Aquinas [ 1 ]

1. Aquinas [1] • Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) • born to a noble family, but didn’t go for it... • became a prelate at age 17 • spent the rest of his life in study and writing... • incredibly influential....

2. Aquinas - On Kingship [2] • General note on Aquinas: We have to finesse his biases as a servant of the RC church • I will (try to) note when this matters and when it doesn’t... • His official position is: • “God Governs the Universe by his Providence” [from summa contra gentiles] • - which might seem to commit him to Theocracy • It doesn’t (cf. Augustine) - but it does bias him in that direction • Obviously the question of how theology is related to political philosophy will be a main one. Stand by ... • “On Kingship” • Here Aquinas is giving advice to an actual ruler (the king of Cyprus) • Both his theological bias and his connection with the ruler in question might bias him in his argument... just something to bear in mind.

3. Aquinas - on Kingship[3] • “Men in Society Must Be under Rulers” • So: why must men be under rulers? • 1. “A ship must have a helmsman” • [“a ship wouldn’t get to its destination if not guided by a helsman] • Q: is society a ship?? • - reasons why we should not think so: • - society is a whole lot of people • - each is going various places • - they’re not all going the same place • - But ships necessarily go one way at a time... • - society doesn’t have a unified set of sails, oars, etc.

4. Aquinas[4] • “man has an end toward which all his actions are directed, being an intelligent being” • “So man needs someone to direct him” • [Problems: • - back to the Aristotelian mistake: each man has “an end” (or a lot of ends) toward which he directs his actions • not: we all have the same end toward which one super-ruler can direct us... • “man is by nature a political and social animal” • “he cannot provide for his life alone” • [Agreed. That argues for social order of some sort - but why Political? • Not so obvious ...!]

5. Aquinas[5] • 2.“It isn’t possible for one person alone to know everything by unaided reason.” • [Class - tell us what’s wrong with that one!] • 3. “in society, people can help each other” • [right. But do they need government to do this??] • [-- e.g., how does knowledge grow? • 3a. By both individual and cooperative research. • Will this be promoted by a king? • - is it even promoted by the Dean??!

6. Aquinas[6] • “Community Breakup” • 4. “If each provides only what is convenient for himself, the group “would break up” unless one had responsibility for the whole.” • - so? • “Private good and the common good are not the same” • Aquinas:private good divides the community, whereas common concerns unite it. • - does he mean “private goods” such as fried eggs and scuba diving? • - or murder and arson? • i) the first sort don’t seem to be a problem • - we do have a common interest in getting our separate private goods achieved • - market exchange, e.g., forwards this

7. Aquinas[7] • “Community Breakup” • ii) criminal action is indeed a problem, but privacy is not the source of it! • - (murder is an interpersonal evil, not a good. • Or does he mean, the murderer thinks it’s good for himself? • True: but “public murder” (say, war) is even worse! • - b) and, so what? • - the “breakup” which is just different people doing different things is arguably good, not bad]

8. Aquinas[8] • “in each thing we find a superior part that rules; • likewise in a group, there must be something that rules.” • [just what his friend the ruler wants to hear! • - but do trees have “superior parts that rule”?] • And if we all were moved to the CG, would we need a king?? • We can see what’s coming: what “moves” everyone to the common good is the Government, right? • And regarding the “moving” point, Aquinas is going to claim that Law does this - • and that Law is Rational. • [Comment: Well, each of us is rational, though. • Maybe there’s something in each of us that “moves” us to the Common Good, without having to have a King do it for us!

9. Aquinas[9] • “The proper end of a group of free men is different from that of a group of slaves” • That is because, as he notes, the free determine their own actions, whereas a slave, qua slave, belongs to another.” • Where, then, do we go from here? • Aquinas now proposes that “If a ruler directs his subjects to the common good, that is “right because appropriate” • whereas if he aims at his own good, that is tyranny - unjust and perverse. • (He astutely notes that tyranny by a few, or by many, for that matter, is also possible.)

10. Aquinas[10] • 3b. “besides what moves each to his own private good, there must be something that moves everyone to the common good of the many.” • Note: A distinction is needed here: between • 3b.i. something moves everyone to the common good • 3b.ii: something moves everyone to have a view of the common good.... • These are decidedly not the same - unless • (a) ii = i, and • (b) ii gives us the right directions re (i) • - but surely it might not! • example: the free market. • Here people don’t act with a view to the common good • but they achieve it anyway, • and (arguably) better than with “social” (not to mention political!) direction....

11. Aquinas[11] • The “End” of Society • 1. Argument: When things are ordered to some end, there is a right and a wrong • way to proceed; • - likewise with government • [but, reminder: “The proper end of a group of free men is different from that of a • group of slaves” • (recall: The free determine their own actions, whereas a slave, • qua slave, belongs to another)

12. Aquinas[12] • 2. The Difference between Just and Unjust Rulers: • If a ruler directs his subjects to the common good, that is right • because appropriate • whereas if he aims at his own good, that is • tyranny - unjust and perverse. [recall Thrasymachus] • [note: Tyranny by a few, or by the mob, is also possible. But for the same (Aristotelian) reason: the ruler or rulers seeks his or their own good at the expense of the ruled.] • [Question: is he simply assuming the above? Or is he arguing for it?]

