Mame Diarra Diagne
Philosophy of Law
1. First read and reread the article on avoiding plagiarism. Then go to the
assigned reading in the Philosophy of Law, select two continuous paragraphs and copy
them out with proper citations. (Each paragraph must be a minimal of 4 sentences.)
Then give an unacceptable paraphrase of those two copied paragraphs. Then explain
why the paraphrase is unacceptable. Then give an acceptable paraphrase of the two
paragraphs, and explain why it is acceptable.
Finnis argues that morality and law are the result of applying the standards of practical
reasonableness to questions of how we ought to conduct ourselves. Keeping in mind always what
is really good for humans-the seven basic goods. Notice that we have said that both morality and
law are the result of this process of practical reasoning. For Finnis, and for Aquinas and many
other natural law theorists, law just is a special sort of morality. It is part of the nature of law that
it is morally justified.
Finnis is careful to note that he does not suppose individual citizens are always right to
disobey laws which lack moral justification. He observes that there is considerable value in the
stability of the rule of law, and allows that there may be an obligation in a larger sense to obey an
immoral law for the sake of the rule of law. There is no quick and simple answer to the question
“Should I obey this law?”(Natural Law Theory, 31)
The application of the standards of practical reasonableness to questions of how we ought
to conduct ourselves results in morality and law, while also keeping in mind the seven basic
goods are what is actually good for humans. For many natural law thinkers such as, Finnis and
Aquinas law just is morally special, because the nature of law is morally justified. (Natural Law
1
Mame Diarra Diagne
Philosophy of Law
Theory, 31). A law is rejected when, common good is not aimed for, or if the requirements of
practical reasonableness are not satisfied.
In his view Finnis is cautious in noting that he does not assume individual citizens are
always correct when they disobey laws that do not have moral justification. I think Finnis was
afraid of how he would be perceived if he did not make that note. (Natural Law Theory, 31). The
value in the stability of the rule of law is considerable, and there might be a greater obligation for
the sake of the rule of law that calls for obedience towards immoral law. The question, “should I
obey this law?” is a complex one to answer.
The paraphrasing of the two copied paragraphs is unacceptable. Firstly they both contain
components of a plagiarized paper. The citations are misplaced, and that can lead to the
misconception that you are claiming the parts that were not included in the citations as your own
ideas. In the second paragraph there are additional comments that should not be there, when
compared to the original paragraphs, it is clear that it is identical in wording and sentence
construction. Both of which can be looked at as plagiarism.
In Finnis’ view, the principles of practical reasonableness, when applied to questions on
how we should behave, along with the knowledge that the basic seven goods are necessary for
humans, create morality and law. The writer puts an emphasis for the readers to take note that it
was said, morality and law are the product of practical reasoning. For many natural law thinkers
such as, Finnis and Aquinas law just is morally special, because the nature of law is morally
justified. A law is rejected when it ignores common good, or if the requirements of [sensible
rationality are not satisfied]. (Natural Law Theory, 31).
2
Mame Diarra Diagne
Philosophy of Law
Finnis wants people to know that he does not mean that individual citizens are always
right in not following morally unjust laws, says the author. He appreciates the value in stability
provided by the rule of law, and therefore feels there might be a greater obligation for the sake of
the rule of law, that calls for obedience towards immoral law. (31). For Finnis, “should I obey
this law?” is a complex question to answer. (Natural Law Theory, 31).
These paraphrases are acceptable because proper credited was given where due. There are
keywords such as, “says the author”, and citations at the end of the paragraphs to show that they
were not my own ideas. The main ideas of the source were expressed without copying identical
structure or words. Lastly, all the main points of the passages were restated.
3
Mame Diarra Diagne
Philosophy of Law
2. Thoroughly explain Aquinas’ reasoning on whether the Natural law is
the same for all. Then explain his reasoning about in what ways the Natural law
cannot be rationally changed and in what ways the natural can be rationally
changed. Remember to give examples to illustrate his reasoning on this.
According to Aquinas in the fourth article of question 94 in, Summa Theologica, there is
speculative reason and practical reason. Speculative reason is the type of reason that occurs in
geometry, math, and some sciences. In this type of reasoning you have certainty. “Practical
reason, on the other hand, is busied with contingent matters, about which human actions are
concerned”. This type of reasoning deals with unchanging elements, but at the same time has a
lot of changing going on. (St. Thomas Aquinas, 40)
Aquinas says then, in terms of speculative matter, the truth is the same in all men, but not
known to all in regards to the conclusions. Aquinas explains this with the example of a triangle;
he says “thus it is true for all that the three angles of a triangle are together equal two right
angles, although it is not known to all”. In practical reason, Aquinas says that neither truth nor
morality is the same for all and equally known by all in regards to proper conclusions. Aquinas
says because of that it is right and true for all to act according to reason. (St. Thomas Aquinas,
41)
Finally, Aquinas says the Natural law is the same for all in a general way, as it relates to
the general principles of ethics. He says there is an ethic that is the same for all, known to
rational people. What is not the same for all? It is a moral law that you should return ones
personal property back to them. That is a general principle in Natural law, and it is always right
and unchangeable in ethics. Say you borrow a sharp tool from a neighbor, and before returning
4
Mame Diarra Diagne
Philosophy of Law
his property, you learn that he plans to use the sharp tool to harm another person, as soon as you
return it. This is a case in which what is right and what is wrong is not known through just the
general principle of Natural law, but through the secondary principles. (St. Thomas Aquinas, 41-
42). Aquinas would say you have a moral duty to not return your neighbor’s property back to
him because he plans on committing a morally wrong act.
The general principles of Natural law cannot be changed. Aquinas says there are some
things in ethics that are always right or wrong and are unchangeable. He says that is a necessity
in the general principles of ethics. Natural law cannot be changed in regards to its general
principles. However, Natural laws secondary principles there can be exceptions to them: through
addition and subtraction.
