Aquinas [ 1 ]

Aquinas [1]

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....

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. ]


• 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 ill-tempered 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??]


• 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)

Documents

Aquinas [ 1 ]