Hey Veeky Forums...

And no, essay is due on the third, so technically it's due today.

I already understand his views on law.
I just need ideas and critiques on my reasoning.

A leader (King) ultimately rules well because of glory and pride. To Aquinas, this is wrong because it goes against God's law -- to be selfless.

But the King only rules because of self-interest -- to rule well, make their kingdom great, create a legacy, etc. So this isn't congruent with what Aquinas' belief of natural law would be.

Natural law, in Aquinas' theistic political theory, might only stem insofar as it clings to God's eternal law.

A good King would get eternal glory through obeying to eternal law; though he would get material wealth and glory on earth if he does his own thing. But Aquinas says that a good leader ought not to want the latter -- God supplies the reward for being virtuous. So eternal law is equivalent to natural law. This is similar to Augustine's political theory.

Compare and differentiate this to, say, Aristotle's belief and praise of a king's pride, magnanimity, wealth, etc. and you'll have a stellar paper.

So then kings make law not because they seek to align themselves with natural law, but in their own self interest? And this therefore does not align with what the law of men should be?

Where exactly in the treatise can I find what you're saying? It'd help me understand what Aquinas is saying and also help me cite what you're saying.

Pick up Whose Justice? Which Rationally by MacIntyre and find ideals there. For example, you could present a tension between Aquinas and liberalism as two completely unreconcilable philosophies. Liberalism does not lead to virtue or God and it shuns it from all laws, invents anti values and how a Catholic does not owe loyalty to any liberal county.

St. Thomas does not at all advocate disloyalty to civil rulers. He advocates the removal from office of civil rulers who themselves are disloyal to the nation. This is a very important distinction.

>The only idea I have for this is that this is because Aquinas' conception of human law is that laws must be based in reason, and it is through our reason that we can obtain a vague understanding of God's laws.

No, God's law (the divine law) is known by revelation. It is NATURAL law that is known by reason, and this knowledge is not "vague", but certain.
There are two kinds of law: positive law, and natural law. Positive law are laws that are essentially "made up", that doesn't mean that they are arbitrary, because they must accord with reason, e.g. it is positive civil law that, here in the UK, you drive on the left side of the road (there is nothing in nature saying that this must be the case). Positive law is of two types: divine law (laws given by God, e.g. circumcision in the Old Testament), and civil law (laws given by the State, e.g. where to drive on the road). There is also ecclesiastical law (laws given by the Church, e.g. fast before Holy Communion). Natural law, on the other hand, comes from the very nature of things themselves, and can be known by ascertaining the nature of things, e.g. sodomy is unlawful precisely because it is unnatural or contrary to nature / the natural law, we can know this because the sexual organs are not ordered towards sodomy by nature.

Here's some reading

newadvent.org/cathen/09053a.htm
newadvent.org/cathen/09076a.htm

Let me rephrase my reasoning a bit.
My thought is, is that Human law is based upon Natural law and man can gain insight in Natural law through his ability to reason. It is because of his ability to reason that man makes laws and that laws based in reason align with Natural law. However rules have the capacity to create law that does not align with Natural law and if these laws do not align with Natural law they are unjust and by extension the rule who creates these laws is unjust.

Yes, a civil law that does not accord with natural law would be unjust, but that does not necessarily mean that one has the right to overthrow the rule that imposes the unjust law.

Read this article, and check the sources:
stpeterslist.com/13544/may-catholics-overthrow-or-even-kill-a-tyrant-9-comments-by-aquinas/

It's important to emphasise that Aquinas does not advocate disloyalty or disobedience at all. Obedience to rightful authority is a virtue in Catholic ethics. As a monk, Aquinas himself took a vow of obedience to his superiors. Disobedience is only legitimate when the authority commands something that is sinful, e.g. murder.

newadvent.org/summa/3104.htm
newadvent.org/summa/3105.htm
newadvent.org/summa/3042.htm

So then he is not advocating for deposing an unjust ruler, rather he is advocating for disobedience.

Thank you. This is exactly what I need.

Fuck.

Read that article I linked, I think it explains it.

Well the thing is, is that this essay is confined to Aquinas' Treatise on Law.

So I guess that if Aquinas does not advocate disobedience or the overthrowing, then is the reasoning I have given adequate for explaining why it can be misconstrued that Aquinas' work does advocate disloyalty?

Aquinas is not a philosopher you can take apart like that. His Metaphysics are the foundation of his ethics which is the basis of his politics. It's a very self referential system and to properly understand him you should at least have a basic knowledge of his other work.

>reason/emotion dichotomy

OP pls

Well I'm sorry man, but this is for my class, so I kind of have to dissect what he's saying in accordance with the prompt given.

