Cicero's Cosmic Significance of Politics PDF

Tantan, Jessie Boy L. Cicero (The Cosmic Significance of Politics) Background: - wealthy, provincial aristocratic family of Arpinum, in central Italy, - homo novus (“new man” or parvenu) in Roman politics - Roman orator, statesman, and philosopher...

Tantan, Jessie Boy L. Cicero (The Cosmic Significance of Politics) Background: - wealthy, provincial aristocratic family of Arpinum, in central Italy, - homo novus (“new man” or parvenu) in Roman politics - Roman orator, statesman, and philosopher Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 B.C.) - he possessed considerable philosophical intelligence and was, in general, an able and sophisticated exponent of philosophical ideas. - received training in Greek philosophy. - Skeptics and he was particularly influenced by Stoicism in his moral, political, and legal thought, to which we now turn. - inverts this order: it is lex that is “deeper” and grounds ius, in its general sense. Why the inversion? And why does Cicero particularly connect lex with reason (ratio and prudentia)? - Cicero also follows the Stoics in conceiving of the moral virtues—in particular, the four “cardinal virtues,” which will be discussed below—as manifestations of reason as applied to universal human nature. - We might describe Cicero, who here follows the lead of the Stoics, as “rationalizing” the moral virtues and as “legalizing” ethics. - Assassinated on 44 B.C Works: (modeled on Plato’s Republic and Laws, respectively.) - De Re Publica res publica literally translates as “public thing,” “public property,” or “public business.” a public [or “people”: populus] is not any kind of human gathering, congregating in any manner, but a numerous gathering brought together by agreement with respect to what is right [or “of law”: iuris consensu] and community of interest. The primary reason for its coming together is not so much weakness as a sort of innate desire on the part of human being to form communities. For our species is not made up of solitary individuals or lonely wanderers.’ Cicero sometimes uses the term res publica specifically for the form of government of the late Roman republic, often in the course of lamenting its displacement by what he regards as despotic rule. res publicae as “legitimate” forms of government, - De Legibus In his De legibus, Cicero explicitly dismisses what, for the Roman of his time, would have been the two most salient “positivist” sources of law: the ancient Twelve Tablets and the edicts issued by urban praetor on his assumption of office. Cicero’s Polis Vs. Aristotle’s Polis Cicero appeals to the Stoic account of human beings as loci of the divine reason that governs the whole universe or cosmos as a cosmopolis—in a way analogous to that in which human reason should govern 1 Tantan, Jessie Boy L. the polis or res publica. Cicero, as we shall see, follows the Stoic philosophical tradition in elaborating at great length the second, metaphysical assumption. Cicero as Champion of the Res Publica For Aristotle, politics is a largely local affair. It is within the individual polis or city-state that his normative anthropology finds expression, for it is enculturation into such a complete community that is necessary for a human being, in a biological sense, to develop into a human person fulfilling the function (ergon), achieving the end (telos), proper to human beings as a natural kind. Aristotle undoubtedly assumes that the normative human nature or function places constraints on the features of what constitutes a “good” polis and what particular moral virtues (éthikai aretai), as well as intellectual virtues, are recognized and cultivated in such a polis. Different kinds of constitution 1. monarchy (regio or regnum), roman form of government - he prefers monarchy explain by Scipio because: judicious blend of the three simple forms at their best. it has stability; for although those three original forms easily degenerate into their corrupt versions (producing a despot instead of a king, an oligarchy instead of an aristocracy, and a disorganized rabble instead of a democracy), and although those simple forms often change into others, such things rarely happen in a political structure which represents a combination and a judicious mixture—unless, that is, the politicians are deeply corrupt. 1. One is the idea of the state’s serving a common interest or good, an idea that is evident in the political thought of both Plato and Arisotle 2. The other is a Stoic idea of the state’s instantiating the rule of law or “right” (ius). 