Ana içeriğe atla

Aquinas' Contemplation on Laws and Virtue

 

One argument that Aquinas suggests that is most prominent and important is that outward and inward actions are very hard to discern by human perception. We cannot possibly understand the inner intentions of an individual. For instance, there is a child suffering from a very painful ailment that has no cure. His father is aware that the pain will get worse and worse, so there is nothing that can be done to save the child or mitigate the pain. His inner disposition orders him to kill the child to save him from the excruciating pain that awaits him. According to Aquinas “man cannot judge inward acts, which are concealed, but only outward wards, which are apparent and yet the perfection of virtue requires that man conduct himself rightly in acts of both kinds” (p.90) Therefore, if that father was to be seen by a police when he was murdering his own kin, that police would find him guilty not definilty not virtuous. Even if his inward intention is valid, his outward intention renders him guilty. However, what would happen if something completely opposite happened? There is a man saving a baby from falling from the edge of a cliff. The reason why he saves the baby is that he wants to eat it.  However, we can only get to see the moment when he tries to save the baby and nothing more. “Is this person virtuous?” one might ask. Although Aquinas says that he isn’t because in order for him to be perfectly virtuous his motives, as well as his actions, need to be virtuous, how can we know his inner intentions? Even if we can know his inner intentions, how can we deem intention as of right(virtuous) or wrong?

In order to understand how to deem something virtuous, it is important to understand how one can act virtuously.  This is I think because by understanding what constitutes acting virtuously, we can analyze the elements of virtuous acts and examine how we can judge them. Aquinas suggests that the reason why divine wisdom and law exist is that we as humans can participate in the eternal law (the law of God) only partially. As a result of this, we may not always come to the correct conclusion when we are using practical reasoning. Also, we may not be able to use our practical reasoning all the time. There could be some incidents where we may feel compelled by our appetites or aversions. These times we may fail to use our reasoning and come to the correct decision. Divine wisdom and law, on the other hand, may guide us via general principles. However, because general principles sometimes may not work in specific situations, we also need to consult with natural law, namely, reasoning. Therefore, in order to act virtuously, one needs to consult natural and divine law at the same time. So, in order to deem someone virtuous or not, we need to look at it by taking both natural and divine law into account.

However, I think divine law is very ambiguous and can cause discrepancies. According to Aquinas “and so every law is directed to the common good” (p.80), so because we cannot possibly understand the intentions of an individual, we cannot deem him virtuous or not. What we can do is decide by considering outward actions. That is also how modern law works. Investigations take place but they never provide the full truth, they only provide us with the necessary amount of data so that we can decide whether the individual should be shunned from society or not.

 

Almost always laws should be obeyed because of two reasons. Initially, it is important to point out that according to Aquinas superiors are only a mediator between the god and the people. He says “the superior stands between God and his subjects; but in other things the subject is under God immediately, by Whom he is instructed either by the natural or the written law”(p.70) Therefore, what people are really obeying is the eternal law given by God and perceived and actualized by the rulers(superiors). Provided that the rulers and superiors are conforming to God, laws should be obeyed.  However, as Aquinas says “sometimes the things commanded by a ruler are against God” in this case “rulers are not to be obeyed in all things”. (p.68) In a nutshell, we should obey the laws because they are coming from God and therefore beneficial to the common good. On the other hand, if the ruler is not following God, then we shouldn’t obey it. The ruler is to let divine and natural wisdom and laws guide him and enact laws.

Furthermore, Aquinas claims that Law is “an ordinance of the people whereby something is sanctioned by those of high birth in conjunction with the commons”(p.81) In other words, the law favors both classes' benefits because it stands as a bridge between them. Because of this I think not obeying the law would disrupt the balance and it would hurt the common people more. While the elite has the means to lead a relatively good life without laws, the common does not have as much power as the elite has, therefore they will suffer more.  This I think is a reason why they should obey the laws: Not obeying hurts them more than obeying.

 

Yorumlar

Yorum Gönder

Bu blogdaki popüler yayınlar

Rhetoric in Hobbes' Leviathan

  Hobbes’ Word Play Hobbes argues in favor of a monarch or an oligarch. To be more precise, he is in favor of the idea that multiplicity comes with complexity, harming the integrity of the state. In his opinion, men are mostly power-driven, greedy beings who must surrender themselves to a sovereign power that can spread the terror of punishment. According to Hobbes, this fear of punishment is the only effective motivating force that can keep people from brutally murdering each other. While this Hobbesian idea of the state portrays the sovereign’s subjects almost as though they are slaves, this essay will argue that Hobbes is not fundamentally against liberty and allows it within the constraints of laws. Hobbes's description of liberty suggests that only external impediments are against freedom. He states that liberty is “the absence of external impediments” (189) and, although these impediments may take away man’s power to do what he would, they do not prevent men from using th...
1 yorum
Devamı

Rousseau on Legitimacy of State

Hobbes'dan sonra Rousseau okumayı Proust'tan sonra Daphnes ve Chloe okumaya benzetiyorum. Proust aşkı öyle yapay, çıkarcı ve öyle çirkin yansıtıyor ki, ondan sonra okuduğun her romana ister istemez Proust'un realist bakış açısından bakıyorsun. Belki de realizm sevdamı bırakmalıyımdır. Hobbes'un determinist bakış açısı da birçok argümanını epey ikna edici kılıyor. Bazen bu bakış açısından kaçmak istiyor insan. Hobbes kimmiş lan, ben ölümlü tanrıya irademi falan teslim edemem, gayet özgürüm demek istiyor. Yine de gel gör ki Hobbes haklı. Nasıl, Kant ödev ahlakında nasıl ki herkes davranışlarının topluma yansıdığını varsayarak hareket etmeli diyorsa, Hobbes da yapılmak istemediğini yapma diyor. Buna karşı çıkmak da biraz zor. Rousseau abi Social Contract'ında denese de Emile kitabındaki ikna ediciliğini devam ettiremiyor gibi hissediyorum. Birazdan okuyacak olduğun yazıda da oldukça soyut fikirler göreceksin ve yer yer kendine e ama niye diye soracaksın. Bil ki ben de ...
Yorum Gönder
Devamı

Hobbes’ Paradox

Hobbes’ Paradox Resolved According to Hobbes, people are born with passions that ultimately lead them into a never-ending war. They require artificial power to stop killing each other. Unless such a power is erected, Hobbes suggests, leaving the state of nature is impossible since people are not inclined to cooperate and trust each other. The core reason why it is impossible to leave the state of nature is because of the innate passions people have that drive them to be constantly in conflict. Hobbes states that in the condition of nature, “any reasonable suspicion” renders any covenant or promise invalid since “bonds of words are too weak to bridle men’s ambition, avarice, anger, and other passions…” (196). Here, Hobbes highlights the importance of punishments, suggesting that without the motivating fear of punishments, covenants are practically invalid. It is also important to understand what Hobbes means by the condition of nature. He argues that because men are born equal, they...
Yorum Gönder
Devamı