Nature as the basis of moral actions
Abstract: Traditionally many philosophers and theologians have seen a narrow connection between our human nature and the morality of our actions in this sense that actions performed against the natural structure, properties or inclinations of our human nature, and even against he nature of things in the world around us, were seen as sinful, while those in agreement with nature were considered morally good. As we shall see, the issue is far from easy and has given rise to fierce dispute especially among students of law and theologians. Moreover, the present day spiritual climate exercised a noticeable influence on the thought of several moral theologians turning them away from the traditional doctrine. As John Paul II writes, interest in empirical observation, technical progress and certain forms of liberalism have led people to see an opposition between freedom and naturel. Freedom is contrasted with man's physical and biological nature, which man should make subservient to his needs and wishes. In this view, our human nature is no more than a substratum of our actions to be left behind or at least to be transformed. We hardly have a definite nature, but must continuously make ourselves. However, three centuries of moral philosophy according to the liberal and individualistic point of view have not succeeded in giving a coherent account of the basis of morality. A renewed study, in the light of contemporary thought, of this not quite novel issue, may perhaps be helpful to clarify some of its aspects.
Main Author: | |
---|---|
Format: | Artículo biblioteca |
Language: | eng |
Published: |
Pontificia Universidad Católica Argentina. Facultad de Filosofía y Letras
2001
|
Subjects: | NATURALEZA HUMANA, MORALIDAD, FILOSOFIA TEOLOGICA, FILOSOFIA MORAL, PENSAMIENTO FILOSOFICO, FILOSOFIA CONTEMPORANEA, |
Online Access: | https://repositorio.uca.edu.ar/handle/123456789/12632 |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
Summary: | Abstract: Traditionally many philosophers and theologians have seen a narrow
connection between our human nature and the morality of our
actions in this sense that actions performed against the natural
structure, properties or inclinations of our human nature, and even
against he nature of things in the world around us, were seen as sinful,
while those in agreement with nature were considered morally good.
As we shall see, the issue is far from easy and has given rise to fierce
dispute especially among students of law and theologians. Moreover,
the present day spiritual climate exercised a noticeable influence on the
thought of several moral theologians turning them away from the
traditional doctrine. As John Paul II writes, interest in empirical
observation, technical progress and certain forms of liberalism have led
people to see an opposition between freedom and naturel. Freedom is
contrasted with man's physical and biological nature, which man
should make subservient to his needs and wishes. In this view, our
human nature is no more than a substratum of our actions to be left
behind or at least to be transformed. We hardly have a definite nature,
but must continuously make ourselves. However, three centuries of
moral philosophy according to the liberal and individualistic point of
view have not succeeded in giving a coherent account of the basis of
morality. A renewed study, in the light of contemporary thought, of
this not quite novel issue, may perhaps be helpful to clarify some of its
aspects. |
---|