Aquinas
Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274)
-born to a noble family, but didn’t go for it...
- became a prelate at age 17
-spent the rest of his life in study and writing...
- incredibly influential....
[1]
Aquinas - On Kingship
•
•
•
[2]
General note on Aquinas: We have to finesse his biases as a servant of the
RC church
I will (try to) note when this matters and when it doesn’t...
His official position is:
• “God Governs the Universe by his Providence” [from summa contra gentiles]
•
•
•
- which might seem to commit him to Theocracy
It doesn’t (cf. Augustine) - but it does bias him in that direction
Obviously the question of how theology is related to political philosophy will
be a main one. Stand by ...
• “On Kingship”
•
Here Aquinas is giving advice to an actual ruler (the king of Cyprus)
• Both his theological bias and his connection with the ruler in question
might bias him in his argument... just something to bear in mind.
Aquinas - on Kingship
[3]
• “Men in Society Must Be under Rulers”
• So: why must men be under rulers?
• 1. “A ship must have a helmsman”
•
[“a ship wouldn’t get to its destination if not guided by a helsman]
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Q: is society a ship??
- reasons why we should not think so:
- society is a whole lot of people
- each is going various places
- they’re not all going the same place
- But ships necessarily go one way at a time...
- society doesn’t have a unified set of sails, oars, etc.
Aquinas
•
[4]
“man has an end toward which all his actions are directed, being an
intelligent being”
• “So man needs someone to direct him”
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
[Problems:
- back to the Aristotelian mistake: each man has “an end” (or a lot of ends)
toward which he directs his actions
not: we all have the same end toward which one super-ruler can direct us...
“man is by nature a political and social animal”
“he cannot provide for his life alone”
[Agreed. That argues for social order of some sort - but why Political?
Not so obvious ...!]
Aquinas
[5]
• 2. “It isn’t possible for one person alone to know everything by
unaided reason.”
• [Class - tell us what’s wrong with that one!]
• 3. “in society, people can help each other”
• [right. But do they need government to do this??]
• [-- e.g., how does knowledge grow?
• 3a. By both individual and cooperative research.
• Will this be promoted by a king?
• - is it even promoted by the Dean??!
Aquinas
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
[6]
“Community Breakup”
4. “If each provides only what is convenient for himself, the group “would
break up” unless one had responsibility for the whole.”
- so?
“Private good and the common good are not the same”
Aquinas: private good divides the community, whereas common concerns
unite it.
- does he mean “private goods” such as fried eggs and scuba diving?
- or murder and arson?
i) the first sort don’t seem to be a problem
- we do have a common interest in getting our separate private goods achieved
- market exchange, e.g., forwards this
Aquinas
[7]
•
“Community Breakup”
•
•
•
•
•
•
ii) criminal action is indeed a problem, but privacy is not the source of it!
- (murder is an interpersonal evil, not a good.
Or does he mean, the murderer thinks it’s good for himself?
True: but “public murder” (say, war) is even worse!
- b) and, so what?
- the “breakup” which is just different people doing different things is
arguably good, not bad]
Aquinas
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
[8]
“in each thing we find a superior part that rules;
likewise in a group, there must be something that rules.”
[just what his friend the ruler wants to hear!
- but do trees have “superior parts that rule”?]
And if we all were moved to the CG, would we need a king??
We can see what’s coming: what “moves” everyone to the common good is
the Government, right?
And regarding the “moving” point, Aquinas is going to claim that Law does
this and that Law is Rational.
[Comment: Well, each of us is rational, though.
Maybe there’s something in each of us that “moves” us to the Common Good,
without having to have a King do it for us!
Aquinas
•
•
•
•
•
•
[9]
“The proper end of a group of free men is different from that of a group of
slaves”
That is because, as he notes, the free determine their own actions, whereas a
slave, qua slave, belongs to another.”
Where, then, do we go from here?
Aquinas now proposes that “If a ruler directs his subjects to the common good,
that is “right because appropriate”
whereas if he aims at his own good, that is tyranny - unjust and perverse.
(He astutely notes that tyranny by a few, or by many, for that matter, is also
possible.)
Aquinas
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
[10]
3b. “besides what moves each to his own private good, there must be
something that moves everyone to the common good of the many.”
Note: A distinction is needed here: between
3b.i. something moves everyone to the common good
3b.ii: something moves everyone to have a view of the common good....
These are decidedly not the same - unless
(a) ii = i, and
(b) ii gives us the right directions re (i)
- but surely it might not!
example: the free market.
Here people don’t act with a view to the common good
but they achieve it anyway,
and (arguably) better than with “social” (not to mention political!) direction....
Aquinas
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
[11]
The “End” of Society
1. Argument: When things are ordered to some end, there is a right and a
wrong
way to proceed;
- likewise with government
[but, reminder: “The proper end of a group of free men is different from that
of a
group of slaves”
(recall: The free determine their own actions, whereas a slave,
qua slave, belongs to another)
Aquinas
[12]
•
•
•
•
•
•
2. The Difference between Just and Unjust Rulers:
If a ruler directs his subjects to the common good, that is right
because appropriate
whereas if he aims at his own good, that is
tyranny - unjust and perverse. [recall Thrasymachus]
[note: Tyranny by a few, or by the mob, is also possible. But for the same
(Aristotelian) reason: the ruler or rulers seeks his or their own good at the
expense of the ruled.]
