ETHICS Bunyatova Shams

Lecture 3: Introduction to Medieval and Renaissance Ethics

 Overview of the Medieval and Renaissance periods

 Augustine's Ethics

 His ethical views, including original sin, free will, and divine grace

 P. Abelard's intention ethics

 Aquinas and Thomistic Ethics

 St. Thomas Aquinas and his synthesis of Aristotle and Christianity

 Natural law theory and its application to ethics

 Introduction to the Renaissance period and humanism

 The ethics of Renaissance philosophers like Montaigne

 Machiavelli and Political Realism

 Niccolò Machiavelli's political philosophy and ethics

 The Prince as a guide to statecraft and power

Medieval ethics is based on the life and workings of the Greek philosophers Aristotle and Plato
and their philosophical teachings. Moreover, In the middle Ages, ethical teachings had a religious
character. At the center of these teachings was the love of God. Love was the main principle of ethics,
and a norm of behavior was named a “golden rules». In the middle Ages, philosophers tried to answer
the question “Does a person’s fate depend on his behavior or a wish of the Lord?”.

Until the end of the twelfth century, much of moral philosophy was developed in the context of
theological debates within the intellectual tradition of Western Christianity. Monks and teachers in
cathedral schools developed the thought of the earlier Christian Fathers, which was heavily influenced
by Stoicism and NeoPlatonism. In the late twelfth century universities arose, and in the thirteenth
century Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics became a part of the educational tradition . Theologians and
Masters of Arts developed a complicated moral philosophy and moral theology which took into account
both the thought of Aristotle and the earlier Christian tradition. In particular, there were lengthy
discussions of the relationship between happiness and ethics , the role of nature in the natural law, and
the subject and connection of the virtues. These medieval discussions provide the background for late
scholastic and early modern treatments of the relationship between happiness and the virtues, as well
as the importance of will for moral obligation.
Most medieval moral philosophers were primarily moral theologians.
Consequently, the Hebrew scriptures, which were known as the “Old Testament,” and the Christian
scriptures, or the “New Testament,” which were in Greek, provided the background against which their
moral philosophy developed. The Hebrew scriptures were known to Christians primarily through the
Greek Jewish translation which was known as the “Septuagint.” In the Christian West, both the
Septuagint and the New Testament were available to medieval thinkers in some version of the Latin
Vulgate, which was attributed to St. Jerome.
The Old Testament includes the Mosaic Law, which contains a
variety of ceremonial, judicial, and moral laws. The judicial and ceremonial laws were thought to be no
longer binding after the coming of Christ. Nevertheless, the basic moral outlook behind these laws was
seen as perennially valid, as were the solely moral laws. Consequently, the notion of “law” was central
to Christian faith and practice. The concept of "law" held a central place in Christian faith and practice.
ETHICS Bunyatova Shams
This reflects the idea that ethical and moral principles, often rooted in divine command, guided the
behavior of Christians. The New Testament modified but did not disown this focus on law. Jesus Christ
claimed to have his own divine authority to modify and even dispense with much of the law, and he
stressed the importance of faith in his own person. In particular, Christ taught that the most significant
precepts are to love God above all things, and to love others as oneself (see agape). St. Paul saw Christ
as the new Adam, who made it possible for humans to enter into a new life in Christ, whereby they
gained a special ability to act well through love. From the earliest centuries many
Christian thinkers used pagan philosophy to illustrate, defend, and even explain Christian doctrine.
During the fourth century, when Christianity became legal, there was a marked increase in Christian
literature. The resulting moral thought was largely influenced by Stoic and Neo-Platonic ethics. For
instance, St. Augustine of Hippo thought that the knowledge and love for God described by the Bible
was the largely unrecognized goal of the pagan philosopher’s search for happiness. Although he was
skeptical about the true moral worth of pagan virtue, Augustine drew heavily on Neo-Platonic
philosophy in his description of how humans should prefer an immaterial and unchangeable good to
material and changeable goods. Similarly, although he criticized Stoic notions of dispassion and the
sufficiency of virtue for happiness, Augustine borrowed and developed the Stoic understanding of the
will (voluntas), which was not clearly present in much Aristotelian and Neo-Platonic thought (see free
will). Although Augustine and other Christians were skeptical of the philosophers’ assumption that at
least some humans could attain happiness on their own, they did think that happiness was available in
the next life to anyone who would respond to or cooperate with God’s unmerited help, or grace.
Aurelius Augustine , in his books “On the immortality of the soul”, and “Confession” noted that the Lord
is the owner of a powerful force, he created man free, but human freedom has its limit; a person must
do all for the consent (agreement) of God, and should follow the rules of morality for good.

