Aristotle and Aquinas
Among political theorists, the debate over the rule of law has been quite intense. From the earliest days of political philosophy through to the enlightenment, there have been varying views on what the rule of law should be. Two thinkers in particular - Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas - are perhaps the most influential. On the surface, they both advocate the rule of law as playing a crucial role in society. But upon deeper analysis, one finds that Aristotle's views sharply contrast with those of Aquinas. This essay shall attempt to elucidate the disagreement between Aristotle and Aquinas, by first outlining Aristotle's arguments for and against the rule of law, and then by explaining what Aristotle would find inadequate with Aquinas' arguments.
In the third book of Politics (1286a8ff.), Aristotle presents a number of arguments for and against the rule of law. He begins by posing a question around which his ensuing discussion revolves:
The beginning point of the inquiry if this: whether it is more advantageous to be ruled by the best man or by the best laws.1
He proceeds to point out that laws only speak of the universal, and that they "do not command a view to circumstance"2 He uses the analogy of an Egyptian doctor to prove his point. In Egypt, a doctor must follow legal procedure when treating a patient. It is only after the fourth day that the doctor is legally permitted to use his or her own discretion, and even then, it is at his or her own risk. Thus, the doctor must follow the prescribed routine (until the fourth day), even if it leads to the death of his patient. Aristotle uses this example to illustrate that the best regime cannot be one that i...
... middle of paper ...
...le by law, or to fool by law; that is the question. And the debate still rages on.
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
Lord, Carnes [trans.] Aristotle, The Politics. University of Chicago Press; Chicago; 1985
Baumgarth, William P. and Richard J. Regan [eds.] Aquinas, St. Thomas. On Law, Morality, and Politics. Hackett Publishing Company, Indiana; 1998
1 Lord, Carnes [trans.] - Aristotle, The Politics. P. 111 Ln. 8-9
2 Ibid. Ln. 11-12
3 Ibid. Ln. 20-21
4 Ibid. Ln. 30
5 Ibid. Ln. 35
6 Ibid. Pp. 111-112. Ln.36-37
7 Ibid. P. 112. Ln. 2
8 Ibid. Ln.6
9 Ibid. P. 114. Ln 28
10 Ibid. P. 115. Ln. 4-5
11 Baumgarth, William P. and Richard J. Regan [eds.] Aquinas, St. Thomas. On Law, Morality, and
Politics. P. 57
12 Ibid. Pp. 57-58
13 Ibid. P. 58
14 Ibid. P. 116. Ln. 28
A Ghetto is a section of a city were members of a racial group are
Niccolo Machiavelli, John Locke, and John Stuart Mill present three distinct models of government in their works The Prince, Second Treatise of Government, and Utilitarianism. From an examination of these models it is possible to infer their views about human nature and its connection to the purpose of government. A key to comparing these views can be found in an examination of their ideas of morality as an intermediary between government and human nature. Whether this morality must be inferred from their writings or whether it is explicitly mentioned, it differs among the three in its definition, source, and purpose.
...located in central Poland. The building of the ghetto started on February 8, 1940, but took weeks to establish. The Jews lived there until January 6, 1942, when the Jews were beginning to be deported. By August 1944 only a few remained. The ghetto was liberated by the Soviets on January 19, 1945 but only 877 Jews survived. Another ghetto was in Krakow, an important city located in the south of Poland. A ghetto was established by 1941 containing 15,000 to 20,000 Jews behind barbed wire and stone walls. Throughout the ghetto's life there were resistance groups first supporting underground education then advancing to preparing to fight Germans. Another ghetto was in the city of Lvov in southeastern Poland containing 200,000 Jews. A ghetto was established in 1941, and many Jews stayed there until deportation began in March 1942. In June 1943, the ghetto was destroyed.
In society we have laws in order to keep order and safety for citizens. The rulers set these laws for the common people to obey. In book I of “The Republic of Plato” by Allan Bloom, the meaning of justice is debated in book I and II. Thrasymachus ' definition of justice is challenged by the different views of the characters in the book. This in fact, claims to question whether justice is always the better path to decision making, morality and educating individuals.
Each day, billions of people throughout the world affirm their commitment to a specific idea; to be part of a society. While this social contract is often overlooked by most citizens, their agreement to it nevertheless has far-reaching consequences. Being a member of society entails relinquishing self-autonomy to a higher authority, whose aim should be to promote the overall good of the populace. While making this decision to become part of a commonwealth is usually performed without explicit deliberation, there is a common consensus amongst philosophers that something unique to the human experience is the driving force behind this decision. Contained within this something are highly contested points of debate amongst both past and contemporary political philosophers. Two such philosophers are Thomas Hobbes and Thomas Aquinas. Each of these political writers provide detailed arguments regarding the concept of natural law, the role that reason plays in this law, whether some laws are considered truly rational, and why some people choose not to follow certain principles even when they recognize them to be rational. By analyzing each of these arguments, we will arrive at the conclusion that even though the rational principles that reason provides us can easily be disregarded by the populace, that we can still find a common good within promulgating rational doctrine.
