Prima Secundae
Lecture 255: Moral Precepts, Natural Law, and the Decalogue

Transcript
================================================================================

to descend to these moral precepts and what other ones in particular right the moral precepts and the ceremonial ones and the judicial ones right so he has a little framing here he says then we're not to consider about each of the kinds of precepts of the old law and first about the what moral precepts right secondly about the ceremonial and third about the what judicial and that order is kind of clear isn't it huh because the moral precepts are even natural right and the ceremonial ones are reference to god and the judicial work refers to other men and so on about the first 12 things are asked i didn't know that there were 12 things asked yeah he brings the sentences there and it's usually two or three questions you know sometimes just two sometimes leave questions yeah but here he's got 12. first whether all the moral precepts of the old law are of the law of nature that's a good place to begin isn't it i'm always struck by that in in aristotle you know where he's talking about how there's no mean of the extreme and so he's explaining you know that you know the moral virtue lies between two extremes huh and neither too much or too little right looking too much as seven wise men said so um but then he says if something is already by definition in the extreme right then there's no what mean so he says adultery right it's always wrong and uh it's not like you know you shouldn't commit adultery too much but but you know you should you know not too little you know you know yeah yeah well he's saying you give this example there's no mean of the extreme right this is already extreme adultery right and the same thing you talk about murder sometimes and theft you know and so on it's like he knows these things as being obvious kind of you know he takes it as obvious examples right so i mean he you know he's he's talking about the you know commandments is something natural there right huh yeah yeah any amount of seven tastes awful i told you my wife i had seven you just say somebody you know they seem to say see what'd you do to get that penance my wife calls us mental cruelty no we joke you know we was and i we will say this you know uh regard marriage as a dead end what they mean what they mean you know no way out no way out well it's actually you know and i was before i was married or you know why do you want to marry somebody who didn't think it's no way out you know you know something who thought they could get up and leave anytime you know and you know why'd you want to marry such a person yeah secondly whether the moral precepts of the old law are about the acts of all the virtues huh that's a very interesting question this is interesting into these these particular things third whether all the moral precepts of the old law can be reduced to the what 10 precepts of the decalogue but it's made at the categories of aristotle right now everything reduced to 10 ice genera they're down to 10. fourth about the distinction of the precepts of the decalogue huh now there i better get into twos and threes and i'll bet you anything because when he divides up the 10 categories of aristotle it's into what two or three always until he gets down to the to all them right he doesn't try to understand five about the number of them right my goodness this you know about the distinction right in the multitude that comes in distinction that's a beautiful order there huh distinction and then five about the number the number rises from distinction right and then order right now what a what a man who knows i look before and after you know and sees that he's got to see distinction yeah marvelous guy this time secondly about the way of what treat treating yeah eight whether they're dispensable anyway the eight thousand yeah nine whether the way of observing the uh virtue falls under the what preceptor and ten whether the mode of charity comes under the preceptor nothing too much as you're greek said right can you love god too much and 11 about the distinction of other moral precepts huh it's interesting you should do that let's be a and 10 or 12 rather whether the more precepts of the old law justify him now when you hear somebody's confession i hope you'll go through all these points with them you know to the first one of those forward thus it seems that not all the what moral precepts pertain to the law of nature so it is said in eccli um that's ecclesiasticous for no other reason that it's 17 so ecclesiastes ends at 12. this is ecclesiasticous yeah yeah you're saying the other thing that was it was the ecclesiastes the other one was yes i looked up the ones got it oh yes i forget that okay okay you will add to them what discipline and the law of life what will inherit them but disciplina is divided against the law of what law of nature right in that the actual law is you know learn yeah but it's had from a natural instinct right therefore not all the moral precepts are of the law of nature right basically universally we have to recognize the law of nature moreover the