Abstract

This paper aims to consider the relevance of Thomas Aquinas's doctrine of natural inclinations within the contemporary debate on practical reason. Through a critical analysis of Candace Vogler's Reasonably Vicious (2002) and on the basis of Dario Composta’s analysis of Thomas Aquinas' theory of action (1971), it is intended to show that natural inclinations are metaphysical realities, which define the motivational framework of individual agents, offering them normative constraints regarding what is to be considered good and desirable as an end. The reasons for action that arise from inclinations cannot disregard the point of view of the individual agent, who grasps what pertains to human nature through her own experience.