2. aristocracy (civitas optimatium) 3. democracy (civitas popularis). state - should possess an element of regal supremacy; something else should be assigned and allotted to the authority of aristocrats; and certain affairs should be reserved for the judgment and desires of the masses. - Reason with a capital R. What is Right (Jus): The Rule of Law (Lex) and Normative Anthropology In his De Legibus, Cicero explicitly dismisses what, for the Roman of his time, would have been the two most salient “positivist” sources of law: 1. the ancient Twelve Tablets (a codification of criminal and civil law dating from about 450 B.c.) 2. the edicts issued by urban praetor on his assumption of office (statements issued by chief magistrates, detailing forms and procedures for the administration of civil law and building upon similar edicts by their predecessors in office.) His understanding of Law “We must clarify the nature of what is right [ius], and that has to be deduced from the nature of man. 2 Tantan, Jessie Boy L. The “principles of what is right” (ius) are to be located in law (lex). And the essence of law is to be found in nature—both the nature of the universe as a whole and in the particular nature of the human part of the universe: law is the highest reason [ratio] Ius - is the Latin noun that is most frequently used—as by the Roman Jurists—for “law” in the most general sense, or a whole legal system. - “moral rightness” [ius]. - It binds together human society and has been established by one, single law [lex]. lex - typically has the narrower signi fication of some sort of statute. - That law is right reason in commanding and forbidding. - lex governing the whole cosmopolis, there is a sense in which Cicero “legalizes” ethics. Cicero, however, inverts this order: it is lex that is “deeper” and grounds ius, in its general sense. Why the inversion? And why does Cicero particularly connect lex with reason (ratio and prudentia) Stoic conception of the whole universe as a Cosmopolis, - ruled by an immanent Reason with a capital R, since Reason is responsible for each history, there would be no reason for differences among cycles. Reason “gets it right” (ius) each and every time. Since the universe is analogized to a human polis or res publica (although the universe is a perfectly governed one), it is natural enough to think of objective moral correctness or rightness (ius) as founded in the “statutes” (Leges, plural of lex) of that all-encompassing cosmopolis. The cultivation of human reason, according to Cicero's Stoic doctrine in De legibus, leads to our recognition of what is “fine,” noble, or morally good (to kalon, in Greek; honestum, in Cicero’s Latin). Allied “common good”—in the sense of the good of all rational beings—through oikeiésis, the Stoic technical concept of “sociation” or “appropriation Virtues, Duties, and Laws – Ancient ethical thought (regarded as truisms.) 1. ancient ethics is more or less universally “virtue ethics.” That is, ancient ethical theory is primarily focused on the virtues (and vices): the character traits that make a human person a (morally) good person (and their contraries) rather than the duties, obligations, and rights that are proper to human beings. 2. the classical natural-law theory of ethics and politics— that is, the tradition that derives especially from St. Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth century A.D.—is a Christianized development from that of Aristotle. Cicero’s theory importance theory 3 Tantan, Jessie Boy L..Human beings have the ability to participate in the universal, cosmic reason through the development of human practical reason, that is, reason directed towards action. human practical reason manifests itself through the four cardinal virtues of wisdom 1. wisdom (sapientia which is the preeminent virtue), 2. Fortitude (prudential) 3. Justice (iustitia) 4. temperance In Cicero’s view, then, the cardinal virtues, as well as the officia, the duties to which they give rise in particular circumstances, are grounded in “nature and reason.” practical wisdom must effect the formation of political structures, human or “positive” law, and systems of teaching that codify certain of these duties. the law should correct wickedness and promote goodness, a code of conduct (doctrina) may be derived from it. It is practical rationality’s connection with human community (communitas) and society (societas) that he later invokes as the reason why the application of reason to distinctively human matters “should be ranked above mere learning.” Roman republican form of res publica that particular form of constitution afforded the best opportunity to men of talent and virtue to exercise their abilities for the common good. nature and reason as the “ruling element” (in Stoic terminology, to hégemonikon) of the grand cosmopolis of which all beings partaking in reason are the citizens, it makes sense to think of this rational, ruling element in terms of law (lex): Aristotle vs Cicero on virtue Aristotle’s conception of the moral virtues resembles Plato’s conception of the virtues other than nous or reason. For Cicero, however, the moral virtues are more directly expressions of rationality with respect to the nature, rational and social, of human beings. Politics for Cicero - is not for Cicero a local affair— at least not politics as a normative ideal embodied in the Ciceronian notion of a res publica. Magistrates should observe the rule of law. - Cosmic type Cicero’s view of the universe and of human beings is certainly not a Christian (or Judaic, or Muslim) view. However, there are some elements of his thought that are both obviously congenial to a Christian conception of man and universe and that have 4 Tantan, Jessie Boy L. political implications. I do not believe that those implications were completely realized in a Christian context prior to St. Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth century. Between Cicero and Aquinas, there is a space of more than twelve hundred years—and considerable Christian thought concerning political matters. - Christianity A Political Religion? apolitical religion (not interested or involved in politics) since the essential focus of Christianity is on individual spiritual regeneration or salvation can easily yield an interpretation of Christianity Ernest L. Fortin: [Christianity] is essentially a nonpolitical religion. Unlike Judaism and Islam, it does not call for the formation of a separate community or provide a code of laws by which that community might be governed. It takes for granted that its followers will continue to live as full-fledged citizens of the political society to which they belong and share its way of life as long as they are not forced to indulge in practices that are directly at odds with their basic beliefs, as were, for example, idolatry and emperor worship.’ The rise of Christianity Within the Roman Empire from the time of Augustus at the beginning of the first century A.D. to that of the first Christian emperor Constantine early in the fourth century = (certainly, had immense political consequences, theoretical as well as practical) The idea that the essential focus of Christianity is on individual spiritual regeneration or salvation can easily yield an interpretation of Christianity as an apolitical religion. Christianity is to reconcile its rather extravagant normative anthropology with a social morality suitable for its cosmopolitan clientele. The social and political success of Christianity - brings to the foreground, in particular, questions about the source of political authority and the legitimacy of political institutions. The concept of the Christian ecclesia - the church or community of the faithful, can confront the secular polis or state in a variety of ways: as a political rival; 5 Tantan, Jessie Boy L. as an authoritative but benevolent senior partner (or subservient junior partner) of the secular state in the enterprise of attending to the welfare of the state’s citizens; as embodying a moral (or political) ideal against which that secular state may be measured; or as a spiritual community set apart from all secular states, the concerns of which are of an order entirely different from the concerns of such states. Christianity - postulates a human nature, function, or purpose more complex and, indeed, more “extravagant” than that postulated by the various naturalistic normative anthropologies of Greek antiquity—one that privileges the eternal, celestial, or spiritual nature of human beings (as well as perhaps taking into account their transitory, terrestrial, or biological nature). There is the potential cosmopolitanism of the universal call to Christian discipleship. But there is the concrete, anarchosyndicalist political sectarianism of life within the (small and local) Christian ecclesiai parousia or “second coming” of Christ in glory was imminent. In Paul’s view, it was really only God’s action in the parousia that would bring to full fruition Christian cosmopolitanism. the fundamental role of political organization is to secure the common good of its citizens, one might expect that this more complex, extravagant conception of the human function—and, hence, a more complex, extravagant conception of the common human good—will yield a more complex (or ambivalent) conception of the role of the political in human life. The New Testament and Beyond the influence of Christianity on political thought begin with the Christian scriptures. It is * obvious that the canonical New Testament is not even in part a work of political philosophy. However, there are passages in the New Testament that traditionally have been taken to be particularly relevant to political matter Jesus in His Appearance before Pontius Pilate (John 18:36-7) The Attempted Entrapment of Jesus by the Pharisees (Matthew 22:16-21) St. Paul on the Duty of Civil Docility (Romans 13:1-7) St. Paul’s Exegesis of the Commandment to Love One's Fellow Man (Romans 13:8-10) The Early Christian Community as Described in Acts (Acts 2:44-7) 6 Tantan, Jessie Boy L. the issue of cosmopolitanism versus sectarianism By sectarian, I here mean a conception of Christianity as pertaining only to the select few and emphasizing the status of Christian believers as constituting a community “set apart,” both from humankind in general and from particular political orders. An apolitical form of sectarianism would, of course, conceptualize this community set apart as a purely spiritual community, one existing on a completely different plane from concrete political structures—poleis, kingdoms, or empires—and in that sense apparently not in competition with such concrete secular political structures Cosmopolitan versions of apolitical Christianity are more orthodox and can trace