divine law is more perfect than the human law but the human law adds some things to good what morals pertaining to those things which are the law of nature which is clear from this that the law of nature is the same before all but these other ones uh instituting of these morals are diverse after diversos right so what age you can get married right that things you know smoke right they want to raise the smoking age now because all the trouble people are getting from 18 to 21 again i mean you know you have to specify an age right you can get married right but it might be that Southern climates, they get married at an earlier age, right? Therefore, much more should the divine law, right, ought to add some things pertaining to good morals above the law of, what, nature, right? Moreover, just as a natural reason induces one, what, good morals, right, so also, what, faith. Faith, whence it is said to the Galatians, chapter 5, that the faith operates through love. But faith is not contained under the law of nature, because those things which are of faith, or belief, are above natural reason. Therefore, not all moral precepts of the divine law pertain to the law of what, nature. But against this is what the Apostle says, Romans, chapter 2. That the nations which do not have the law, and I guess it's the law of the Old Testament, right? Naturally, those things which are of the law, they do them, right? Which must be understood about those things which pertain to, what, good morals. Therefore, all the moral precepts of the law, or of the law of nature, right, huh? Of course, I was supposed to put up a testimony to Plato, you know. The first man to show by both word and example that the moral life is a happy life, right? You know, some men maybe had said that it didn't show it by their life. I mean, it lived morally without, you know, being able to defend it, you know, by reason. Plato, the first man to do both, right? What a compliment to his master, Plato, right, huh? Aristotle spent quite a few years in school, Plato, right? He left when Plato died, huh? Great respect for him, right? Albert the Great and Thomas, they both say that Plato and Aristotle are the chief philosophers. The parallel between St. Albert and St. Thomas there, too. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Plato's a great man. You have to know both of them, Albert the Great says, you know. He's a complete philosopher. Okay, let's see what the master has to say here. Let me just stare. I answer it should be said that the moralia, precepts, distinct from the, what, ceremonial and judicial ones, right, huh? Are about those things which in themselves, right, as such, pertain to good, what, morals, right, huh? For since human mores are said in order to, what, reason, which is the, what, proper beginning of human acts, huh? Those morals are called good, which agree with reason, and those bad, which discord from reason, huh? Which is Danisha says, right, huh? For a man to be good is to be in accordance with reason, huh? Now, just as every judgment of looking reason proceeds from the natural knowledge of the first beginnings, huh? What Aristotle calls the axioms, huh? The worthies. So also, every judgment of practical reason proceeds from some, what, beginnings naturally known, as has been said above, huh? From which, in diverse ways, one is able to proceed to judging about diverse things. For some things in human acts are so explicit that at once, with little consideration, right, they can be approved or, what, disproved through those common and first, what, beginnings, huh? Abortion, right? Some things there are, to the judgment of which is required, much consideration of diverse, what, circumstances, which, to consider diligently, is not just of anybody, but of the wise, huh? And just as to consider the particular conclusions of the sciences, does not pertain to all, but to the philosophers alone. For some things which are, what, yeah, to be judged, that should be judged, man needs to be added by divine instruction, as about things to be believed, right? Thus, therefore, it's clear that since moral precepts are of those things which pertain to good morals, huh? And these are those things which are, what, in agreement with reason. And every judgment of the reason of man, right, is in some way, what, derived from natural reason. It is necessary that all moral precepts pertain to the law of nature, but not in the same way, right? Because some things there are which, at once, per se, reason, natural reason, of any man, judges to be done or not to be done, as honor your father and mother, right? And Aristotle talks about that, huh? And Plato says what the father, the son is always in debt to his father, right? I said to my mother one time, I said, well, I wouldn't even be here without your mother. Well, that's good. Yeah. It's always in debt to your mother and father, right? Such as honor your father and mother, and you should not kill, or should you, what, steal, right? And these things, he says, are absolutely of the law of nature, right? Some things there are which, by a, what, more subtle consideration or reason, by the wise are judged as something