I. The Nature of the Problems and Some Previously Suggested Solutions.- I. An outline of the problems to be considered.- II. An outline of some contemporary writers.- a. Some writers who advocate that the natural law comprises only general, invariable precepts.- b. Those writers who advocate that natural law consists of both general and specific, invariable precepts.- c. Those writers who advocate that natural law consists of general precepts which are invariable, and specific precepts which may be variable.- III. A statement of the problems to be solved, and the procedure to be followed.- a. A statement of the problems.- b. The procedure to be followed.- II. An Examination of the Concept of Self Evidence in Thomistic Natural Law Teaching.- I. The nature of the problem, some preliminary considerations, and an outline of the procedure to be followed.- a. The nature of the problem to be discussed in this chapter.- b. The status of the self-evident principles in natural law.- c. The relevance of the concept synderesis to our discussion.- d. An outline of the procedure to be followed.- II. S. Thomas's teaching concerning the concept of self evidence in natural law precepts.- A. Study of the Texts.- a. The teaching in the Commentary on the Sentences.- b. The teaching in De Veritate.- c. The teaching in the Summa Theologica.- d. An interim summary of S. Thomas's teaching.- B. The Clarification of two issues arising out of our discussion on the nature of self-evidence.- a. The validity of the distinction between propositions which are self-evident in themselves, and those which are self-evident with regard to all people.- b. A consideration of the parallel between speculative and practical knowledge, with particular emphasis on the nature and content of the general principles involved.- III. The role of the Thomistic concept naturalis inclinatio in our knowledge of self-evident natural law precepts.- a. Some preliminary considerations.- b. An analysis of the Thomistic concept, naturalis inclinatio.- c. The application of the concept naturalis inclinatio to our knowledge of self-evident natural law precepts.- IV. A critical assessment of some of the precepts suggested by contemporary writers as being self-evident, together with a summary of the main findings of this chapter.- a. The views of some contemporary writers.- b. A summary of some of the important findings in this investigation.- III. The Thomistic Distinction Between Primary and Secondary Natural Law Precepts, as Found in the Commentary on the Sentences, the Summa Contra Gentiles and the Commentary on the Nicomachean Ethics of Aristotle.- I. Recapitulation.- II. The problem of the character of precepts which are not self-evident.- III. The problem in the Commentary on the Sentences.- a. The nature of the Commentary on the Sentences.- b. Primary and secondary ends.- c. Primary natural law precepts.- d. Secondary natural law precepts.- e. Secondary precepts and their relationships with primary precepts.- f. A Discussion of the criteria for determining secondary precepts.- g. The philosophical validity of the distinction between primary and secondary ends.- IV. The Problem in the Summa Contra Gentiles.- A. Statement of the texts.- a. Relevance of the texts to the concept of naturalis inclitnatio.- b. The social nature of man.- c. Moral precepts: from the aspect of man's use of lower things.- d. Moral precepts: seen from the aspect of the soul-body relationship.- e. Moral precepts: from the aspect of man considered as a worshipping being.- B. Comments on the Texts.- V. The problem in the Commentary on the Ethics.- a. The distinction between the speculative practical aspects of knowledge.- b. Comment on the distinction between precepts arising out of the previous discussion.- IV. The Thomistic Distinction Between Primary and Secondary Natural Law Precepts, as Found in the Summa Theologica.- The History of the text.- Method of presentation to be followed.- I. The doctrine of the division of precepts in Question 94, aa. 4-6.- a. Outline of the texts.- b. Definition of the terms, primary and secondary precepts.- c. The meaning and use of the term propinquus.- d. Two important concepts in S. Thomas's thought: demonstratio and determinatio.- e. An interim summary of S. Thomas's discussion on the division of precepts.- II The doctrine of the division of precepts in Question 100, a..- a. The justification for our discussion of Question 100.- b. Outline of the text.- c. The approach of some contemporary commentators.- III. The doctrine of the division of precepts in Question 100 aa. 3 and 11.- a. Our justification for appealing to these articles.- b. Outline and discussion of the text, Question 100, a. 3.- c. Outline and discussion of the text, Question 100, a. 11.- V. Some Comments on the Validity and Usefulness of the Distinction Between Primary and Secondary Precepts.- I. A statement of the aims of this chapter and an outline of the procedure to be followed.- a. The aims of the chapter.- b. The procedure to be followed.- II. Our assessment of S. Thomas's teaching on the possibility of logical extension in natural law.- a. The view that natural law is restricted to a finite number of self-evident, general principles.- b. S. Thomas's teaching concerning the possibility of natural law being extended to include particular conclusions.- c. A brief assessment of the validity of the views of contemporary writers who advocate the restricted notion of natural law.- III. A final assessment of S. Thomas's teaching on primary and secondary precepts, and their division.- a. The primary precepts of natural law.- b. The secondary precepts of natural law.- IV. The validity and value of the distinction between primary and secondary precepts.- a. An objection to the employment of this distinction in the teaching of S. Thomas.- b. The value of the distinction between primary and secondary precepts.- VI. The Concept of Variability Among the Secondary Precepts of Natural Law.- I. A discussion on the aims of this chapter and the procedure to be followed.- a. Some preliminary comments.- b. An outline of the reasons that have been suggested for the presence of variability in natural law.- c. An outline of the procedure to be followed.- II. Mere historical changes in positive moral beliefs.- a. Statement of the texts.- b. Comments on the texts and an analysis of the variability involved.- III. Historical changes correlated with the rational development of man.- a. A statement of the problem, and an outline of the texts.- b. Some comments on the nature of the variability involved.- IV. Changes in natural law due to the intrinsic complexity of certain particular situations.- a. A statement of the nature of the problem and an outline of the relevant texts.- b. Some comments on the problem.- V. The variability of decisions in particular situations due to the contingency of principles.- a. A statement of the problem.- b. A statement and exposition of S. Thomas's teaching.- c. A short summary of the views of some modern writers.- VI. Variability in natural law due to the non-obligatory character of positively formulated precepts.- a. A statement of the problem.- b. Some comments on the distinction between positively and negatively formulated precepts.- VII. Variability in natural law due to changes in the intrinsic structure of society.- a. The nature of the problem.- b. An outline of S. Thomas's teaching.- c. The approach of some contemporary writers.- Conclusion.- Index of Authors.