Pierre Abelard (XI-XII centuries) is French philosopher. He was the son of a landowner. But he
refused his father’s inheritance and devoted his life to philosophy. Pierre wrote ethical thoughts in his
books "Ethics", "Yes or No", and "History of my disasters”. Peter Abelard’s moral thought was
particularly influential, if only through the backlash that it provoked . Abelard seems to have taught that
sin consists primarily in the agent’s evil intention and not in the act’s nature. According to this view, an
act of murder or adultery is bad only because the agent’s intention in performing it is bad. Abelard’s
focus on intention led his contemporaries to wonder whether it would be possible to perform any given
bad act with a good intention. Most thought that although no kinds of acts are always good, some are
always evil .According to Abelard, a person can do a good deed with his will (or wish); human freedom is
a fact of the greatness wisdom of the Lord; each person will answer for his actions, morality is the most
valuable achievement of mankind.

Although the early scholastics developed a new focus on individual acts, many were also
concerned with describing and classifying the virtues, which are habits which produce good acts. These
thinkers inherited from the earlier patristic and ultimately Platonic tradition the doctrine that there are
four “cardinal” virtues, namely prudence, justice, temperance, and fortitude. Alan of Lille and Simon of
Tournai classified all virtues not directed to God as “political virtues,” which they contrasted with the
“catholic” virtues of faith, hope, and charity. Virtues which are normally political virtues can become
“catholic” virtues if they are directed to God. This terminology developed alongside an increasingly
sophisticated approach to the distinction between the virtues. The description of the virtues was
unsettled even in the thirteenth century. For instance, William of Auxerre identified the political virtues
with the cardinal virtues, whereas Philip the Chancellor contrasted the moral virtues with the
theological, and then divided the moral virtues into the political and the cardinal virtues. Philip
distinguished between these virtues not only with respect to their objects and ends, but also with
respect to their origin. At least some moral virtues are acquired through acts, but the theological virtues
are given or infused by God. This classification of the virtues became important for the reception of
Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics. By the early thirteenth century, scholars had in Latin only the first three
ETHICS Bunyatova Shams
books. The translation of the whole Nicomachean Ethics led to the flowering of moral philosophy in the
works of Thomas Aquinas, John Duns Scotus, and their contemporaries . Although the Nicomachean
Ethics had a minor place in the thirteenth-century university curriculum, its translation by Robert
Grosseteste in the 1240s was greatly influential. Albert the Great (ca. 1200–80) lectured on it twice.
Sometime during the years 1248–52, Thomas Aquinas attended and edited Albert’s first set of lectures
on it. By the later years of the middle of the thirteenth century, with the exception of a very few fringe
thinkers such as Peter John Olivi theologians generally viewed Aristotle’s works with respect and cited
him as an authority .