Thomas, and Paul E. Sigmund. St. Thomas Aquinas on Politics and Ethics. New York: Norton,
Thomas Aquinas is known for being one of the most influential moral philosophers of natural l...
In this essay I will be discussing how the formal theory of the rule of law is an erroneous means of establishing laws within a state. A central theme to addressing this is essay is the distinction between formal and substantive theories of the rule of law. In order to reach my conclusion of the formal theory being proven to be insufficient, one must first appreciate the significant advantages which the substantive theory obtains. However, before doing so, I will briefly mention the importance of the rule of law in society and the requirements it needs to fulfil.
A state is sovereign when its magistrate owes allegiance to no superior power, and he or she is supreme within the legal order of the state. It may be assumed that in every human society where there is a system of law there is also to be found, latent beneath the variety of political forms, in a democracy as much as in a absolute monarchy, a simple relationship between subjects rendering habitual obedience, and a sovereign who renders obedience to none. This vertical structure, of sovereign and subjects, according to this theory, is analogous to the backbone of a man. The structure constitutes an essential part of any human society which possesses a system of law, as the backbone comprises an essential part of the man.
"Comparison of Plato's and Aristotle's Political Theories." Novel Guide. Novel Guide, n.d. Web. 4 May 2014. .
This theory looks at how the sovereign and its officials created the law based on social norms and the institutions (Hart, 1958). However, hard cases such as this makes for bad law, which test the validity of the law at hand based on what the objective of the law was in the first place. The law should not be so easily dismissed just because it does not achieve justice in the most morally sound manner (Hart, 1958). Bentham and Austin understood that there are two errors in the way law is understood, what the law is and what the law should be (Hart, 1958). He knew that if law was to become what humans perceived the law ought to be, the law itself would be lost, but he also recognized that if the opposite was to occur where the law replaced morality, than any man would escape liability and there would be no retribution (Hart, 1958). This theory looks at the point of view of the dissenting judge, Justice Gray, which is that the law is what it is, even if it may conflict with morals. Austin stated that “The existence of law is one thing; its merit and demerit another. Whether it be or be not is one enquiry; whether it be or be not conformable to an assumed standard, is a different enquiry (Hart, 1958).” This case presents the same conflict that Bentham and Austin addressed, that the law based on the statute of the
While the philosophers such as Plato were not deemed to be lawyers, their theories later set forth later developed with natural law (Riddall, pg. 59). Classical natural law theory was deemed skeptical by those believing many would value selfish means of natural desires to an extent in which others are disregarded, but philosophers such as Plato recognized the need for such principles to be moderated in order for natural responsibilities to occur a moral approach (Coleman, pg. 3). Such moderation sought by Plato was with the intent to legitimize legal orders on the account of their ethical principles. These desires or responsibilities are founded on natural, universal yearnings, demonstrating why such a foundation has proven to be so versatile in its use. The moral principles set forth through religion also played a major role in determining what was the appropriate standard as Christianity was such a dominant force in this age. This power was further applied by St Thomas Aquinas through his interpretations of living in a godly society, primarily how this involved man being at peace with one another, and allowing them to serve their religious inclinations. Aquinas favored law being for the “divine good” of society, and claimed that law that does not adhere to such principle is in fact, unjust, therefore invalid (Riddall,
Firstly in this report, I will be giving the different definitions of rule of law by different philosophers; secondly, I will be applying the rule of law to the English Legal system and thirdly I will be explaining separation of powers with a focus on the impartial judiciary. Finally, I will be using cases to support every detailed point given.
The relationship between law and morality has been argued over by legal theorists for centuries. The debate is constantly be readdressed with new cases raising important moral and legal questions. This essay will explain the nature of law and morality and how they are linked.
When considering morality, worthy to note first is that similar to Christian ethics, morality also embodies a specifically Christian distinction. Studying a master theologian such as St. Thomas Aquinas and gathering modern perspectives from James Keenan, S. J. and David Cloutier serve to build a foundation of the high goal of Christian morality. Morality is a primary goal of the faith community, because it is the vehicle for reaching human fulfillment and happiness. Therefore, great value can be placed on foundations of Christian morality such as the breakdown of law from Aquinas, the cultivation of virtues, the role of conscience in achieving morality, and the subject of sin described by Keenan.