Aristotle’s ethic was eudaimonistic, which was later developed by Thomas Aquinas. Evil is the negation of good and requires no ontological grounding and it is the case that everyone always acts according to what they believe is good. Thomas’ meta-ethic was that being and goodness are the same in reference but differ only in sense. He follows Aristotle in making the connection between goodness and desirability. “The formula of the good consists in this, that something is desirable, and so the Philosopher [Aristotle] says that the good is what all desire.”[1] Although all things desire goodness, not all things capable of pursuing goodness and pleasure with understanding understand what really is good; it is possible for creatures with intellect and will to desire an apparent good as a real one.[2] Thomas states that something is desirable in two ways, either because it is good or because it appears good. Of these, the first is what is good, for an apparent good does not move by itself but insofar as it has some appearance of good; but the good moves by itself.[3] Desirability and pleasure is an essential aspect of goodness. The perfection of anything is goodness and perfection is attained in actuality, “As regards nature the good of anything is its actuality and perfection.”[4]
The Eudaimonistic Ethic
Teleology in Science
Many scientists believe teleology involves human action. The role of necessity and contingency are vital. Phrases like, “In order to…” and “It just so happens that…” are contingencies. Before proceeding I’ll make a quick distinction between metaphysics and epistemology. Metaphysics includes being and becoming. Each have respective higher and lower forms. Being’s higher form is beauty, justice, etc. The lower form is triangularity, humanity, etc. Becoming’s higher and lower are sensible things and images, respectively. Epistemology includes knowledge and opinion. Knowledge pertains to understanding and reasoning. Opinion refers to perception and imagination.
Teleology refers to final causation. Aristotle’s science included four different causes: material, formal, efficient, and final. For instance, consider a marble statue of a man. The material cause is the stuff, the marble. The formal cause is the whatness/sort, the statue. The efficient cause is that which brings it into being, the sculptor. The final cause is the end purpose, David.
Can teleology simply be an implication? Information has origin in mind but we know minds act in accordance to purpose, thus teleology is an implication and not a direct conclusion. Natural causation cannot bring about directionality or intentionality. Many philosophers of science, i.e. Alex Rosenberg, want to get us as close to nomic necessity as possible. Simply put, many philosophers, including Rosenberg, believe efficient causation is not satisfying.
Eudaimonianism
Aristotle’s ethic was eudaimonistic, which was later developed by Thomas Aquinas. Evil is the negation of good and requires no ontological grounding and it is the case that everyone always acts according to what they believe is good. Thomas’ meta-ethic was that being and goodness are the same in reference but differ only in sense. He follows Aristotle in making the connection between goodness and desirability. “The formula of the good consists in this, that something is desirable, and so the Philosopher [Aristotle] says that the good is what all desire.”[1] Although all things desire goodness, not all things capable of pursuing goodness and pleasure with understanding understand what really is good; it is possible for creatures with intellect and will to desire an apparent good as a real one.[2] Thomas states that something is desirable in two ways, either because it is good or because it appears good. Of these, the first is what is good, for an apparent good does not move by itself but insofar as it has some appearance of good; but the good moves by itself.[3] Desirability and pleasure is an essential aspect of goodness. The perfection of anything is goodness and perfection is attained in actuality, “As regards nature the good of anything is its actuality and perfection.”[4]
Natural Law and Theonomy
The following is a paper I completed three years ago for a course of Jurisprudence.
________
Epistemology may perhaps, be the most foundational thought process to humankind. Without knowledge, nothing may be accomplished or known. Governmental organization is inevitable in this world, and arguably by human nature. Because not everyone has the same view on every issue there was, is, and ever will be, perhaps through the epistemological, philosophical, and theological approach to government may humankind obtain more knowledge of human jurisprudential thought.
Natural law may be the most common view of jurisprudential thought because it is observable in society and has a great deal of evidence in its favor. This case is supported by the idea that humankind knows what is right because it is written on the heart of every human being. Theonomy, which may be viewed as a more radical step above natural law for a Christian is the applicability of God’s Law to today’s society. The cases for natural law and theonomy may seem naïve without any epistemological, philosophical, and theological evidences, but through meticulous study of these schools of thought, the goal of better understanding these ideas become more tenable.
Ancient Texts Compared to the Bible
Below is a chart that compares popular ancient texts with the Bible in when it was written, the earliest copy we have, and the number of copies there are. This information is about a decade old so the number of NT manuscripts has most likely increased by now. This may serve as a simple illustration of a component to the textual reliability of the Bible.
| Author | Book | When Written | Earliest Copy | Time Gap | No. of Copies |
| Homer | Iliad | 800 BC | 400 BC | 400 yrs | 643 |
| Herodotus | History | 480-425 BC | AD 900 | 1,350 yrs | 8 |
| Thucydides | History | 460-400 BC | AD 900 | 1,300 yrs | 8 |
| Plato | 400 BC | AD 900 | 1,300 yrs | 7 | |
| Demosthenes | 300 BC | AD 1100 | 1,400 yrs | 200 | |
| Caesar | Gallic Wars | 100-44 BC | AD 900 | 1,000 yrs | 10 |
| Livy | History of Rome | 59 BC – AD 17 | 4th Cent. (Partial)Mostly 10th Cent. | 400 yrs1,000 yrs | 1 Partial19 Copies |
| Tacitus | Annals | AD 100 | AD 1100 | 1,000 yrs | 20 |
| Pliny Secundus | Natural History | AD 61-113 | AD 850 | 750 yrs | 7 |
| New Testament | AD 50-100 | AD 114 (fragment)AD 200 (books)
AD 250 (most of NT) AD 325 (complete NT) |
+50 yrs100 yrs
150 yrs 225 yrs |
5,366 |
Josh McDowell, The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict, 1999.