Thomas Aquinas, along with his teacher Albert, was among the first to incorporate Aristotle’s
ethics into moral theology. The largest and most influential part of his Summa Theologiae is about moral
theology, and he wrote many disputed questions on ethics, as well as a commentary on the
Nicomachean Ethics. Previous moral works had often organized moral philosophy around commands or
duties. In his writings generally and in the Summa Theologiae in particular, Thomas focused on the way
in which happiness is attained through the exercise of the moral and theological virtues. In the Prima
Secundae of his Summa Theologiae, Thomas discusses the ultimate end of human action from both an
Aristotelian and an Augustinian perspective .Like Aristotle and perhaps Augustine, Thomas thinks that
every act aims at a good which is a means to or somehow constitutive of happiness. In order to combine
Aristotelian and Augustinian notions of happiness, Thomas makes two distinctions. First, he
distinguishes between the ultimate end considered as an activity and a good of the soul, which is
happiness, and the ultimate end considered as a separate thing, which is God. Second, he distinguishes
between that imperfect happiness which is achieved in this life through the exercise of virtue, and that
perfect happiness which is attained through the contemplation of God in heaven.

Aristotle’s happiness roughly corresponds to the virtuous activity of the soul in this life. In this
text Thomas does not directly criticize Aristotle, although in other contexts he suggests that Aristotle
overemphasizes contemplation in this life because he did not know about contemplation in the next.
Scholars disagree over whether Thomas’ focus on the agent’s own happiness might be properly
described as egoistic. One difficulty with describing Thomas as an egoist is that Thomas emphasizes that
the most important moral precept is to love God more than oneself, and he associates this love with the
way in which someone can love the common good more than his own private good. Even though
Thomas and most of his contemporaries do not think it possible to love another individual or another’s
common good more than oneself or one’s own common good, Thomas holds that humans can know
through natural reason that they should love both their own political common good and God more than
themselves. The love for God more than self is based on the natural inclination which every creature has
for the good of the species and even the universe over its own good. Rational creatures are distinct in
that they can see this order in nature and choose to love in accordance with it. Whereas the sense
appetites follow sense cognition, the will as a rational appetite follows intellectual cognition. The agent
loves what is good for himself, but not necessarily because it is good for himself.

The natural love of God presupposes the love of God for one’s own sake, but it is not limited to
such a self-directed love. One difficulty is that he also thinks that on account of original sin human
nature has been wounded in such a way that this precept cannot be obeyed. Consequently, the most
important ethical precept is now impossible to fulfill without healing grace, which is a special help from
God. This healing grace is given along with the theological virtue of charity, which is a love for God as the
source of supernatural beatitude. Even though Thomas thinks that loving always accompanies the
contemplation of God in the next life, he also thinks that this perfect happiness consists not primarily in
loving but rather in knowing God. Thomas’ attempt to combine an Aristotelian ethics of happiness based
on human nature with a Christian ethics of love for God over self was not entirely successful in the eyes
of many late thirteenth-century thinkers. In the Arts Faculty, it seems that many understood Aristotle to
say that one must always love oneself more than others, and that the highest human activity is
ETHICS Bunyatova Shams
contemplation in this life. The Augustinian James of Viterbo argues that Aristotelian ethics primarily
involves the love of self, and contrasts it directly with the Christian ethics of the love of God over self. W.
James thinks that all creatures including humans have a natural inclination for their own good more
than to the common good. It is only through special help from God that humans can transcend this self-
love.

According to Thomas, there is an infused virtue which corresponds to each acquired virtue .This
infused virtue makes the acts of natural virtues meritorious and directs them to God as the supernatural
end which is loved through the theological virtue of charity. The infused virtues are connected with each
other through charity in such a way that if charity is lost, then they are all lost. Their connection with the
acquired virtues is more difficult to understand. The infused virtues can exist without the acquired
virtues. For instance, if a habitual sinner against temperance repents and confesses, he then has the
infused virtue of temperance and has some ability to resist sins against temperance. But it may take
time for the acquired virtues to develop.
Aquinas distinguished between two types of souls:

 Animal Soul: He believed that animals possess a sensitive or animal soul, which is responsible
for sensory perception, desires, and basic instincts. This soul is shared by humans and animals.

 Rational Soul: Aquinas argued that humans have a rational soul in addition to the animal soul.
The rational soul is unique to humans and is responsible for higher intellectual functions,
including reason and morality. It enables humans to have free will and make moral choices.

