On Law As we have seen, Aquinas believes that happiness is the ultimate end of human beings. It is our telos; i.e., our purpose; i.e., our final cause; i.e., the end goal, toward which all human actions aim. Like Anselm, who said that there are CORRECT and INCORRECT ways of acting (remember rectitude?), Aquinas believes that there are correct and incorrect ways of going about achieving our ultimate end; and, for Aquinas, laws are just the directives which tell us how we ought to act in order to achieve it. In his words, Law is a rule and measure of acts that induces persons to act or refrain from acting. (I-II.90.1) And every law is directed toward the common good. (I-II.90.2) Further, as it turns out, Aquinas thinks that any so-called law that does NOT promote the common good (e.g., laws that only promote goods for some particular law-maker) are not really laws at all! But, let s step back to get a bird s eye view of Aquinas s position. Aquinas distinguishes between four kinds of law: Eternal Law God s governance of all Creation Natural Law Laws that can be known by us through reason Divine Law Laws that can only be known by God s revelation to us Human Law Laws that we make Let s look at each in turn. (1) Eternal Law: God s providence over and plan for all of Creation. He writes, supposing that God s providence rules the world his reason evidently governs the entire community of the universe. And so the plan of governance of the world existing in God as the ruler of the universe has the nature of law. (I-II.91.1) [Everything in existence is subject to the eternal law except God Himself. Why? God is not subject to any laws because God IS the eternal law. Aquinas writes, things belonging to the divine nature or essence are in fact the eternal law itself and not subject to the eternal law. (I-II.93.4) (Similarly, human activities are subject to human laws, but human nature e.g., being a mammal is not. The unchangeable need not be regulated. He writes, Necessary things cannot be disposed otherwise than they are, and so they do not need any restraint. )] 1
(2) Natural Law: Rational creatures have an innate, natural inclination toward their ultimate end, as dictated by the eternal law. Aquinas writes, the light of natural reason whereby we discern good and evil is simply the imprint of God s light in us. (I-II.91.2) The natural law is God s eternal law written on our hearts, so to speak. It is a combination of our inner conscience and our ability to reason. [In the Christian Bible God says, I will put my laws in their hearts, and I will write them on their minds. (Hebrews 10:16) Elsewhere, Paul says, the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them. (Romans 2:15)] Foundations: The most fundamental object of our understanding is BEING. That is, everything that you understand at least has this: It is; it exists; i.e., it has being. And the most basic principle about being is this: One cannot at the same time both affirm and deny the same thing. (I-II.94.2) This is the Law of Non-Contradiction; e.g., it is absurd to simultaneously both affirm and deny the statement <It is raining>. 1 All of human reason is grounded in this law. Similarly, the most fundamental object of practical reason (i.e., the reason that governs our actions) is GOODNESS. And the most basic principle about goodness is this: We should do and seek good, and shun evil. (I-II.94.2) Likewise, all precepts of the natural law are grounded in this one. So, for Aquinas: ALL of our natural inclinations are really just particular instances of this law. (After all, God is the one that installed our natures in us; and He did so such that our inclinations were in accordance with His eternal law). So, what does our inner conscience incline us toward? Answer: Self-preservation Sex and procreation To be social (to live among other humans) To seek knowledge (and shun ignorance) To not offend others (morally, that is; e.g., don t kill, or steal, etc.) 1 A tiresome reader might object, But it s raining in Virginia and not raining in New York. However, assume that the context implies that what is being asserted is that it is raining here and now. 2
Therefore, these are all particular precepts of the natural law. Disagreement: Aquinas says that the natural law is the same for all humans; i.e., what is true and good for one person is true and good for another. However, some perceive truth and goodness more than others. Our Earthly understanding of the eternal law is imperfect. (We will not truly know the eternal law until the beatific vision.) So, Aquinas explains away our disagreements, citing one of two reasons for them: (a) First, because the more specific we get, the more exceptions there will be. The MOST general axiom (do good, avoid evil) is a necessary truth of course. But, more specific principles (e.g., If you have someone s property, you should return it when asked) are only contingently true. (For instance, what if he is asking for his knife back so that he can murder someone?) Here, the specific circumstances have made it NOT good to return the property. (b) Because people are ignorant. Just like The sum of a triangle s angles add up to 180 degrees is true for all people, though not all know it similarly, the laws of natural reason, though true for all, are not known by all. This may be because emotions or evil habituation or evil natural disposition has perverted the reason of some. (I-II.94.4) (3) Divine Law: These are God s particular decrees for His creatures. Aquinas writes, Therefore, in order that human beings can know beyond any doubt what they should do or should not do, a divinely revealed law, regarding which error is impossible, was needed to direct