I guess I have to ask what you think about the prompt in relation to Aquinas' Treatise on Law.

That's the thing, you will talk about natural law a lot, it's pretty important.
I already gave my thoughts earlier.

I think I can sum it up like this:

1. A tyrant is one who is disloyal or seditious, because his rule is not for the sake of the common good (which is the rightful object of civil rule), but only for his own good.
2. Therefore, to depose such a tyrant is not *necessarily* an act of disobedience or sedition, because it is the tyrant himself who is guilty of disobedience and sedition in first place for upsetting the state by putting his private good above the common good.
3. If there are provisions in the constitution of the government for the deposition of tyrants, they should be followed.
4. If there are no provisions for the deposition of tyrants (e.g. in nations governed by absolute monarchies) then either the tyrant's rule must be suffered and the nation must have recourse to God for deliverance, or the nation must act as one body in deposing the tyrant and placing a just ruler in his place by common consent (I'm not sure which is Aquinas' position).

The important thing is that it is not up to private individual or companies to decide who is a tyrant and who is a legitimate king. The rule of law must be followed, if there is some procedure in the law that can be enacted in regards to the deposition of tyrants (e.g. impeaching Kenyan-born Obama, kek).
I as a private individual don't have the right to depose my government because they advocate what I consider to be unjust law ("gay marriage"), neither does the Catholic Church here in my country have the right to conspire to overthrow the government and institute a Catholic one. Catholics have to put up with bad rulers, just like the early martyrs did under the Roman emperors. The right to overthrow would only come if there was a consensus of the whole people that the government was unjust, but then the rule that follows must be in accord with the civil constitution in place and be according to the assent of the people (e.g. Catholics in this country couldn't use the opportunity of deposing a tyrant to overthrow the entire constitution of the country and impose a Catholic rule upon an unwilling populace).
Throughout Aquinas' writing on this matter there is reference to the early Christians who suffered under pagan emperors. Aquinas uses this as an example that we must not act against unjust rulers, but suffer their rule.

>then is the reasoning I have given adequate for explaining why it can be misconstrued that Aquinas' work does advocate disloyalty?

I'm not sure what your reasoning is.

Writing an essay like this isn't about your personal beliefs, it's about making an argument, sticking to it and defending it as best you can.

I think that the French Revolution, and the Russian Revolution, Aquinas would definitely have called evil, seditious acts, and not legitimate acts of deposing tyrants (which is what the revolutionaries said they were doing). I don't think it's just that the revolutionaries replaced Christian governments with basically atheistic ones, or that they heavily persecuted religion - it's the fact that they were conspiracies of a few men to overthrow the entire constitution of the nation and replace it with something according to their own will. The French revolutionaries kept on loudly proclaiming that they were acting in the name of the people, but I think that the history shows that this was a farce and untrue.

But can the Treatise on Law be construed as advocating for such things, because it identifies what is just and unjust through the nature of law human, natural and divine law?

youtu.be/_ILS5MaI8xc?t=15m31s

lol

He's wrong on a lot of things. I do not recommend taking anything from this for granted. For example, he claims that the university system was separate from the church, which led to more freedom of discussion.
This is not so. Firstly, the freedom of thought was just about the same in the time of Aquinas as it was 500 years before him. The dogma was known, and everything which did not contradict it in an obvious way was allowed.
Thus, John Scottus Eriugena is an example of a philosopher who was not very good at being clear and can be read pantheistically and as a Christian. He was freely taught up untill the point where pantheism gained influence.
The Church was also under DIRECT control of all universities at the time as the people who ruled it were drawn from different orders. This was a part of a controversy at the time, with certain orders having more or less participation in administration and teaching than others.
The idea that freedom in middle ages as far as philosophy goes was hampered , loosing of which brought us Aquinas is incorrect. Medieval philosophy was hampered in its richness largely because there was no stable government for a long time and the total domination of neoplatonic influences, making it somewhat stale and based on commentary, rather than original philosophy. The problems of philosophy were also problems of theology, so a lot of time was spent on topics of dogma and interpretation, as there was no clear line between philosophy and theology untill Aquinas.
He also talks about how towns in the middle ages were unclean because of their sewers. Which is really a vast generalisation, as many had superb architecture which in many places is functional today. And this is just the first 5 minutes.

Furthermore he claims that Aristotle was viewed as an enemy. Again, a gross generalisation. Aristotle was not completely unknown to the early medieval world and neoplatonic influence was massive, but it was not the only one. If one knows about Boethius, who was almost as important as Augustine, it is easy to see the importance of Aristotelian logic.

>two fairy short analytical essays
Honestly, I don't think the ideas discussed so far here are gay enough for this assignment of yours.