วีดีโอ

needed this as a foundation to one of my ethics essays, thanks so much!

You’ve explained it impressively and quintessentially .. thank you so much 😊

Would he consider a human in a coma or vegetative state a rational soul?

What if an evil life is saved?

Doesn't Hobbes believe in Jungle Law? Isn't Natural Law above Jungle Law? Does Constitutional Law mean anything to you?

Yes, the Catholic Church supports war in scenarios of war in self defense.

Are you yourself a virtue ethicist or is this just your current subject of interest?

Was this after the Muslims preserved his works? Did Thomas Aquinas copy Muslim scholars?

To fully and properly understand Aquinas' Principle of Double Effect within the context of abortion, it is super critical to SET ASIDE the discussion regarding when the soul is infused (i.e. at what point do we have a human being with rights). And instead to simply apply as a premise that there is a human being (this topic is fully and accurately answered by today's scientific understanding, esp. after the discovery of DNA). Given the premise, you are now able to fully explore and understand the implications and apply correctly to today's discussions.

in the case of a Christian defending their own life there is a case to be made that defending one's own life does not pass point 4, because saving one's own life, if you are living a life of repentance, is not proportionately more grave than ending the life of a sinner without giving them the chance to repent. the counter argument of course is that the value of future works of the Christian and their responsibilities outweigh the damnation of the attacker, but only God can truly know.

SAINT Thomas Aquinas.

Welcome to episode six of our Aquinas and Natural Law series! Discover how Aquinas resolves moral conflict with the Doctrine of Double Effect. Check out the series: th-cam.com/play/PL85Fs8yMgt8r3EN3XMJjeh-Jj5LmR1mZx.html Next week: "Aquinas on Abortion"!

Great video. It's actually content like this that enhances my interest in the bible even as a non believer. Hope you do psalm 82 next.

Thank you bro

I do not believe this is typical of utilitarians for they measure the suffering created on the perpetrator. Secondly, Negative Consequences the example of the doctors murdering an innocent man to donate his organs for other people would be debated to be direct utilitarianism it wouldn’t be long term utilitarianism because it would create a society in which everyone lives in fear of their rights being violated to save people this would create massive suffering unless it is in an alternative universe where humans think very differently than us.

Need more coverage of women's philosophies. Mens takes are kind of half baked.

" I am reminded of a great German philosopher, Immanuel Kant. He is a specimen of those people who are absolutely in the mind. He lived according to mind so totally that people used to set their watches, whenever they saw Immanuel Kant going to the university. Never - it may rain, it may rain fire, it may rain cats and dogs, it may be utterly cold, snow falling … Whatever the situation, Kant will reach the university at exactly the same time all the year round, even on holidays. Such a fixed, almost mechanical … He would go on holiday at exactly the same time, remain in the university library, which was specially kept open for him, because otherwise what would he do there the whole day? And he was a very prominent, well-known philosopher, and he would leave the university at exactly the same time every day. One day it happened … It had rained and there was too much mud on the way - one of his shoes got stuck in the mud. He did not stop to take the shoe out because that would make him reach the university a few seconds later, and that was impossible. He left the shoe there. He just arrived with one shoe. The students could not believe it. Somebody asked, “What happened to the other shoe?” He said, “It got stuck in the mud, so I left it there, knowing perfectly well nobody is going to steal one shoe. When I return in the evening, then I will pick it up. But I could not have been late.” A woman proposed to him: “I want to be married to you” - a beautiful young woman. Perhaps no woman has ever received such an answer, before or after Immanuel Kant. Either you say, “Yes,” or you say, “No. Excuse me.” Immanuel Kant said, “I will have to do a great deal of research.” The woman asked, “About what?” He said, “I will have to look in all the marriage manuals, all the books concerning marriage, and find out all the pros and cons - whether to marry or not to marry.” The woman could not imagine that this kind of answer had ever been given to any woman before. Even no is acceptable, even yes, although you are getting into a misery, but it is acceptable. But this kind of indifferent attitude towards the woman - he did not say a single sweet word to her. He did not say anything about her beauty, his whole concern was his mind. He had to convince his mind whether or not marriage is logically the right thing. It took him three years. It was really a long search. Day and night he was working on it, and he had found three hundred reasons against marriage and three hundred reasons for marriage. So the problem even after three years was the same. One friend suggested out of compassion, “You wasted three years on this stupid research. In three years you would have experienced all these six hundred, without any research. You should have just said yes to that woman. There was no need to do so much hard work. Three years would have given you all the pros and cons - existentially, experientially.” But Kant said, “I am in a fix. Both are equal, parallel, balanced. There is no way to choose.” The friend suggested, “Of the pros you have forgotten one thing: that whenever there is a chance, it is better to say yes and go through the experience. That is one thing more in favor of the pros. The cons cannot give you any experience, and only experience has any validity.” He understood, it was intellectually right. He immediately went to the woman’s house, knocked on her door. Her old father opened the door and said, “Young man, you are too late. You took too long in your research. My girl is married and has two children.” That was the last thing that was ever heard about his marriage. From then on no woman ever asked him, and he was not the kind of man to ask anybody. He remained unmarried."