their origins at least back to St. Paul: “there are no more distinctions between Jew and Greek, slave and free, male and female, but all of you are one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28). An apolitical form of cosmopolitanism would seem to present little threat to the established political order. This theme is supported by the several recommendations of civil docility found in the Christian scriptures. Christian cosmopolitanism becoming quite important with the advent of Christian Roman emperors in the fourth century A.D. I turn next to that crucial period in Christian political thought. Christian apolitical cosmopolitanism should largely have prevented conflict between Christianity and secular political authority and also have prevented Christianity from winning any great political influence. Pauline Cosmopolitanism Christianity’s normative anthropology “extravagant,” Christianity holds two doctrines concerning the true function, end, or good of human persons: (1) that function is the attainment of a kind of existence (salvation: eternal life in communion with God and in the fellowship of the saved) that transcends any sort of state or activity achievable in this mortal, biological life; and (2) that function is not something that human beings _can achieve or attain by their own (individual or social) efforts but, rather, it is a gift bestowed by the grace of God. Paul’s normative anthropology 1. , there is the eschatological emphasis on human destiny, where “eschatological” (from the Greek for ultimate or “last” things) signifies an ultimate state of existence, subsequent to biological death, of human beings. In Athens, Paul tells his pagan audience that “now [God] is telling everyone everywhere that they must repent, because he has fixed a day when the whole world will be judged, and judged in righteousness, and he has appointed a man to be the judge. And God has publicly proved this by raising this man from the dead” (Acts 17:30-31). 7 Tantan, Jessie Boy L. 2. (Romans 6:5-11) and (2 Corinthians 5:1).The ultimate end, the ultimate function, of human life is an eternal sharing in the perfect life of God. For the Stoics, the “different understanding” of the human function, end, or good in which oikeidésis issues is homologia—“living in conformity with nature.” Homolo gia is an identification of oneself with the divine reason that pervades and orders the cosmos; it is a matter of “using one’s reason for the purposes for which it is designed, that is, for reaching truth about the world.” As Cicero notes, homologia yields the central insight that “the good to which everything else is referred are acts in conformity to moral rectitude and in moral rectitude [honestum]”" itself. Stoic vs. St. Paul on self identification For the Stoics, the identification of self with “cosmic reason” and, for St. Paul, identification of the self with Jesus Christ involve a sort of transformation of oneself—and, indeed, a transformation where one identifies oneself not just with reason and with Christ, respectively, but also with all other persons who have received similar insight. (For both the Stoics and St. Paul, this ontological transformation—that is, transformation in one’s “being”—will (ideally) have profound moral implications about one’s behavior: one simply will treat others in a different way because one sees them, and oneself, in a different way.) The normative anthropologies of both Paul and the Stoics possess inherent cosmopolitan political possibilities. The case of Paul and the Stoics is quite different. For both, fulfilling the human function is a matter of gaining the right sort of insight about the world, about human beings, and about the ‘place of the latter in the former: “everything hangs on coming to see the good, on getting a proper rational grasp on it. Then [ideally] all ‘passions’ will be blotted out. There will be no weakness of the will. And one will always and only act on one’s (new) insight.” The normative anthropologies of Paul and of the Stoics, then, yield what one might term “potential cosmopolitanism.” For Paul, all are called to rebirth in Christ and, in principle, each person, irrespective of the peculiarities of his or her personal, social, or cultural status, is capable of such rebirth. Paul's “potential cosmopolitanism”: all are called to rebirth in Christ. For those given the grace to respond to that call, there is a transformation of behavior that, in a sense, renders traditional, “nuts and bolts” politics otiose. “Do not model yourselves,” says Paul, “on the 8 Tantan, Jessie Boy L. behavior of the world around you, but let your behavior change, modeled by your new mind” (Romans 12:2). For the Stoics, all are called to the “full rationality” of homologia and, in principle, each person, irrespective of the peculiarities of his or her personal, social, or cultural status, is capable of such oikeidsis. For Aristotle (and for Protagoras before him), nomos—that is, the customary, the conventional, and the cultural—plays a large role with respect to the pursuit and fulfillment of a supposed human function, end, or