A next point to be mentioned is the nature of ethics. Ethics is practical science, concerned with
human actions in so far as they are related to each other and ordered to the end. Aristotle stressed the
practical nature of ethics: it does not tell us so much what virtue is, as much as it aims at making us good
persons. St. Thomas, on the other hand, emphasizes the cognitive nature of ethics more than Aristotle.
In order to lead our life as we ought, knowledge of the end is necessary; however, this knowledge
should be the basis for right acts. But how one ought to act in concrete circumstances is determined by
prudence, rather than by the inevitably general knowledge of moral philosophy. Ethics considers man’s
actions as directed to his ultimate end. Aristotle distinguishes between three branches of ethics: the
study of human acts as directed to man’s end, man’s obligations in the context of family life, and man’s
task in political society. In his treatment of the main virtues Aquinas deals with these various tasks,
obligations and rights of human beings. The ethics of Aquinas is dominated by the fact that all beings
strive for the good. All our choices and actions must be directed to what is really good for us.
Metaphysics shows that the good, the object of our appetite, is being. It is our task to realize ourselves
by uniting ourselves with the good. Ethics does not aim at perfecting us as individuals, so that we might
stand in solitude amid a neutral environment. The end of man is to be united with the good, that is with
reality as it is in itself. This means that ethics instructs us to direct our appetite to those things which
really perfect us. Being perfects us, and God does so in a superlative way, since he is the cause of all
good things.

Types of Laws

Central also in Aquinas ethics is his typology of laws. By the term ‘law’, he means an ordinance of reason
for the common good, promulgated by someone who has care of the community. Aquinas’ laws should
also be understood in terms of “rules and measures” for people’s conduct and as “rational patterns or
forms”. Obedience to the law is thus viewed also as participating in or being in conformity with the
pattern or form. For Aquinas, there are four primary types of law—the eternal, natural, human, and
divine.

The eternal law refers to the rational plan of God by which all creation is ordered. As God is the supreme
ruler of everything, the rational pattern or form of the universe that exists in His mind is the law that
ETHICS Bunyatova Shams
directs everything in the universe to its appointed end. To this eternal law, everything in the universe is
subject.

The natural law is that aspect of the eternal law which is accessible to human reason. Because mankind
is part of the eternal order, there is a portion of the eternal law that relates specifically to human
conduct. This is the moral law, the law or order to which people are subject by their natureordering
them to do good and avoid evil.

The human law refers to the positive laws. For natural law to be adhered to, more exact and forceful
provisions of human law are helpful. Because the natural law is too broad to provide particular
guidance, the human law’s precise, positive rules of behavior are supposed to spell out what the natural
law prescribes.

Moral virtues are also reinforced by and cultivated through these human laws. This human law includes
the civil and criminal laws, though only those formulated in the light of practical reason and moral laws.
Human laws that are against natural law are not real laws, and people are not obliged to obey those
unjust laws.

The divine law serves to complement the other types of law. Itis a law of revelation, disclosed through
sacred text or Scriptures and the Church which is also directed toward man’s eternal end. Though
concerned also with external aspects of conduct, the divine law is more focused on how man can be
inwardly holy and eventually attain salvation.

The Natural Law and Ethics

Obviously, the type of law that is primarily significant in Ethics is the natural law. Part of this natural law
is our inherent natural tendency to pursue the behavior and goals appropriate to us.

According to Aquinas, this natural law is knowable by natural reason. For instance, our practical
reason naturally comprehends that good is to be promoted and evil is to be avoided. By virtue of a
faculty of moral insight or conscience that Thomas called synderesis, we also have natural inclinations to
some specific goods. Aquinas enumerates three sets of these inclinations: to survive, to reproduce and
educate offspring, and to know the truth about God and to live in society. These prescriptions to have
families, love God and our neighbors, and pursue knowledge are but rationally obvious precepts and
simply stand to reason. In Aquinas's Eschatological Ethics and the Virtue of Temperance, Matthew
Levering argues that Catholic ethics make sense only in light of the biblical worldview that Jesus has
inaugurated the kingdom of God by pouring out his spirit. Jesus has made it possible for us to know and
obey God's law for human flourishing as individuals and communities. He has reoriented our lives
toward the goal of beatific communion with him in charity, which affects the exercise of the moral
virtues that pertain to human flourishing. Without the context of the inaugurated kingdom, Catholic
ethics as traditionally conceived will seem like an effort to find a middle ground between legalistic
rigorism and relativistic laxism, which is especially the case with the virtue of temperance, the focus of
Levering's book. The theology of temperance is profoundly biblical, and that Aquinas's theology of
temperance relies for its intelligibility upon Christ's inauguration of the kingdom of God as the graced
fulfillment of our created nature.

