Men
need guidance to act virtuously and Aquinas suggests that this guidance should
be in the form of human laws. However, I think laws only force people to act
virtuously by threatening them with punishments. People act virtuously not
because they think it is the right thing to do so but to avoid punishments. On
the other hand, through education people can act virtuously even if there is no
one to punish them.
Aquinas
suggests that there is an eternal law that governs everything. Out of this law,
two more types of laws are born: natural and divine. Aquinas says:
“participation of the rational creature in the eternal law is called the
natural law” (86) According to Aquinas we can use our reasoning to participate
in the eternal law. Through this participation, we can understand what is right
and wrong, good and bad. He backs up his claim by pointing out that everything
is subjected to eternal law to some degree but “rational creatures are subject
to Divine providence in a more excellent way than any other creature” because
it (rational creature) provides not only itself but for others” (86) This paves
the way for the rational creature, namely men, to participate in eternal reasoning
and know what is right and wrong. I think, Aquinas here stands as a bridge
between Aristotle and Christianity. Aristotle suggests that “man is a political
animal”(60) because he has speech and not only a voice (60) I think the reason
why Aristotle uses the word animal is that he is implying that we as people are
in nature political, so even if we would destroy all the social constructs of
today’s world and started to live like savages, we would still over time create
some sort of society. Through time we would create division of labour, classes,
and other social constructs such as marriage, brotherhood, religion etc. All of
this would lend themselves to communication. Animals can live in a herd but
they do not express their thoughts in a way that allows them to construct
rules. As Aristotle says “For the real difference between man and other animals
is that humans alone have perception19 of good and evil, just and unjust, etc.
It is the sharing of a common view in these matters that makes a household and a
state”(60). Simply put, when we collectively know what is right and wrong, we
form bigger societies, with complex and more comprehensive rules. Aquinas
agrees with Aristotle on the fact that we are innately capable of discerning
good and evil but he includes God's element into the argument suggesting that
the eternal law is what allows us to make that differentiation. So, what is
revealed from this discussion is that regardless of what they deem as the
source of human reasoning both thinkers view people as perfectly capable of
discerning good and evil. However, there is a very important question that begs
to be answered here: If we innately know what is good and bad, why would we
need human law?
Aquinas
perceives the term law in an unusual way, he says “Law, as to its essence, is
found in that which rules and measures, as stated above, but is present by
participation in that which is ruled and measured so that every inclination or
ordination found in things subject to law is itself called a law by participation”
(94). According to him, the law could be anything that “rules and measures” and
as long as there are some people participating it, it carries some
characteristic of laws. This allows him to say that there is a “law of lust”
(93) meaning a law dictating what is right and wrong in accordance with our
appetites and reasoning. He proposes this to point out the necessity of divine
law because if we divert from reasoning, divine law can guide us. Therefore,
the law of lust is also one of the reasons why human laws are needed. In
answering “Whether it was useful for certain laws to be established by men”
(126) Aquinas points out a difference between men and animals. He says contrary
to animals’ people are not born with full self-sufficiency. According to him,
we are prone to “undue pleasures” (127) and in order to be virtuous, we need to
withdraw ourselves from excessive pleasures. This is the part we lack, contrary
to animals that are always on the right path, we as humans require help in
order to rid of undue pleasures. This help can be, according to, Aquinas human
laws (that bring punishment if you transgress it) and some admonitions. Even
though I agree that earthly pleasures are corrupting forces and should be
avoided as they impair reasoning, I disagree that human laws are the solution
to our fallible and intemperate nature. I believe that human laws can scare
people off and divert them from the wrong path but it does not teach them how
to act virtuously. Education, on the other hand, can present itself as guidance
for acting virtuously.
While
contemplating on Obedience and answering Whether one man is bound to obey
another? Aquinas’ reply to one of the objections is I think very important in
understanding why he thinks rules are important and why I think he is wrong.
The objection is as follows “Therefore if a man were bound by duty to obey
others in performing good works, his good works would be rendered less
acceptable by the fact that they were done under obedience”. (57) In other
words, the objection suggests that when someone acts virtuously because he is
obliged to, his virtuous actions are not as valuable as that of men relieved of
obligations. Although the objection ends here, I would like to add that the
reason why virtuous actions are insignificant under the influence of
obligations is that the individual does not deliberate on the acts and decide
whether that action is truly wrong or right. We know that carrying a gun is
illegal and we obey the rule but not because we contemplated on it and decided
that we shouldn’t carry a gun. It is because if we don’t, we will face a sort
of punishment. What I am trying to say is that, even though rules can show us
the right path, they do not guide us through it. Aquinas replies to the
objection by suggesting that showing obedience to the right person is virtuous
in the eyes of God, however, I think it does not portray obedience as a tool
for guidance. Education is much more valuable and effective when showing people
why we they should act virtuously. It allows them to critically evaluate what
is right and wrong and arrive at the truth.
If
people are given the opportunity to practice their reasoning and broaden their
horizons in school, I think they will withdraw themselves from undue pleasures
not because they have to but because they want to as they will truly fathom why
they should act virtuously. Aristotle suggests that the formation of a state
was a natural process. Aristotle says “This association is the end of those
“whatever is the end-product of the coming into existence of any object, that
is what we call its nature” (59) and I think that being virtuous is the end
product of humankind and it can be achieved through habitation and but not
punishments
Thomas, & D'Arcy, M. C. (2000). Thomas Aquinas:
Selected writings. Roman Catholic Books.
Aristotle,
., Jowett, B., & Davis, H. W. C. (1920). Aristotle's Politics.
Oxford: At the Clarendon Press.
Yorumlar
Yorum Gönder