How do you think this concept reflects within the context of the "problem of evil?" The natural precepts suggests there is no evil, only human limitation/failure to do good, and thereby the idea that God is omnibenevelent could be true. However, in Summa Theologiae, Aquinas posits that the "absence of good... is an evil". But, he relates this idea heavily to "privation" and it becomes more difficult to understand if the nature of evil is man-made or not. Keep up the great work!

Thanks for the concise breakdown. I think it's sometimes difficult, in a modern context, to view the nature of law in separate classifications when eternal seems so similar to divine, which then - by extension - also applies to natural law; and they do not seem so different after all. Looking forward to the next video! Keep up the amazing work!

Welcome to a new series! My first videos were on Natural Law Ethics. This series has been completely rewritten for improved clarity, audio, and presentation. Enjoy the videos!

ohh that's actually perfect for my upcoming exam! Thanks!

Let's examine a genuine example: World War 2. Did the final result of defeating the Nazis justify the end result of freeing Jews? Of course - The same is alto true of Israel's current war. The purpose is to defend themselves from physical attacks by its enemies, plus murders, rapes, kidnappings, etc. YES! What Israel has done, and continues to do, is absolutely, positively justifiable!

Great breakdown! These are helping me through college ethics :)

🫶🫶🫶

❤

Thank you very much!

These videos have been superrrr helpful for my ethics a level exam tomorrow, thank you so much!! I will recommend

this was so useful! Thank you!

this was so useful! Thank you

this is so helpful thank you!!! ❤❤

You're awesome

You are very Talented Young Man ❤❤ Thanks 😊

Genesis proves the Trinity. You just haven’t actually understood it because you don’t know proper hermeneutics. Also the ancient Jews understood God to be multipersonal. There’s good ancient Jewish teachings other than the Old Testament that validate this if you want me to share it. Saying the trinity is a later development is only true if you mean to say the word “trinity” wasn’t applied to describe Gods three persons until the 3rd & 4th century. 3 persons who share one essence. Giving it a term is not that same as the understanding of that relationship being “developed” it was already known that all three persons were God but not the same person. You can get that from Genesis alone. There’s a clear distinction between the Father(God) and the Son (Angel/Word of the Lord) and the Holy Spirit in Genesis

what if it passes both the test of conception and will, is it a perfect duty?

Superb ❤

Kept reading through notes I found on the double effect but couldn't wrap my head around it, this video is way better, its straightforward and really well explained. Thank you!!

I am curious about genesis when God created male and female, saw it was good then sent them off to multiply. Yet in the garden of Eden there was only 1 man.

Dark age lunacy writ large in the modern world. Theism is humanities greatest failure. Those dark age peasants can be forgiven for believing the madness of theism as they couldn't be educated. The elite and the churches ensured that. Again, those dark age peasants can be forgiven. Modern day educated people have no such excuse.

It was actually how re-created the world so that human can live. There is a honkong pastor actually described fully.

The chaos in my opinion was Satan's rebellion. It's a deep study but I absolutely believe there was a flood before Noah's flood.

Thank you for checking out my video. This is the beginning of a new series on biblical scholarship. My aim is to make interesting and enlightening videos on biblical literature, which may have a touch of controversy but are wholly non-exclusionary. They can be enjoyed whether you are religious, come from a religious background, or are as non-religious as they come. We will dive not just into philosophy and theology, but also history, mythology, linguistics, archaeology, and more. I hope you’ll join me on this exciting journey.

Bro your content is getting me through my ethics course in uni rn, THANK U <33

Hello can u help me i have an report about this topic

awesome summary, very helpful!

Was very helpful thanks a lot

loe? s

Thankyou this was very helpful!

Then it appears that Politicians especially those in the USA and some in Britain are not adherents of Natural Law with their lack of ethics proudly put on display. Good explanation.

that thanks !

thank you so much it helps studying for my high school exam