Ed Feser concludes his book Aquinas with the following comment about the relation between the Angelic Doctor and modernity:
In both its metaphysical and theological commitments, Aquinas’s system of ethics is, like the rest of his philosophy, obviously radically at odds with the assumptions typically made by contemporary moral philosophers. But the main difference may lie in something other than a disagreement over this or that particular ontological thesis or argument for God’s existence, in basic ethos rather than intellectual orientation. The spirit of modern moral philosophy is perhaps summed up best in Kant’s famous characterization of human beings as “ends in themselves” and “self-legislators.” This sort of talk would sound blasphemous and even mad to Aquinas, for whom God alone, as the “first cause and last end of all things,” could possibly be said to be the source of moral law and an end in himself. (ST I-II.62.1, as translated by Pegis in Basic Writings of Saint Thomas Aquinas). For Aquinas, we are not here for ourselves, but for the glory of God, and precisely because this is the end set for us by nature, it is in him alone that we can find our true happiness. And it must be emphasized that, as with the other themes we’ve explored in this book, he takes this conclusion to be a matter, not of faith, but of reason itself.
Therein lies the sting of Aquinas’ challenge to modernity. [192]
Of course that’s an argument against Kant, Hume would have both of them obliterated… Not that I agree with Hume necessarily, I’m merely pointing out that Kant is not the be-all end-all of modernity.
Sure, Kant was a response to Hume, trying to get us back some kind of knowledge of reality and right and wrong after it had seemed Hume had destroyed it all.
Nevertheless, I can see Hume agreeing with Kant’s definition of “enlightenment”, which expresses the kind of ethos Feser is talking about.
As I reread this, I don’t even think that Kant and Aquinas (in Feser’s account at least) are in conflict. If God created creatures that could be “self legislators” or ends in themselves, then both sentiments would be correct.
I suppose, but for Aquinas, God didn’t do that. He created creatures for which he is the ultimate end and legislator, not they.