A Philosophical Happy Hour on the relationship between morality and law, and what falls to our exercise of choice.
St. Thomas Aquinas defines law as an ordinance of reason ordered to the common good, promulgated by one who holds responsibility for the community. This broad but precise definition allows us to distinguish kinds of law without confusion: eternal law as divine governance (the whole cosmos ordered to the common good of the universe), natural law as the rational creature’s participation in that governance (the common good of human souls), and human or positive law as determinations for concrete circumstances (the common good for political communities).
But it remains difficult—despite Thomas’ clear expositions—both to determine and to enforce human laws that conform properly to the natural.
In this Philosophical Happy Hour, we will strive to bring some clarity to the following issues.
The Nature of Law
Law binds not by will alone but by reason. Thus, positive law has authority when it participates in right reason and serves the common good; it loses the force of law when it contradicts nature. Yet, because communities act under contingent conditions, legislators must make prudent “determinations” where natural law admits many possible reasonable stipulations. Speed limits, tax schemes, zoning, and procedures are intelligible as prudential applications, not as mere impositions. But so too, the inculcation of virtue seems difficult to accomplish by law alone; and thus, many desirable traits of virtue cannot be induced by law alone.
Thus, we ask, what is the role of human law in instructing us about virtue?
Morality and the Law of Nature
Natural law articulates first principles of practical reason: pursue the good and avoid that which is evil; life is a good to protect; marriage and family are ordinary goods for human living; truth is a good we desire; as social animals, we must live in accordance with justice. From these principles flow intermediate precepts concerning justice in equity and retribution, honest and oaths, ownership of property, rectitude of worship, and countless others.
Human law should safeguard these goods, particularly where violations gravely injure the common good. But it is also a question to what extent we may legislate against those violations which do not constitute such violations. Laws attempting to snuff out all wrongdoing typically destroy greater goods or incite worse evils. Thus, regulation of public morality is measured by the gravity of harm, the teachability of the citizenry, and the proportionate means available.
Thus the second question: to what extent and by what means can human law regulate vice?
Your Choice
Appealing to the law gives one a principle—but it does not solve the moral quandaries in which we find ourselves in the day to day of life. Thus, we must ask: how does our exercise of choice guide us in pursuit of the right and the good? To what extent can we divest our choice to laws and lawgivers? How much can we rely on the enforcement of law to ensure the pursuit of the good?
Join our conversation this Wednesday (29 October 2025, from 5:45-7:15+ pm ET)… if you want to make a good choice, at least.