In the Renaissance period (XIV-XVI centuries), all cultural achievements were directed to benefit
of human. Scholars confirmed that men will physically dead, but spiritually he lives forever, and morality
is a basis of human spirituality. In this epoch, morality becomes an instrument of knowledge of a person
and the fulfillment of his inner opportunities and powers.

"Memento mori" and "carpe diem" are two Latin phrases often associated with Renaissance
ethics and philosophy. They represent different aspects of the ethical and philosophical concerns of the
Renaissance period.
ETHICS Bunyatova Shams
Memento Mori: This phrase translates to "Remember that you will die." It serves as a reminder
of human mortality and the transient nature of life. In Renaissance ethics, the contemplation of death
was seen as a means of focusing on the brevity of life and the need to live virtuously and make the most
of one's time on Earth. It encouraged individuals to reflect on their actions and moral choices. In the
medieval Christian context, "memento mori" was closely related to the idea of judgment in the afterlife,
where individuals would be held accountable for their actions on Earth. It encouraged humility,
repentance, and a focus on spiritual matters rather than worldly pursuits.

Carpe Diem: This phrase translates to "Seize the day." It emphasizes the idea of living in the
present moment and making the most of the opportunities life presents. Renaissance philosophers and
writers often used this concept to encourage people to pursue their goals, enjoy life's pleasures, and not
be overly preoccupied with thoughts of death. It was seen as a call to live life to the fullest. In the
medieval context, "carpe diem" was often associated with secular, courtly love poetry, where poets
would extol the virtues of seizing the moment to express love and desire. These poems often conveyed
a sense of urgency and fleeting beauty.

Both of these phrases reflect the complex ethical and philosophical landscape of the
Renaissance, where humanism, individualism, and a fascination with the human experience were central
themes. Renaissance thinkers sought a balance between recognizing the inevitability of death and the
importance of embracing life's opportunities. These concepts continue to resonate in modern
discussions of ethics and the human condition.

The Renaissance was a cultural movement beginning in the 14th century in Italy. It spread to the
rest of Europe, reaching England by the 16th century and northern Europe by the mid-17th century. It is
characterized by Humanism, the predominant social, intellectual and literary currents of the period from
1400 to 1650. Humanism emphasizes appreciation of worldly pleasures, interest in classical pagan art
and architecture, and the value of individual expression.

During the Renaissance the ideal nobleman was a literate and refined gentleman of courtly
manners. He had responsibility for the care of servants, peasants and family members, which for
noblemen of limited resources posed a financial challenge. Some noble families lost their estates or
became vassals of more wealthy lords in order to be able to keep their estates. This meant swearing
loyalty to the overlord and coming to his aid in time of war.

Jordano Bruno is a famous Italian scientist - astronomer. J. Bruno says that a perfect person is a
person who directs his activity to the benefit of society, and always tries to progress; a person must
improve his personality and his surroundings; striving from the wildness to the kindness is a
development of morality; a person’s moral will reflects in his love; a loving person is a creator, serving
society is an action of a moral person. These were the conclusions of J. Bruno about conscientious
person.