•
[Question: is he simply assuming the above? Or is he arguing for it?]
Aquinas
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
[13]
3. Better One Ruler or Many?
argument: Community welfare requires
“unity in what we call peace”
- no peace, no beneficial life.
So the most important responsibility of the ruler is:
to achieve unity in peace.
> “That which is already itself one can promote unity better
-> So, government by one is better than by many”
[Does it follow? Recall Aristotle against Plato: too much unity is not wanted..]
[Q: What if you could have disunity in peace?]
Aquinas
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
[14]
4. Government is “Natural”:
1) Whatever accords with nature is best
2) by nature government is by one - as the heart moves body (other
cases: Queen bees, and God, the Maker and Ruler of all)
[Aquinas does not mention herds of cows, colonies of birds, and so on
- where’s the “leader” there?
[In any case, why should it matter what “nature” does?
Aquinas
•
[15]
The problem of Tyranny
[?] What if this one ruler is a bad one? (a tyrant...)
•
•
The tyrant uses force to oppress instead of justice to rule.
(as we’ve noted already, “ People can be oppressed also by a few, as in oligarchy, or by
the mob, using the force of numbers to oppress the rich - thus even the whole people can
be guilty of tyranny.”
•
[right: that’s a caution to democrats...]
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
What to do about Tyranny?
“A community must do its best to avoid giving the rule to one who will become a tyrant.
But what do we do if he does become one?
“If the tyranny is not extreme, it is better to tolerate it”
[why? Because taking action may be even worse
(1) Even if opposition to the tyrant prevails, there tend to be deep divisions in the
populace
- which divides into rival groups.
(2) And the one who aids the community in overthrowing the tyrant, very often,
becomes himself a still worse one. ]
Aquinas - on Kingship [16]
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
What if the tyranny is unbearable?
Some say that the brave should then risk death to rid the community of him.
Yet this is “not in accord with Apostolic teaching.”
[oh, right, yeah....]
St. Peter teaches us to be subject not only to good and temperate rulers, but to illtempered ones too.
[well, bully for St. Paul!]
For consider that men who would make good assassins are unlikely to make good kings.
- important, and true...
the best solution is not by private action of a few but by proceeding through public
authority.
The community together may depose the king or restrict his power; even if it agreed to
obey him forever, this does not bind them if he abuses his power by becoming a
tyrant
Q: where does this leave us??
[Trouble is, the tyrant is the “public authority”!
- there’s a problem here ....!]
Aquinas
[17]
•
•
•
•
•
•
Let’s hear it for the Priests!:
Spiritual guidance is needed to “direct man to the port of eternal life”
- Eternal beatitude with God is the end of a whole society.
(If that end were health, doctors would rule; if wealth, a business
executive; if knowledge, a scholar.
- But, being what it is, we need a priest!)
•
•
The end of human society is the virtuous life.
- Under the New Law [of Christ], kings should be subject to priests.
•
•
•
[imagine that!
[And an academic might say: kings should be subject to PhD’s!]
....
Aquinas
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
[18]
The King Directs to the good Life
Duty of the king: promote the good life of the community
“- so that it leads to happiness in heaven”
[Q: is that the real reason??]
What is required for the individual’s good life:
(1) virtue, and
(2) a sufficiency of material goods
- which is necessary for virtuous action [cf. Aristotle...].
[Comment: that’s a good shot at it... but how about social life, etc? Art?
Sport? Or do those all come with the second?]
• [disagreement about this could lead to political disagreement....
Aquinas
[19]
• What is required for the good life of a group:
• First,
peace
• Second “acting well by the community”
• Third
a sufficiency of necessities
• Questions:
• (a) are these in the right order?
• [A suggestion: First, Third, Second [on the ground that wealth for all
supports peace and enables acting well by the community ... ]
Aquinas
[20]
• Peace
•
•
•
•
-> but perhaps peace is necessary and sufficient for “sufficiency”
(1) Peace allows men to engage in work and exchange
this promotes prosperity
(2) - Also to form clubs, associations, churches, etc.
Aquinas
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
[21]
(2) “Acting well by the community”?
what is that?
[Isn’t this direction to peace??]
[not reproduced in our anthology: the example of “community festivals”
And: tennis clubs, symphony concerts, marathon runs ....
Question: mightn’t NGOs do a better job at that?
Question: is centralized community direction necessary for this?
- that’s the main question...
Note: it’s easy to see why governments would want to get into the act
- but should they??
Aquinas’ arguments don’t prove it
at any rate - not yet!
Aquinas
[22]
• “Sufficiency”
• (3) - why only “sufficiency?” How about wealth?
• arguable: wealth causes peace and acting-well-by-community
• (on the one hand, wealth enables people to afford more expensive
means of war
• On the other, they undercut the motive to it...)
• [Monks may think that not very much is enough!
• - But do we??
• [Aquinas seems to be following Aristotle (big surprise!) in thinking
that it’s fairly easy to have “too much” wealth and that that’s bad...
• Is he right??]
Aquinas - on Kingship [23]
•
•
•
•
•
•
Summing up “On Kingship”
(1) claims that we need government’
(2) that monarchy is better (more unity)
(3) that tyranny is evil
(4) but we shouldn’t do too much to resist it..
(5) what governments ought to do is promote
peace, community, and wealth (in that order)