people across the globe committing to altruistic behaviours. This suggests that although the world may be littered with bitterness, there are still glimmers of good that act as a crutch to support the notion that humanity might not be all bad.

Overall, it seems evident that although both scholars address the notion of human nature, they respectively waste too much intellectual effort on trying to resolve issues raised by the acts of God’s grotesque violence in the old testament (suggesting he might not quite be as loving as many scholars like to suggest), and the acts of mercy and compassion that humanity has the capacity to implement into our daily lives (implying that the human race isn’t perhaps as bad as many scholar’s like to believe). Therefore, I propose that the fundamental flaw that prevents both scholars from truly navigating the innate origins or human behaviour is a distraction disguised as god. For Aquinas, our innate good is derived from our God given nature, and for Augustine our innate bad plagues us due to mankind's first grave sin. But evidently, the pendulum won’t swing both ways, one scholar must have the appropriate reading on the will of God. Or perhaps, a transcendent entity is distracting us from what is observable around us, every day we see acts of gratuitous violence as well as benevolent goodness. Perhaps if we delve further into the actions and behaviours of humanity itself we can navigate the true nature of the human race. However, out of the two proposed theories, it seems that Augustine’s seems to better reflect the world we live in,, a world that is plagued with endless violence. No being with an innate sense of good would act so viciously so regularly. Therefore, with or without the influence of a God, it appears evident that Aquinas’s reading on human behaviours is more accurate. Innate human good, and a capacity for heart rendering violence are simply incompatible.

As a bid to steer away from the influence of religion in the debate of innate good, it seems that now would be the obvious time to discuss the writing of Aristotle, a scholar who echoes the words of Aquinas in regards to humankind having a telos. For Aristotle, similarly to Aquinas, that telos is eudaimonia. Human flourishing can be achieved by attaining a certain set of virtues (a golden mean). The notion of virtues in themself imply an innate capacity to do good. For Aristotle flourishing is a sense of accomplishment, a state of being, and it is our very own individual characteristics that unlock the doors of eudaemonia and allow us to step through. Therefore it is evident that humans do in fact have an inclination towards good, as it is our very own virtues that allow us to excel on a moral and emotional level. The strengths of Aristotle's argument is its dependence on the characteristics of human beings themselves, rather than looking to an omnipotent entity to enshrine the truth of human nature, Aristotle takes it upon himself to utilise the power of empiricism and make use of what we observe on a daily basis. And across the globe many of us can observe that a virtuous life is a life filled with moral good. Hence implying that there is an inclination towards good present in the human psyche.

**

However, Hobbes shares a significantly less optimistic outlook, as he argues that without a sovereign leader in place, human beings will resort to violence to acquire power. This undermines Aquinus’s precept as this negative notion disarms the idea Aquinus proposes of ordered living in a society, as the only thing holding society together is the set up that has already been well established (rather than an innate sense of good and unity). It also undermines the writings of aristotle, as what Hobbes suggests about human brutality fundamentally undermines the notion of human flourishing. In a world full of violence it seems evident that there is no possible way to survive (yet alone flourish) without being shaped by that very same brutal environment in the interests of survival. Hobbes then furthers his criticism of Aristotle* by suggesting that for humanity eudaemonia isn’t characterised by virtuous living, but rather attaining more authority and power. Hence portraying that Aristotle has it all completely wrong in regards to what humanity is trying to achieve. Hobbes stipulates that we live in a society of individuals with our own individual interests at heart, and if we are let to act in accordance with our own characteristics, then that would lead to the demolition of peace and order as a whole.

Evidently, there is truth in the works of both of these scholars, humanity has the capacity to act virtuously and sadistically. However, it seems evident that with the level of sadistic crime that so regularly occurs within a so called ordered society, the fundamental issue must, on some level, be with human nature as a whole. Evidently we live in a far from perfect world, rendering the idea of flourishing entirely redundant. But at some point, we must acknowledge that the imperfection of our world is a reflection on the imperfection of humanity. It would be too cynical to suggest that the human race simply has no capacity for good, but it would be equally too naive to fall into the trap of believing that the occasional act of goodness proves a natural inclination towards compassion. Therefore, it appears evident that humans are an uncomfortable mix of creatures that are entirely selfish (and self serving) with glimmers of empathy and the desire to build connection. This doesn’t necessarily give us an innate sense of good, neither does it rule out an innate sense of evil. It just makes us an imperfect mix. An imperfect mix that does nevertheless counter the idealistic theory proposed by Aquinas.

In conclusion, the theory proposed by Aquinas has two fundamental problems. The first, being that it relies too heavily on the existence of a God given nature. And the second, being that it is simply too reductive. Humanity has the capacity for good and evil, and is not necessarily directly inclined to one nor the other. Individuals are shaped by the rules and regulations of their respective societies, and therefore are the products of the environments they are raised in, not products of a natural inclination towards a certain set of moral values.