Aquinas Ideas Of Tyranny

The philosopher Aquinas had a unique thought process on the way humans acquire knowledge. He believed that by being “born with a blank slate” humans could gain knowledge through experiences and other methods. Aquinas believed that the soul plays a major part in the inquiry of knowledge. Unlike philosophers of old he believed that the soul and body were intertwined. Working together to push the soul forward in its quest to gain knowledge in this life.

In the event that the government turns out to be tyrannical, the people have the power and the right to overthrow it and bring appropriate changes for the good of all. However, this change has to be instituted rationally (Riley, 1990).

What does the word tyranny mean? It is an aggressive form of government that is strict. An example of this is a dictatorship which is absolute power over all people. The big question is how does the constitution guards against tyranny? The answer of this big question is federalism,separation of power, checks and balances, and small state big state. In the following paragraphs I will describe each important term in detail.

Alex Storozynski says, “Tyranny anywhere is a threat to freedom everywhere.” He is saying tyranny can affect other countries not only your own. Tyranny is harsh absolute power by one, a few, or many. The constitution guarded against tyranny by Separating Powers, using Checks and Balances, and using the system of Federalism.

The Republic goes into detail about tyranny stating how it originates, as well as sticks, at least temporarily. In a conversation between Socrates and Thrasymachus in Book I, an important description of tyranny appears. A brief comparison between tyranny and democracy is explained as follows: “a democracy sets down democratic laws; a tyranny, tyrannic laws; and the others do the same. And they declare that what they have set down-their own advantage- is just for the ruled, and the man who departs from it they punish as a breaker of the law and a doer of unjust deeds. This,

Tyranny is not restricted to the present, nor is it restricted to certain areas of the world. In fact, over three centuries ago, America to be under the control of King George lll who was supposedly a harsh and cruel leader that did not care about his subjects. As a result, when the framers of the Constitution of 1878 met together, they agreed that something needed to be included in the Constitution to make sure it may never occur again in the future. How does the new plan of government, or constitution, protect against tyranny, the abuse of power. The Constitution protects against tyranny by including Federalism, separation of powers, and checks and balances.

“Tyranny is the most often defined as harsh, absolute power in the hands of one individual like a king or dictator.” In 1787 during the month of may 55 individuals responded to the call of constitutional convention.The articles of confederation wasn’t working out for them, there were no chief executive, there was no court system, and there wasn’t a central government to force states to pay taxes. The men needed to create a strong central government if they were going to keep everything running smoothly. They wanted their new government system to he tyranny free. “The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may

7. Tyranny is a form of government in which ruling power is in the hands of a person who has seized control.

Tyranny, cruel and oppressive government or rule. This is what is wanted to be prevented in our country. But with Federalism, Separation of Powers, and Checks and Balances, we can make sure that we don’t have tyranny. This is how each principle of government would help prevent tyranny.

Tyranny is when the government has overruling power over a nation. It is very inferior and is not something you would want to get caught up in. Our constitution guards against tyranny in numerous different ways with federalism, separation of powers, and checks and balances.

This implies a relationship in which the state through its instruments dominates society. Hence in the totalitarian state all political, economic, social, cultural and intellectual activities should be directed towards fulfilling the aims of the state” (“Totalitarianism”, 1999). In a totalitarian state, individuals have no rights and they must obey the government without question. If individuals questioned or disagreed with the government, they were silenced by death or prison.

St. Thomas Aquinas argues that an “an unjust law is no law at all.” (Aquinas in Dimock, ed., 2002, p.19) However, Aquinas also acknowledges that a human lawgiver may promulgate a command that has the form of law, and is enforced like a law, yet is unjust. This observation leads to the realization that these are two inconsistent claims. Yet Aquinas believes that these inconstancies can be reconciled. In Aquinas’ view an unjust law is not a law but yet is also able to be issued as law and imposed as law.

For all of history there has existed the struggle between the strong and the weak. The establishment of government gives the power to a particular group to decide the amount of freedom the majority is allowed, however, though not ideal it provides necessary order. The benefits of security that limitations on freedom provides must be balanced with the individual's pursuit of happiness for citizens to be content. To prevent the governed majority from destabilizing the rulers and seeking power, the government will oppress political and personal freedom of thought. In result, the majority will live under the illusion of contentment and not wish to revolt; those enlightened to the idea that the government should be ruled by the governed, would associate happiness only with ignorance and consequently seek freedom.

Although misunderstood when introduced to society during their time, Niccolo Machiavelli’s The Prince and Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan have been two of the most influential political works in history. The Prince and Leviathan, although seen as immoral and almost wicked works of their time, have guided many political thinkers, even America’s own Thomas Jefferson, on the subject of governance and power. This paper will compare the similarities and differences between both works in terms of the historical settings in which they were written as well as between the two distinct political philosophies presented by each man. More specifically, this paper will differentiate the purpose of power between Machiavelli’s theory of an absolute ruler separated from morals and ethics compared to Hobbes’ reasoning for a necessary and absolute ruler to put an end to the chaotic “state of nature” he presents.

Tyranny is defined: an unequal social system involving the arbitrary or oppressive use of power by one group over another (Reicher & Haslam, 2006). The link made between groups and tyranny has a long history in social psychology being prominent nearly 2,400 years ago with the Greek philosopher Aristotle. Aristotle believed that collective rule leads to moral irresponsibility, haphazardness and is a disguised form of tyranny. Research into tyranny has been carried out ever since.