human beings in their actions. (I-II.91.4) The natural law inclines us toward our ultimate end (the perfect happiness of the beatific vision). But, that end far surpasses our finite comprehension (it is super-natural), so we are often wrong about what will make us happy. We often disagree about the laws. So, it was necessary for God to issue additional commands to mankind to bridge this gap. [Today, theologians distinguish between general revelation (truths about God and morality revealed to EVERYONE in nature i.e., ourselves and the universe) and special revelation (truths revealed to BELIEVERS in scriptures of holy texts). Natural law falls under the former, and divine law under the latter.] (4) Human Law: Laws made up by humans. (Note: Different human laws are needed for different communities because they all have different needs and circumstances.) 3
For the Good: As we have seen, Aquinas thinks that laws promote the common good. But, remember that the common good on Earth is to (a) seek truth, and (b) be virtuous. So, for Aquinas, the main purpose of human laws are to promote virtue. He writes, the common good of a political community can be rightly disposed only if its citizens, at least those to whom its ruling belongs, are virtuous. (I-II.92.1.R3) ALL laws are directed toward making us GOOD (in the true, universal sense), and this includes human laws. So, what s up with all of the terrible laws? Sometimes Only a Relative Good: Aquinas accepts that human laws can be directed AWAY from the common good. For instance, when a wicked ruler passes laws that only benefit himself at the expense of the people. Such laws are directed toward making us good, but only in a relative sense (e.g., it makes us good FOR THAT ruler; it compels us to act in a way that accomplishes THEIR end). Here, good is being used in the looser sense like when we say that someone is a good thief. Unjust laws : Aquinas believes that a law can be unjust for one of several reasons: When they do not benefit the community as a whole When the person who made the law didn t have the authority to do so. When they are unfairly burdensome on some more than others (even if the aim is the good of the community as a whole). When they contradict the divine law (e.g., commanding you to worship a false idol) Because such laws are not directed toward the COMMON good (i.e., good for ALL), they are unjust. We are obligated to follow just laws, but we are NOT obligated to follow unjust laws (though in some instances there may be reasons to follow them; he writes, human beings are not obliged in such cases to obey the laws if it be possible to resist them without giving scandal or causing greater harm. I-II.96.4.R3) And, absolutely, we are obligated to DISOBEY laws that contradict the divine law (e.g., to worship false idols). Unjust laws have no authority to oblige us because they are not laws at all! He writes: A tyrannical law, since it is not in accord with reason, is not a law, absolutely speaking. Rather, it is a perversion of law. (I-II.92.1.R4) Later: Human law has the nature of law insofar as it is in accord with right reason, and then it is evidently derived from eternal law. But we call human law evil insofar as it withdraws from reason. And then it has the nature of brute force rather than of law. (I-II.93.3.R2) 4
Letter of the Law, or Spirit?: Sometimes general human laws are imperfect because the lawmakers did not conceive of every possible circumstance. In those cases, the SPIRIT of the law should be followed rather than the LETTER of the law. (He gives an example of a law which commands the city gates to remain shut; but this should be disobeyed if you need to let in a defending army in an emergency situation.) So, Aquinas does think that there are special exceptions where we are NOT obligated to follow just human laws. A worry might arise: If we just let EVERYONE disobey whenever they feel that a law fails in some particular circumstance, won t it be chaos? Thomas answers: Unless it s an emergency, you should obey the letter of the law, and let competent law-makers interpret the spirit of the law for you. (When in doubt, he says, ask a superior.) Human Law Falls Short of Divine Law: Note that divine laws enforce more things than human laws do (e.g., there are no human laws to worship God, or against adultery, and so on). But, that doesn t mean that they re necessarily in conflict. (A contradiction would be something like human law saying DO kill, while divine law says DO NOT kill.) Aquinas believes that humans should not enforce ALL divine laws and this is because such enforcement would actually be BAD overall. He writes, human laws cannot punish or prohibit all evil deeds because in seeking to eliminate all evils, one would thereby also take away many goods and not benefit the common good necessary for human companionship. (I-II.91.4) Note: We don t apply the same rules to children as adults. Why? Because their ABILITIES differ. (For instance, compare how we d respond to an adult stealing an iphone with a 3 year old doing so.) A child CAN T fully comprehend the rules of morality. Similarly, adults ALSO differ in their abilities. Some very virtuous people are much further along in their understanding of the Good than others. As such, we can t expect to legislate the ENTIRE law for ALL humans. Doing so would result in more harm than good; e.g., imperfect citizens, unable to endure those commands, would erupt into worse evil things. Thomas provides a metaphor: If you put new wine into an old wineskin, it will cause the wineskin to burst, and the wine spills everywhere. (The new wine is the complete eternal law, and the old wineskins are imperfect humans.) 5