to be observed, right? And these are thus of the law of nature, that they nevertheless need some, what? Yeah. By which the minors, the lessers, are instructed by the wiser. Just as this says, what, before a dog, huh? Yeah. And that's talking about the old man, right? And honor the person of the old man, right? Okay. There's a, there's a block on the page here, right? Quorum commo, 11, white commo. How do you think it's called a dog? How do you think it's called a dog? How do you think it's called a dog? Only white can't point. Yeah. It's like Shakespeare says, I wish grey birds call divine, you know, love which grey birds call divine. And some things are, for which judging human reason needs divine instruction, right, huh? To which we are instructed about divine things. Just as one ought not to make, what? Yeah. Nor any similitude. And you should not take the name of God in vain, huh? And through this is clear the response to, what? Right. Objections, huh? Thank you. So, thank you. all come under them, but there's something that is, what, more particular that some people might see, and some things maybe others will not see, and then you need the wise, right? To the second one, then, precedes us. It seems that the precepts, the moral precepts of the law, are not about all the acts of the virtues. For the observation of the precepts of the old law, are called, what? Yeah. According to that is Psalm 118. I will guard your justificacionism. But justificatio is a carrying out of justice, and therefore the moral precepts are not accepted about the acts of justice. I don't have to be courageous or temperate, right? But I've got to pay my debts. It's capitalist justice. At least pay your taxes. Yeah. Moreover, that which comes under precept has the notion of a, what? Debt. But the ratio of debt does not pertain to the other virtues except to, which the proper act is to render to each one what is due him, right? I figure, I sometimes think I owe myself a stake, you know? But nobody's before or after himself. And therefore the precepts of the moral law are not about the acts of the other virtues, but only about the acts of, what? Justice, huh? If the law commands me to be brave as a soldier, then what? I owe that to my country, huh? To whom do I owe teeth moderately? Take moderately. Moreover, every law is laid down in account of the common good, as Isidore says. But among the virtues, only justice regards the common good, as the philosopher says in the fifth book of the ethics. Therefore the moral precepts are only about the acts of justice, huh? But against this is what Ambrose says, that sin is a transgression of the divine law and the disobedience of the celestial mandates or commands, huh? But sins are contrary to all the acts of the virtues. Therefore the divine law has to order about the acts of all the virtues, huh? I answer it should be said that since the precepts of law are ordered to the common good, that was in the definition of it, right? Has been had above. It's necessary that the precepts of the law be diversified according to the diverse ways of what? Communities, right? Whence also the philosopher in his politics, huh? Says that other laws must be, what? Established in the city, which is ruled by the king, and others in those which are ruled by the people, or by those who are potent or powerful in the city, huh? Rule by the one, the few, and the many. Okay. Now human law is ordered to the civil community, right? Which is of men to each other. But men are ordered to each other through their outward acts, huh? By which men communicate with each other. And this communication pertains to the notion of justice, justice, which is properly directive of the human community. And therefore the human law does not propose precepts except about the acts of justice. And if it commands acts of the other virtues, this is not accepted insofar as they assume the notion of what? Justice. So is there a law against getting drunk in our state or not? If I stay home and get drunk, is there any law against that? If I get it, if I get into my car and start driving, then it falls under justice, right? It might hit somebody, yeah. Property as well as some other body else's. If you got drunk, zoomed around in your own property. You had a race track in your backyard. In this legal decision, a man who got drunk crashed his tree in... I haven't been drinking. Crashed his car into a tree and then sued the landowner, I think, or the municipality, I guess it was like a town's tree. And it was a very short decision. The judge wrote it in verse in I have a contaminant. And it was a sort of a humorous, uh, condescending decision. You know, if you were going to be a fool and hit a tree, uh, you shouldn't drink so much, uh, and we think the background was very, very funny. You got to sue the city for having this tree there or something? Yeah. But the community to which the divine law orders is of men to God, right? Either in the present or in the future life, huh? And therefore the divine law proposes precepts about all those things to which men are well ordered to community with what? God. But man is joined to God by reason or by the