And no, essay is due on the third, so technically it's due today.
Hey Veeky Forums...
Gavin Baker
Leo Gutierrez
I already understand his views on law.
I just need ideas and critiques on my reasoning.
Aaron Sanchez
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.
Ayden Martin
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.
Carson Ramirez
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.
Nathan Johnson
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
newadvent.org
Benjamin Cruz
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.
Chase Davis
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
Cooper Peterson
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
newadvent.org
newadvent.org
Ayden Brown
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.