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

©2025 Poal.co

1.5K

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

the things we don't need (wants, temptations, lust, ego fulfillment).

These are all inspiration to adhere to needs. Remember; we are within balance, which means opposites must coexist, because they're defined by each others coexistence within motion.

So are you saying, and implying because opposties must coexist, that we 'need' not necessarily reject wants, temptations, lust, ego fulfillment - but rather 'comprehend' what these things are; and comprehension implies some extent of 'experience' and as such just as the child most effectively learns by experience - or even the adult learns by doing - its 'OK' to make an occasional 'mistake' by falling for the temptation of lust or wants, greed; the key factor is learning from the experience to comprehend those things more effeictvely to better inspire yourself to grow in the oppostie direction that they pull you towards (corruption, death). Is this accurate?

I'm not trying to rationalize degenate behavior but do recognize for one to truly understand degeneracy one my have to have been a degnerate - at least to some extent. And if the degneracy took hold beyond the point of no return (such is the case for addicts for example) then as you might say the inspriration from those other ONEs in the ecosystem ie- family may get the resulting benefit of increased comprehension of the danger of falling for temptation; a form of indirect 'charge' emmanated from the addict's loss. As such, even in an otherwise tragic path to death of an addict, the resulting consequence may result in some form of positive outcome hence a loss/recharge cycle; an opposite co-existing (an addict who died wanting more vs the next of kin who learned from that to live a fulfilling life by not wanting).

By the way - a challenge when one 'reads' is that some of us are looking for yes/no answers. We want to be told the 'absolute truth'. So I may be stuck in that pattern; among many other patterns we are (((trained))) to follow (everything other than our own needs of course).

What you say is of course subject also to what you say: your words are in motion; as such there is no 'perfection' here nor 'absolute' truths in nature. We are ALL ONEs at every possible state of existence. Most important is perhaps balance and the 'best balance' is sustaining the needs of thyself to maximize our potential state in this existence; growing oneself as an 'ecosystem' to emit (and attract) positive inspiration & cycles of yet more sustaining growth patterns a result of the unity afforded by said ecosystem and growth therof.