preview

Why Is Thomas Aquinas Important

Better Essays

In Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica, St. Thomas enters into multiple discussions on the essence and nature of humans, God, and everything else in between. Thomas explores questions that are seen by others as too arduous to explore due to complicated sophistication and/or various complex thought experiments. Nonetheless, Thomas tackles such difficulties and breaks it down in his own style with help from others who have embarked on the same treacherous journey. With a lot of help from Aristotle, specifically, Thomas equates many of his ideas about life to Aristotle’s previous works. Thomas even gives multiple commentaries on Aristotle’s work, not something that most people can put on their résumé. It’s quite simple to see how brilliant Thomas …show more content…

In Question 95, Article 1, Thomas arrives at the conclusion that it is indeed necessary for humans to make laws, in fact most necessary (ST 1.95.1 sed contra). Thomas quotes a 6th century scholar, Saint Idisore of Seville, saying “Laws were made that in fear thereof human audacity might be held in check, that innocence might be safeguarded in the midst of wickedness, and that the dread of punishment might prevent the wicked from doing harm.” Simply, laws were created after being first derived from the idea that humans act wickedly in a number of given circumstances, thus confirming that we do in fact need a system of checks and balances in order to live in a healthy and sustainable society. The question then moves to how we come up with laws – by a means of reason, speculation, or some other means. Thomas, after referring to Question 17, Article 1, which follows the logic that: since reason is needed in order to command, and showing that it belongs to the law to command, the creation of law has to pertain to reason (q. 90, a. …show more content…

The objector suggests that the law itself directs man in his actions, which to the objector, seems to be concerned only with particular matters. It is then concluded that the law is directed to some particular good, not the common good. Following that argument, I would explain to the objector that particular goods are involved in striving toward a larger goal. For instance, if my goal is to eat food, I may occupy myself with the particular medium of cooking for myself, venturing to a restaurant, mooching off of my friend, or whatever else seems to fit the mood at that moment. Just because the end goal is concerned with a particular doesn’t mean the subject’s mindset is contained to those individual particulars. Particulars in every circumstance do in fact strive for an end of some sort. To break this down further, let us take for example the basic law to not kill. In the United States, the law is that people drive on the right side of the road. In other countries, it may be on the left side. This specific law is aimed at the end of not killing, which in turn promotes human flourishing. Thus, we can conclude that rules for driving on the opposite sides of the road is aimed at the end of a common good. The objector is saying that laws are concerned only with a particular matter or a particular good. Following that logic

Get Access