mind, right? In which is the image of God, huh? And therefore the divine law proposes precepts about all those things to which the reason of man is well, what? Ordered. But this happens through the acts of all the virtues, huh? For the intellectual virtues order well the acts of reason in themselves, huh? Aristotle talks about those virtues in the sixth book of the ethics, huh? The moral virtues, which he talks about in books two through five, right, huh? Order well the acts of reason about the interior passions and about exterior, what? Operations. And therefore is manifest that the divine law suitably proposes precepts about the acts of all the virtues, huh? Thus, however, that some without which the order of virtue, which is the order of reason, cannot be observed, huh? And they fall under the obligation of the precept, huh? Some, however, which pertain to the well-being of perfect virtue, and they come under the admonition of what? Counsel, huh? So Paul says it's not a command, but it's better if you do it this way, right? Okay. To the first therefore it should be said that the fulfillment of the commands of the law, even of those which are the acts of what? Other virtues, have the notion of justification insofar as what? Is just that man obey God, huh? Or also insofar as just that all the things which are of man should be subject to what? Reason, huh? That's kind of using justice in a broader sense, right? The sense which Aristotle would talk about in the fifth book, huh? Yeah, my anger, say, you know, is a virtue for, through the anger Aristotle talks about, huh? Crisis, huh? Me for a big humble heart, huh? But anger ought to be ruled by what? Reason, right? I was driving up to Quebec there one time. I was going up through Maine and the route to President Kennedy, you know, but it was an awful route because there were all kinds of potholes and things. So I was kind of not going too fast because you were putting the brakes on all the time and so on. Anyway, this crazy French driver, you know, he roars by me, you know, and his wheels must have picked up one of these stones on the road, right? And whack, I'm going to hit the side of the car. Well, I knew that it was going to be a nice marker on the side of the car, you know, I'd say. So I said, but I'm a philosopher. What does this make to me? Why not? So it's just that angry should obey what? Reason, right? Okay. Or you want to drink too much and say, well, no, I've had enough. Put the bottle away. Yeah. It's right that my thirst should obey my reason, right? My hunger. Okay. I've applied an injection two here. The second should be said that justice properly said retains to the debt of one man to another, right? That's justice in the way Aristotle talked about in the fifth book, right? But in all the other virtues, there is attended the debt of the lower powers to what? Reason, right? And according to this notion of this debt, the philosopher assigns in the fifth book of the ethics, a certain justice metaphoric, right? It's in likeness to, not justice in the strict sense, huh? So he's taking the broad sense there. I'm going to get to that. Since it's metaphorical. The third, the response is clear to those things which are said about the diversity of what? Humanities, huh? A little raker now? Right. Speaking. Speaking. Okay, we're up to, what, Article 4? Do we answer? Yeah, okay. No, it didn't do it straight. Oh. Okay, okay, 3, okay. To the third one proceeds thus, it seems that not all the moral precepts of the old law are reduced to the ten laws, or ten precepts of the Decalaw. For the first and principal precepts of the law are, you should love the Lord your God, and you should love your, what, neighbor, right? As it's had in Matthew 22. But these two are not contained in the precepts of the Decalaw. Therefore not all precepts, moral precepts, are contained in the precepts of the Decalaw. I'm going to get a division of two there, I'll bet. I think, yeah, it's going to be those best. He had the two tablets, you know, the three and the seven, as if he didn't divide it evenly into five and five, but he divides according to these two, I guess. Moreover, the moral precepts are not reduced to the ceremonial precepts, but rather the reverse, right? But among the precepts of the Decalaw is one ceremonial. Remember, to make holy the day of the Sabbath, right? And therefore the moral precepts are not reduced to all the precepts of the Decalaw. Moreover, the moral precepts are about all the acts of the virtues, but among the precepts of the Decalaw are laid down only the precepts pertaining to the act of justice, as is clear to one running through them. And therefore the precepts of the Decalaw do not contain all the moral precepts, huh? There's a different, what? The looser sense of discurria, you know? Run through them, right? But we use that way of speaking sometime, right? Let me run through this once more, you know. We're making all these plans for the safety of the Pope. Let's run through this once more. But against this is what is said in Matthew 5. Blessed are you when they curse you, right, huh? It says a glass. That Moses, huh? Laying down or proposing the ten