These three posts must have a minimum of 100 words each.
Ch. 5: St. Thomas Aquinas
1) How would St. Thomas defend himself (if, indeed, such a defense is possible) against the charge of being â€œhomophobicâ€ (a word that did not exist in his time, but which is fairly common today)? Would you find his defense plausible? Why or why not?
2.) If one is not at all religious, is it still possible to take St. Thomasâ€™ natural law theory seriously? Could it still be relied upon as a guide to living well? Explain.
Ch. 6: Hobbes
3) Compare Christâ€™s Golden Rule with Hobbesâ€™ Golden Rule. Which do you think is more effective in getting people to obey the laws, and why?
4) What is Hobbes’ stance on the question of state censorship? What reasons does he give to support his view? Do you agree or disagree with him, and why?
Ch. 7: Hume
5) According to Hume, would justice be necessary in a utopian society? Why or why not? Do you think he is correct, and why?
Ch. 8: J.S. Mill
6) Explain John Stuart Millâ€™s theory of higher and lower pleasures: Are there any problems inherent in the theory? Overall, does Millâ€™s idea of higher and lower pleasures make sense to you? Why or why not?