In the thirteenth century, the rule of a king was frequent and churchly beliefs on virtue dominated life. Rule by the demos was seen as an unacceptable form of government. Aquinas argues in favor of kingship, divinely ordained; of the common good, heralded by the king; and for law which is based upon Christian virtues and the common good. After laying out each of Thomas Aquinas’s arguments, I plan to discuss how a rule by many is the best form of rule, law is created for order and, sometimes, the interest of the legislator, and how the common good does not exist.
First, Aquinas claims that a community is best ruled by a king. The first reason he gives for this is that a king creates unity and a government less susceptible to faction. Aquinas …show more content…
The first reason he gives for this is that, as the end of life is blessedness, then “[l]aw must therefore attend especially to the ordering of things toward blessedness.” In a later chapter of the book, Aquinas goes on to say that law cannot restrain all vices. The reason for this, he states is that, “…human law if framed for a community of men the majority of whom are not men of perfect virtue.” Law cannot be “holy” if the law by which men are subject to here on earth is only law against the most severe sins. If there is, in fact, a difference between divine law and human law where divine law punishes all sin and human law punishes some sin, then human law cannot help direct men in the direction of blessedness. So, if law cannot create virtue, then it can only create order. The second reason Aquinas gives for his claim on the end goal of law is that a law must be just “from their end,” “from their author,” or “from their form.” Just “From their author” means that the law cannot exceed the power off the legislator. Yet the power of a king can be subjective if there are no limitations placed upon the throne and he is above the law for the very reason Aquinas gives. The king can change law in the state. Then, it is also required of the people to interpret the law through the intention of the legislator. Yet, as I observed in the paragraph above, the king’s interest may not be the interest of the populous. So how can someone whose interests are vastly divergent from the population have the best intention? Do legislators not pass legislation to further their own political motives and political interest? If the interests of one cannot match the interests of the many, then legislation by one will reflect the interests of one rather than many. Then, can one count on the populous interpreting the legislation correctly? Aquinas would answer that, “No man is so completely wise as to be able to take