precepts afterwards explains them what? In parts, right? Therefore all the precepts of the law are certain what? The precepts, parts of the precepts of the dialogue, right? I answer it should be said that the precepts of the Decalaw differ from the other precepts of the law in this, that the precepts of the Decalaw are what? Pariseums. For God is said to have proposed to the people. The other precepts, he proposes to the people through what? Moses, huh? Those precepts pertain to the Decalaw, the knowledge of which man has to himself from what? God, huh? For these are those which are what? Of this sort of those things which at once from the, what? First common beginnings can be known. Modica consideratione, with a little consideration, right, huh? And also those which from, what? Faith divinely poured in are known. Now among the precepts there for the law are not counted or computed the two precepts of, the two genera of what? Those to wit which are first and, what? Common, of which there is not another, what? edition of them, right? Publicationally, you might say. Except that they are written in natural reason as it were per se known, right? Such as that one should do to no one arm, right? That is of this sort. And therefore, those which are what? Through a diligent inquiry of the wise found to be what? In agreement with reason. And these come from God to the people by the middle of the teaching of the wise, right, huh? Now both of these precepts are contained in the precepts of the Decalogue, but diversely. For those which are first in common are contained in them as beginnings and what? Proximate conclusions. But those which are known to the wise or by the wise are contained in them, a conversal, as conclusions and what? Yeah. I mean, it's more clear to get to the replies here. To the first, therefore, it should be said that those two precepts on the love of God and your loving your neighbor as yourself are the prima, right? First and communia, the common precepts, right? Of the law of what? Nature. Which are known per se to human what? Reason. Either through nature or through what? Faith. And therefore, all the precepts of Decalogue to those two are referred to as conclusions to the what? Common beginnings, huh? So the first three are in summary tied up with the first, right? The last seven with the love for your neighbor, right? Now, what about this objection from the third commandment, right? To the second should be said that the precept about the observation of the Sabbath is secundum aliquid moralee, right? Insofar as to this is commanded that man at some time give what? Rest in divine things. Over to divine things. According to that of Psalm 45, huh? Take a vacation. And see that I am what? God, right, huh? And among, and according to this, it's numbered among the what? Precepts of Decalogue. But not as regards the what? Of the time. Yeah. Demanding. So we're going to retax, I guess, huh? Because according to this is ceremonial. So Thomas is admitting that in that third commandment there's something, what? Ceremonial. Ceremonial, yeah. That's a nice way of meaning the objection, right? But he distinguishes there that among the precepts of Decalogue is one ceremonial. Well, it's not just ceremonial, it's what? Yeah, you ought to set time aside to worship God and so on, praise him, right, huh? Yes, yeah. Yeah. And then it's ceremonial that it should be the Sabbath, right? Or Sunday or something, right, huh? In a sense, you know, when there's this law about you can have Sunday Mass now on Saturday evening, right, huh? It would have scandalized people in the old days, right? Yeah. But if you think of how the Jews, you know, would start the day from the evening before, right, huh? Liturgically, we do that in the evening. Yeah. Yeah. Some days are certainly feasting. First Vespers and Second Vespers. Yeah. Yeah. That's one of these canonical creations of the West. So we never had Second Vespers? Never had Second Vespers. We used to. Because we were Latinx. We had that. To the third, it should be said that the ratio... of debt or being owed in the other virtues is more hidden than in justice right and therefore the precepts of about the acts of the other virtues are not thus known to the people as the precepts of the acts of what justice and an account of this the acts of justice especially come under the precepts of the law which are the first what elements of law right so i mean so what's the first one there for us it's honor your father and mother isn't it right and don't you think you owe to your mother some honor and respect right so that's kind of idea of justice so it's more obvious right huh and even aristotle and cicero see that right huh and then you have what thou shalt not what kill and because you had some just right huh and then you get to adultery right when you get to stealing though that's sort huh and then bearing false witness and so on you know my last one they're more hidden right now you know come at your neighbor's wife or his ox his wine collection or something something they show these these guys really nice wine so you know really jealous you know come at that wine so now with the peace