Post TWO substantive responses to other students' posts. The response posts must be between 100 and 150 words each. NOTE: The goal of the discussion board is not simply to say "I agree with you" and add a short sentence or two, but rather to carry the discussion forward by asking follow up questions or expanding on key course concepts so as to engage in a meaningful and constructive dialogue with fellow students.

Please reply the two answers below.

Post 1.

(Question5. If one is not at all religious, is it still possible to take St. Thomas’ natural law principle seriously? Could it still be relied upon as a guide to living well? Explain.)

If someone is not religious, it is still possible to understand and follow the natural law principle, but not in the way St. Thomas Aquinas intended. The Natural Law principle basically states that through God's Design, he placed in humans the natural, basic inclinations that form humanity itself, differentiate us from all creatures, and direct us towards objects that are good for us (St. Thomas Aquinas, 2020). If someone not religious were to eliminate God completely from this principle, the meaning would still hold true. The principle would look a little like this: we as humans share basic inclinations that are common in our humanity, those shared inclinations differentiate us from all other creatures, and we (as humans) are naturally directed towards objects that are in OUR best interest (instead of being directed by God, we are directed by human self interest). When formatting the principle like this, the 4 natural inclinations discussed by St. Thomas can still be used as a guide to life.

1. Preservation of life– We should strive to always preserve our life because we only have one life to live, NOT because we'll be punished by God.

2. Procreation– Humans will naturally procreate, we should continue to do that, but not participating in it is NOT evil like Aquinas believes.

3. Live in Society– We should live civilly amongst each other, because that is morally correct, not "religiously correct". We cannot thrive in isolation.

4. To know the truth about LIFE (not God, like Aquinas believes)– Humans are intelligent, we can think for ourselves, so we should continue to seek the truth about life. We should do our best to avoid ignorance and do what we can to end ignorance.

Post 2.

(Question2. Epicurus believes that fear of divine retribution is the greatest source of fear and anxiety. Do you agree with this assessment? Why or why not?)

Honestly, I do agree with this assessment. I do believe in some kind of afterlife, but i don't necessarily believe that you would be subject to eternal damnation if you aren't a pious person. However, many individuals use the black and white "good goes to heaven, and bad goes to hell" to dictate their entire lives and opinions. What I mean by this is that they use what is taught as "bad" (an example in the Christian religion would be same sex marriage, abortion, "explicit" clothing, etc) to force the idea of hell on other members of society. In reality, they're forcing their opinions on others because of their own fear of what would happen to them in the afterlife for committing those "sins". Peoples fear of being punished in the afterlife causes them to spread hate and negativity to others. That fear and anxiety is the source of a lot of hate in the world that we live in today. Epicurus believes that "death is nothing at all to fear" and it's actually "supposed to give you a sense of calm, serenity, and tranquility" (Epicurus, 2020). Instead, people clash over different beliefs, and the common source is fear of punishment in the afterlife. People should spend their time being calm and kind, but as long as that fear is in place, who knows when that can happen.