Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

565

It is natural for man to shrink from detriment to his own body and loss of worldly goods, but to forsake justice on that account is contrary to natural reason. Hence the Philosopher [Aristotle] says (Ethic. iii, 1) that there are certain things, viz. sinful deeds, which no fear should drive us to do, since to do such things is worse than to suffer any punishment whatever. (Summa Theologiae, Part II-II, Q.19, A.3, RO3)

Sound familiar? I wonder what Aristotle and Aquinas would think of rulers using their power to unjustly prevent citizens from providing for their families, citing fear of a disease as their "justification."

Actually, I don't have to wonder. Aquinas has this to say about law, first quoting Augustine:

As Augustine says (De Lib. Arb. i, 5) "that which is not just seems to be no law at all": wherefore the force of a law depends on the extent of its justice. Now in human affairs a thing is said to be just, from being right, according to the rule of reason. But the first rule of reason is the law of nature, as is clear from what has been stated above (I-II:91:2 ad 2). Consequently every human law has just so much of the nature of law, as it is derived from the law of nature. But if in any point it deflects from the law of nature, it is no longer a law but a perversion of law. (Summa Theologiae, Part I, Q.95, A.2)

>It is natural for man to shrink from detriment to his own body and loss of worldly goods, but to forsake justice on that account is contrary to natural reason. Hence the Philosopher [Aristotle] says (Ethic. iii, 1) that there are certain things, viz. sinful deeds, which no fear should drive us to do, since to do such things is worse than to suffer any punishment whatever. (*Summa Theologiae*, Part II-II, Q.19, A.3, RO3) Sound familiar? I wonder what Aristotle and Aquinas would think of rulers using their power to unjustly prevent citizens from providing for their families, citing fear of a disease as their "justification." Actually, I don't have to wonder. Aquinas has this to say about law, first quoting Augustine: >As Augustine says (De Lib. Arb. i, 5) "that which is not just seems to be no law at all": wherefore the force of a law depends on the extent of its justice. Now in human affairs a thing is said to be just, from being right, according to the rule of reason. But the first rule of reason is the law of nature, as is clear from what has been stated above (I-II:91:2 ad 2). Consequently every human law has just so much of the nature of law, as it is derived from the law of nature. But if in any point it deflects from the law of nature, it is no longer a law but a perversion of law. (*Summa Theologiae*, Part I, Q.95, A.2)

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (18).
[–] • 0 pt

Why do they barter? To get what they need or to get what they want? Do those engaged in barter even question need and want, or are they deceived to only focus on value? If they don't evaluate need over want, then the value they focus on is in ignorance of self.

Right, so as you expose that perhaps was my Talmind (brainwashed thinking) unconsciously attaching on to 'barter' as a fixed meaining; a belief that it is somehow automatically 'more natural' than money. But as you point out here if one engages in barter based on the same selfish patterns that one engages in money then it is no better; such act is simply exchanging one form of idolotry for another.

Understand that the motion we are in represents forward movement towards death, which makes all that exists a temptation pulling us towards our end. our temporary momentum within motion represent resistance to motion, which is why our needs of self sustenance are defined by struggle.

Perhaps stated another way: our 'struggle' represents resistance to the pull of death. It is from this very resistance that we can grow to reach higher potential because resistance to death's pull is the mechanism for energy's recharge; resistance to the pull of death is temporary momentum, thus motion (away from death).

Taken further, the path that energy flows is already defined (and communicated to us via 'nature') and as such as an individual, ONE of many within ALL the ALL of which is the flow of nature, our 'momentum' (ie- energy gained by resisting death; by pulling away) is best applied to participating in this flow. 'Go with the flow' as they say.

Otherwise, your struggle may be handicapped by the wrong intent ie- if you struggle to lift weigths and exhaust your body in physical training for hours & hours every day 6 days a week - only to engage in temptations outside of that struggle (ie- lust, drugs, excessive eating, greed) then your momentum is just wasted and unsustainable.

Therefore the most 'effecient' human is one who not only struggles to resist death, but who applies the strength gained from that resistance (the momentum gained; the newly transmuted 'energy') into the flow of nature - and as you suggest, not for selfish wants but for growing the roots of ONE's ecosystem & emmanating the fruits outwardly for the benefit of ALL.

(in other words, we should all become 'trees' haha - in all seriousness though it does seem like a good analogy and once again I appreciate your literal nautral insights)