St. Thomas Aquinas : Tyranny : The Worst Form Of Government

1. The problems that Thomas Paine sees with the British monarchy involve its straying from ideal government, the unjust placement of one individual above all others, and its hereditary aspect. The problems that Thomas Paine sees with King George III in particular are his personal transgressions against liberty. Thomas Paine, firstly views government as “but a necessary evil” (15), and therefore it should be both as limited as possible and also tied to the more positive society. The ideal form of government, thus according to Paine, is a simple republic where the elected are forced to be accountable to their electors (16). The British monarchy fails in all accounts; not only does the prescence of a monarchy at all eliminate the accountability of a republic, but the complicatedness of the British monarchy system makes it worse in this aspect than even other monarchies. Although absolute monarchies are horrid in that they give no power to the people, they are still simpler than the British monarchy; this makes issues much more difficult to handle in the British monarchy (17). The other problems that Paine has with the British monarchy apply to monarchies at large. Paine argues that the placement of one person above all others is an unnatural divide; there is no explanation for the division of people into “KINGS and SUBJECTS” (22) such as there are in other forms of division that humans live with. If it does not make sense to place one individual above all others, then such should most certainly not be law; therefore, from this logic, monarchy, which is entirely based on the principle of placing one person (and their relatives) above all others, is an invalid and unnatural form of government. Of course, some people could, arguably, have earned the admiration and respect of their peers through important action, and thus be deserving of a leadership position. In a republic, by listening to their electors, the elected earn their right to lead. However, the hereditary monarchy removes this earning of the right to lead, and Paine takes issue with that. There is no guarantee that the descendants of a good leader will also be good leaders, and therefore the government of a country should never be left to heredity (29).

In the previous paragraph, although Paine talked about the flaws that come into play in a government that is run by a single ruler, he then talked about how having a ruler may be inevitable and provides an example of how it may work. Though Paine doesn't argue against having a ruler to the fullest extent due to the amount of oppressive that is seen through having single rulers, he feels that there should be someone in charge but have equal power with other parties, therefore that single person isn't in complete control. According to Paine, " Let the assemblies be annual, with a President only. The representation more equal. Their business wholly domestic, and subject to the authority of a Continental Congress." This shows Paine's thinking on producing a government with equality. In this example, there will be representation from all aspects and people, so they can and will be part of the decision-making as well as the President. Thomas Paine's theory on creating a government with a higher power which is surrounded by equality can flourish due to the elimination of oppression, tyranny, and abuse of power.

Some of the founding fathers have been firm believers in the ideas posed in John Locke’s “Second Treatise of Government”. The one idea that can be seen quite clearly is the complete dissenting stance taken by Locke on the thought of monarchy in civil government. “Absolute monarchy,

Following on from the preceding discussion, then, it is possible to explore the types of constitution in existence. From the aforementioned distinction, we can observe correct – rule with a view to the common good – and deviated – rule with a view to the private advantage – constitutional arrangements. Within each of these are three types of constitution. The three correct types of constitution comprise a kingship, an aristocracy, and a polity; the three deviated types of constitution consist of a tyranny,

The constitution guarded against tyranny by giving us federalism, separation of powers, checks and balances, and large vs. small states. The constitution was written in Philadelphia in the year of 1787. This established America’s national government and fundamental laws

Tyranny is something all developing countries risk while forming their new governments. In the Constitution of the United States, the Founding Fathers put a large amount of time and thought to make sure America did not become just a another country that fell to the merciless trap of tyranny. America had just won a war to separate itself from the controlling jaws of Britain. So, one of America’s main concerns as a new country was to create a government that could never eventually evolve into a tyranny. Thus, the Constitution (signed in 1787) was passed, laying the foundation for a tyranny-free government led by the values of equality and freedom. The Constitution of the United States of America protects against a potential tyranny in the government through federalism, separation of powers, checks and balances, and big states versus small states.

The Constitution was created so one person or group wasn’t able to get too much power. At first, the Articles of Confederation was made. The Articles of Confederation was not working because the central government didn’t have enough power to protect the nation. The Constitution was made in order to hold the states together and the people together, and make sure the government doesn’t gain too much power. The Constitution guards against tyranny. Tyranny is “The accumulation of all powers…in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many” (Federalism Paper #47). The Constitution guards against tyranny by separation of powers, creating federalism, and having checks and balances.

