MacIntyre and Lisska argue Aquinas's ethics is defensible precisely because it embeds norms in natural teleology, but this concedes that 'is' facts about human nature do normative work.

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

'Is' facts(factual claims about human nature): Statements about how things actually are in the world, as opposed to how they should be—for example, 'humans are social animals' is an 'is' fact.
Aquinas: Thomas Aquinas was a medieval Italian priest and philosopher (1225-1274) who became one of the most influential thinkers in Western history. He attempted to show that Christian faith and human reason are compatible, arguing that we can use logic and observation to understand God and the natural world. His ideas deeply shaped Catholic theology and continue to influence how religious and secular institutions think about ethics, knowledge, and the relationship between science and belief.
Lisska(as someone challenging a particular interpretation): A philosopher who disagreed with Finnis's interpretation of Aquinas and offered a different reading of what Aquinas actually believed.
MacIntyre(as a philosophical authority on virtue ethics): Alasdair MacIntyre is a Scottish philosopher who argued that morality and virtue are best understood through stories and the context of communities and traditions, not just abstract rules.

Based on where you are in your exploration