An Evaluation of the Philosophy of Thomas Aquinas
“Because of the diverse conditions of humans, it happens that some acts are virtuous to some people, as appropriate and suitable to them, while the same acts are immoral for others, as inappropriate to them” [Aquinas Part II Question 94]. The classical philosopher Thomas Aquinas makes this interesting and unconventional statement in the second book of Summa Theologica. By stating that because of the diversity of humans, some acts may be viewed as virtuous and therefor just, or immoral and therefor unjust, Aquinas refutes the idea of a common natural law established by Aristotle in Nicomachean Ethics. Through personal experience and refutation of Aristotle’s ideas with support of various philosophers, …show more content…
The “diverse conditions of humans” he mentions refers to the many different stations people may occupy. A man could be a slave or a saint, a farmer or a merchant, a peasant or a king. These people all possess different levels of authority and therefor they must undertake actions the other groups would not have the authority to command. A king is in charge of soldiers; a farmer is in charge of crops. Moreover, it is critical to note that he says some acts are “appropriate and suitable to them” and “inappropriate to them” for other groups. The particular language of “to them” with respect to how appropriate the acts may be establishes that Aquinas is talking about the people directly performing these acts and their responsibility surrounding them, not whether some people may simply think of some acts as virtuous while others think it immoral. With these clarifications in place, one can begin to address the validity of Aquinas’s …show more content…
It is not just for your neighbor to incarcerate you because of something you have done, he does not have the authority. However it is just, if you violate a law, for the police to legally incarcerate you. They possess the authority to commit the act justly while your neighbor does not. One of the most simple examples is murder. “Thou shall not kill”, while a good rule of thumb, is not a definite law that applies to all. In instances of self defense, or in the example of mass shootings, the police or the person whose life is being threatened has the right to kill the person who is threatening their life or the life of others. If my life was in danger, I would be justified in killing the person who was directly putting my life in danger. However if I just shot a person because I did not like them, this would be an unjust killing. There are many instances which prove that there can be no natural standard of an act deemed as right or wrong, because all acts are motivated and committed by people of various authority and
“Because of the diverse conditions of humans, it happens that some acts are virtuous to some people, as appropriate and suitable to them, while the same acts are immoral for others, as inappropriate to them” [Aquinas Part II Question 94]. The classical philosopher Thomas Aquinas makes this interesting and unconventional statement in the second book of Summa Theologica. By stating that because of the diversity of humans, some acts may be viewed as virtuous and therefor just, or immoral and therefor unjust, Aquinas refutes the idea of a common natural law established by Aristotle in Nicomachean Ethics. Through personal experience and refutation of Aristotle’s ideas with support of various philosophers, …show more content…
The “diverse conditions of humans” he mentions refers to the many different stations people may occupy. A man could be a slave or a saint, a farmer or a merchant, a peasant or a king. These people all possess different levels of authority and therefor they must undertake actions the other groups would not have the authority to command. A king is in charge of soldiers; a farmer is in charge of crops. Moreover, it is critical to note that he says some acts are “appropriate and suitable to them” and “inappropriate to them” for other groups. The particular language of “to them” with respect to how appropriate the acts may be establishes that Aquinas is talking about the people directly performing these acts and their responsibility surrounding them, not whether some people may simply think of some acts as virtuous while others think it immoral. With these clarifications in place, one can begin to address the validity of Aquinas’s …show more content…
It is not just for your neighbor to incarcerate you because of something you have done, he does not have the authority. However it is just, if you violate a law, for the police to legally incarcerate you. They possess the authority to commit the act justly while your neighbor does not. One of the most simple examples is murder. “Thou shall not kill”, while a good rule of thumb, is not a definite law that applies to all. In instances of self defense, or in the example of mass shootings, the police or the person whose life is being threatened has the right to kill the person who is threatening their life or the life of others. If my life was in danger, I would be justified in killing the person who was directly putting my life in danger. However if I just shot a person because I did not like them, this would be an unjust killing. There are many instances which prove that there can be no natural standard of an act deemed as right or wrong, because all acts are motivated and committed by people of various authority and