13. Aquinas[13] • 3. Better One Ruler or Many? • argument: Community welfare requires • “unity in what we call peace” • - no peace, no beneficial life. • So the most important responsibility of the ruler is: • to achieve unity in peace. • > “That which is already itself one can promote unity better • -> So, government by one is better than by many” • [Does it follow? Recall Aristotle against Plato: too much unity is not wanted..] • [Q: What if you could have disunity in peace?]

14. Aquinas[14] • 4.Government is “Natural”: • 1) Whatever accords with nature is best • 2) by nature government is by one - as the heart moves body (other • cases: Queen bees, and God, the Maker and Ruler of all) • [Aquinas does not mention herds of cows, colonies of birds, and so on • - where’s the “leader” there? • [In any case, why should it matter what “nature” does?

15. Aquinas[15] The problem of Tyranny • [?] What if this one ruler is a bad one? (a tyrant...) • The tyrant uses force to oppress instead of justice to rule. • (as we’ve noted already, “ People can be oppressed also by a few, as in oligarchy, or by the mob, using the force of numbers to oppress the rich - thus even the whole people can be guilty of tyranny.” • [right: that’s a caution to democrats...] • What to do about Tyranny? • “A community must do its best to avoid giving the rule to one who will become a tyrant. • But what do we do if he does become one? • “If the tyranny is not extreme, it is better to tolerate it” • [why? Because taking actionmay be even worse • (1) Even if opposition to the tyrant prevails, there tend to be deep divisions in the populace • - which divides into rival groups. • (2) And the one who aids the community in overthrowing the tyrant, very often, becomes himself a still worse one. ]

16. Aquinas - on Kingship[16] • What if the tyranny is unbearable? • Some say that the brave should then risk death to rid the community of him. • Yet this is “not in accord with Apostolic teaching.” • [oh, right, yeah....] • St. Peter teaches us to be subject not only to good and temperate rulers, but to ill-tempered ones too. • [well, bully for St. Paul!] • For consider that men who would make good assassins are unlikely to make good kings. • - important, and true... • the best solution is not by private action of a few but by proceeding through public authority. • The community together may depose the king or restrict his power; even if it agreed to obey him forever, this does not bind them if he abuses his power by becoming a tyrant • Q: where does this leave us?? • [Trouble is, the tyrant is the “public authority”! • - there’s a problem here ....!]

17. Aquinas[17] • Let’s hear it for the Priests!: • Spiritual guidance is needed to “direct man to the port of eternal life” • - Eternal beatitude with God is the end of a whole society. • (If that end were health, doctors would rule; if wealth, a business • executive; if knowledge, a scholar. • - But, being what it is, we need a priest!) • The end of human society is the virtuous life. • - Under the New Law [of Christ], kings should be subject to priests. • [imagine that! • [And an academic might say: kings should be subject to PhD’s!] • ....

18. Aquinas[18] • The King Directs to the good Life • Duty of the king: promote the good life of the community • “- so that it leads to happiness in heaven” • [Q: is that the real reason??] • What is required for the individual’s good life: • (1) virtue, and • (2) a sufficiency of material goods • - which is necessary for virtuous action [cf. Aristotle...]. • [Comment: that’s a good shot at it... but how about social life, etc? Art? Sport? Or do those all come with the second?] • [disagreement about this could lead to political disagreement....

19. Aquinas[19] • What is required for the good life of a group: • First, peace • Second “acting well by the community” • Third a sufficiency of necessities • Questions: • (a) are these in the right order? • [A suggestion: First, Third, Second [on the ground that wealth for all supports peace and enables acting well by the community ... ]

20. Aquinas[20] • Peace • -> but perhaps peace is necessary and sufficient for “sufficiency” • (1) Peaceallows men to engage in work and exchange • this promotes prosperity • (2) - Also to form clubs, associations, churches, etc.

21. Aquinas[21] • (2) “Acting well by the community”? • what is that? • [Isn’t this direction to peace??] • [not reproduced in our anthology: the example of “community festivals” • And: tennis clubs, symphony concerts, marathon runs .... • Question: mightn’t NGOs do a better job at that? • Question: is centralized community direction necessary for this? • - that’s the main question... • Note: it’s easy to see why governments would want to get into the act • - but should they?? • Aquinas’ arguments don’t prove it • at any rate - not yet!

22. Aquinas[22] • “Sufficiency” • (3) - why only “sufficiency?” How about wealth? • arguable: wealth causes peace and acting-well-by-community • (on the one hand, wealth enables people to afford more expensive means of war • On the other, they undercut the motive to it...) • [Monks may think that not very much is enough! • - But do we?? • [Aquinas seems to be following Aristotle (big surprise!) in thinking that it’s fairly easy to have “too much” wealth and that that’s bad... • Is he right??]

23. Aquinas - on Kingship[23] • Summing up “On Kingship” • (1) claims that we need government’ • (2) that monarchy is better (more unity) • (3) that tyranny is evil • (4) but we shouldn’t do too much to resist it.. • (5) what governments ought to do is promote peace, community, and wealth (in that order)