M. Montaigne is French philosopher. In his books “Experiments”, and “Friendship” he collected

ethical experiences of all times and people. His ethical ideas were as follows: moral perfection is the
actual development of a person; a thinking person is a moral person; all the best qualities are possible
for a person, people’s morality is different and it is connected with the environment. Montaigne said: “I
look at myself and see in myself shame and shamelessness, wisdom and madness, hard work and
laziness, silence and chatter, kindness and lie, large heart and greed. In every person, you can see these
conflicting qualities. Therefore, I cannot say anything surely about myself“ Montaigne’s moral
conclusion is the following: “We must direct all our thinking and actions for our goods”. These ideas of
Montaigne later became the basis of the ethics of bourgeois society [5]. Thus, there were different ideas
on ethics science in the middle ages and Renaissance periods. All thinkers tried to understand and study
the essence of moralityinlife.
By far the most significant political philosopher of the Renaissance was Niccólo
ETHICS Bunyatova Shams
Machiavelli whose writings on statesmanship have brought him both notoriety and fame.
Machiavelli took a pragmatic approach to government. He believed that the first responsibility of the
ruler is to increase and maintain his power and that the ruler was justified to use any means to
accomplish this. Machiavelli studied the political tactics of some of Italy’s most cunning rulers,
particularly those of Cesare Borgia, who through military prowess was enlarging his holdings in central
Italy. Machiavelli believed that bold and intelligent initiative on the part of a ruler could shape his
fortune. In his view, human dignity was gained by exercise of the will to rule. Machiavelli provides
instructions to the “new prince” on how to stabilize his power and retain control of his realm in his book
“The Prince.” The prince is to appear benevolent in public while secretly acting as ruthlessly as necessary
to squash his political opponents. He argues that this will achieve the greater good by maintaining social
stability.
Machiavelli established guidelines for the ruler’s actions. He proposed this definition of
acceptable cruelty: Whatever is done to one’s enemy must be swift, effective and short-lived, and there
must not be collateral damage. In other words, killing a political opponent should be done as painlessly
as possible, secretly, and without affecting other people or their property. Machiavelli justified this by
reasoning that the ruler who has power can use it to benefit his subjects. The more powerful the ruler is,
the greater his subjects’ benefits.
Machiavelli considered that some places, such as Milan, would never be ruled properly because
there were too many nobles competing for power. His solution was to exterminate them all. He wrote,
“In order to create a Republic in Milan it would be necessary to exterminate all the nobility. . . . For
there are, among the nobles, so many exalted personages that the laws do not suffice to repress them,
and they must needs be kept under by a living voice and a royal power.” (Discourse on the reform of the
State of Firenze).
Machiavelli’s political ethics depart from those of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. This is because
Machiavelli saw that whatever a ruler does there are likely to be both good and bad consequences. In
“The Discourses” (1517), he wrote, “It seems that in all the actions of men, besides the general
difficulties of carrying them to a successful issue, the good is accompanied by some special evil, and so
closely allied to it that it would seem impossible to achieve the one without encountering the other.”

Socrates would have argued that unless an action serves the common good of all citizens, the
ruler should not do it. Plato would have said that a ruler who does evil is someone who does not have
an intimate acquaintance with eternal Goodness. Aristotle argued that there are some actions which are
always bad and should never be done.

Consider the different viewpoints expressed in the writings of Machiavelli and Aristotle:
Machiavelli wrote that it is not necessary for a prince to have the qualities of honestly, kindness, loyalty,
etc, “but it is necessary to seem to have them…useful it is to seem compassionate, trustworthy,
humane, endowed with integrity, religious, and to be such, but to be in such a condition, with one’s
spirit so constructed, that, when you need to not possess these qualities, you are prepared and know
how to shift to the contrary qualities… Let, then, a prince act in such a manner as to conquer and
maintain his estate, and the means will always be judged honorable, and they will be praised by
everyone – since the crowd is always going to be taken in by appearances and results, and in the world
there is no one but the crowd…”
Aristotle wrote: “There are some actions and emotions whose very names connote baseness, e.g., spite,
shamelessness, envy; and among actions, adultery, theft, and murder. These and similar emotions and
actions imply by their very names that they are bad... It is, therefore, impossible ever to do right in
performing them: to perform them is always wrong.”