In 17th-18th century Europe, the age of absolutism, absolute monarchs ruled most of Europe. Absolute monarchs are rulers that have complete control over the government and its people. They claimed to rule by “divine right,” where their authority comes from God and they were above the law. The views of being a proper role as an absolute monarch differed very much between rulers and their subjects. Certain rulers had ideas that both the people and ruler should be united, some abused their power with no sympathy towards the people they rule, and the subjects that suffered from the rulings of the monarch had a completely different perspective than the rulers that were in power.

This is similar to Locke’s outlook on the social contract which is directly related to his theory about the state of nature, but his outlook also differs from Aquinas’s understanding of eternal and natural law. Locke believes that God has made every person equal, and the owner of themselves which is their own property. Because of this they need to give certain right to the government or a “social contract” in exchange for protection of their own property. This includes themselves and their gained properties which are gained by

After reading Article 1, Aquinas for Armchair Theologians by Timothy M. Renick most can automatically acquire that Thomas Aquinas was a very influential thinker amongst others when explaining his theological views. His religious views may have differed from others during his time, however, it did influence and encourage others on the different topics of God vs. Satan, and why God has not all the answers, and powers when making sure every human being should not face evil. Aquinas believed that Christians needed to view their basic beliefs in another way to make sense of their own faith when questioning all that God did for each individual. The real question to all this, which a lot of people even question today is “Why is their evil in the World?”

The first reason being, the authority of the sovereign by whose command the war is to be waged(Article 1). It is important to note that the sovereign is the leader or overseer of a certain project. Aquinas believes that the people themeselves can not wage a private war on a country, but if the sovereign say its okay, then they are allowed to wage a war. The second reason that Aquinas gave is that, a just cause is required, namely that those who are attacked, should be attacked because they deserve it on account of some fault(Article 1). Here, Aquinas attempts to explain that war is just as long as you have a cause to attack someone,and that they did something wrong to you or others around you. It’s the famous line “and eye for an eye.” An example of this reason would be, if someone were to get hit , it would be okay for them to go back and hit the person back. Although this may be bad like in school accoriding to Aquinas it is completely legal to attack someone if they attacked you. The third reason he gives is that, it is necessary that the belligerents should have a rightful intention, so that they intend the advancement of good, or the avoidance of evil(Article 1). Intending to demosntrate that it is okay to wage war, Aquinas says that it is always okay to wage war as long as the person you have rightful intentions.

Throughout the course of this essay, I will first define what Aquinas means by incorporating the claim that “an unjust law is no law at all”. This will include defining important terms that will correspond with evaluating Aquinas’ claim.

Are we naturally moral creatures? Do we always act towards the common good of others? I am positive that we do not, and in fact, as much as society wants to, we go against our morals and lead with our ‘feelings’. These feelings may feel right, but it doesn’t mean they will lead you in the right path to fulfil your ultimate end, true happiness. Hitler was a passionate man driven by feelings, but what he felt and did during the World War Two era was not for the sake of the common good, and was not morally right. In today’s society we often struggle between what is legally right and what is

The book one hundred and twenty eight page book entitled On Tyranny by author Timonthy Snyder plublished in New York in 2017 is not Timothy Snyder’s first book in the area of politics. Timothy Snyder also has written books on politics entitled Nationalism, Marxism and Modern Central Europe: A Biography of Kazimierz Kelles-Krauz, A Wall Around the West: State Borders and Immigration and Controls in the United States and Europe just to name of few of his political works. However in this work I will be analysing Timothy Snyder’s work entitled On Tyranny and the various arguments set forth by the book as well as the narration, setting, themes, plot and my opinion of the book.

As a result of looking through Thomas Hobbes’ view on monarchy and John Locke’s view on democracy, both perspectives provide a vast amount of information of an ideal government. In Locke’s book, Second Treatise of Government, chapter 11 is devoted to legislative power, which Locke identifies as the most important part of the government. Locke provides rules for this legislative power. The first is the preservation of society. No one can challenge the power of the legislative body, or pass laws of their own. This power is invested in the body of the majority. In this chapter, he brings up a constant