Reflection Prompt

Unjust Laws

Testing Aquinas's claim that an unjust law is no law at all

Aquinas holds that a human law that contradicts natural law lacks the nature of law entirely. Such a law, on his view, has no genuine authority and does not morally bind the conscience of those asked to obey it. Martin Luther King Jr. drew on exactly this claim, six centuries later, to justify civil disobedience against segregation statutes.

This reflection asks you to test Aquinas's thesis on a specific case.

The prompt

Pick a human law (a specific statute, regulation, or legal practice) that you believe is genuinely unjust in the Thomistic sense: one that contradicts natural law as Aquinas understands it. The example can be historical or contemporary; the choice is yours.

In your reflection, do the following:

  1. Identify the law and briefly describe what it requires or prohibits.
  2. Explain specifically which precept or principle of natural law you think the law violates. You should be able to point to a natural law principle that can be stated clearly and defended by reasoning about human nature, not just an intuition that the law feels wrong.
  3. Address at least one of the following questions: Would Aquinas's framework actually support the conclusion you have reached? Who decides whether a law counts as unjust, and how do we avoid the result that everyone can disobey any law they personally dislike? Is it possible that Aquinas's thesis goes too far, and that unjust laws might still hold some kind of authority we are obligated to respect?

Important: philosophical, not political

Your task here is philosophical, not political. You are testing a specific philosophical claim (Aquinas's thesis about unjust laws) against a specific case, and you are doing so using the resources of this course. You are not scoring political points or venting about legislation you dislike. A good reflection shows how natural law reasoning applies to the case you chose; a weak one just restates a political position.

Some suggestions for finding a case: historical examples (Jim Crow segregation, the Nuremberg Laws, Apartheid pass laws, Fugitive Slave Acts) tend to produce cleaner philosophical analysis because moral hindsight is settled. Contemporary examples are more engaging but require more care; be sure the injustice you identify is one that can be defended on natural law grounds, not just a matter of political disagreement.

Your Reflection

This is a thinking space — your response is not saved or submitted. Copy your work if you want to keep it.