How did William of Ockham’s view of morality differ from Aquinas’s natural-law theory?

St. Thomas Aquinas and William of Ockham held fundamentally different views on the basis of morality.

Aquinas’s natural-law theory posits that morality is derived from human nature and activities objectively suited to it. He argued that humans can use reason to discern right from wrong, as moral principles are connected to human goals, purposes, and flourishing. For Aquinas, God is not offended by actions unless they are contrary to human good.123

In contrast, Ockham rejected the Aristotelian idea that things have an ultimate end or inherent nature. He denied that any moral standards exist independently of God’s will. Ockham’s position, known as a divine approbation theory, asserts that what God wills is good and what He condemns is evil. Consequently, Ockham believed that morality is not a subject for human reason but a matter of revelation and faith. While Aquinas viewed morality as grounded in objective, rational principles, Ockham emphasized the absolute freedom and omnipotence of God, suggesting the moral order could have been entirely different if God had willed it so.1245