good. Fulfilling the human function, achieving the human good, is something that requires the local political community (the polis). And the customs, mores, and culture of the local political community, in turn, help to determine the concrete content of the human function. Political philosophy of St. Augustine (354-430 A.D.) Background - Augustine in north Africa - Augustine is committed * to a portrayal of Christianity as radically countercultural—but as countercultural in a politically unthreatening way. - For him, the corruption of human nature resulting from the Fall, human beings often try to enjoy what should be only an object of use; and, not infrequently, they attempt to enjoy what should be avoided altogether - pessimistic—some might say “cynical,” others “realistic - Works: - City of God (The City of God is not a work of political philosophy, and there is good reason to agree with Ernest L. Fortin’s description of Augustine as exhibiting a “lack of interest in politics.”* In Augustine’s own words, “as for this mortal life, which ends after a few days’ course, what does it matter under whose rule a man lives, being so soon to die, provided that the rulers do not force him to impious and wicked acts.” Augustine’s City of God serves as a plausible example (we shall see other perhaps even clearer examples in later chapters) of how social circumstances and an author’s fundamental commitments can mold theoretical doctrine. But, at the same time, it serves as an outstanding example of the fact that such social and intellectual contextualization of a theoretical work need in no way detract from its philosophical interest or historical importance. two principal motivations of writing the book Civitate Dei 1. One is to reply anew to the old pagan charge that the serious, devout practice of Christianity is incompatible with discharging one’s civic duties as a member of a secular political society. 9 Tantan, Jessie Boy L. 2. The second motivation was to wean his “noble pagan” readers (as well as those Christians who had been attracted to the imperial theology of Eusebius and Orosius) away from the idea that any secular social or political structure could ever provide the sufficient means for attaining true human nobility—that is, for successfully fulfilling the human function or achieving the human good. The Two Civitates - the two cities is that they are not, in any literal sense, cities: that is, they are not to be identified with any specific social or political institutions of human history. - Augustine uses the figure of the two cities to describe two radically different sorts of person, the earthly city is not to be identified with the Roman Empire (or any other secular state), and the heavenly city is not to be identified with the (Catholic) Church. - The result is that “there is one city of men who choose to live by the standard of the flesh, another by the standard of the spirit. - Augustine’s theory of the two cities suggests that there is strikingly little that the citizens of the heavenly city and those of the earthly city have in common by way of such goals and purposes. The ultimate motivations (fructus or enjoyments) of the two kinds of person are of entirely different orders suggests that this difference in ultimate motivation will thoroughly color their attitudes to subsidiary goals and purposes— their conceptions, in other words, of what is useful and of how it is so. 1.the city of God, or heavenly city, - or heavenly city, - “there arise enemies against whom the City of God has to be defended, though many of these correct their godless errors and become useful citizens of that City [of God].” - the heavenly city is constituted of 1.those who love God correctly, who find their enjoyment only in him, and 2. who are destined to eternal beatitude in the company of God and 3. the saints after this mortal, biological life is ended. - Whereas the heavenly city was created “by the love of God carried as far as contempt of self,” - while the citizens of the Heavenly City are brought forth by grace, which sets nature free from sin.... In one case we are shown man’s customary behaviour, in the other we are given a revelation of the goodness of God. - citizens of the city of God would have little if any need for politics at all. - Before the Fall, our first parents (Adam and Eve) belonged to the City of God; 10 Tantan, Jessie Boy L. 2.the earthly city - “city that aims at dominion, which holds nations in enslavement, but is itself dominated by that very lust of domination.” - The earthly city is constituted of 1. those who have not been reincorporated into the city of God. o they are persons who seek their happiness in the enjoyment of things that ought to be only objects of use. Their conception of the human function, or ultimate purpose or good, is faulty—or, if they have some inkling of the truth in this matter, they do not manage to conform their behavior to this insight. They have not, in other words, internalized the extravagant Christian normative anthropology o “alienated from God”] o antithesis of peace. o corrupted by the will to dominate and love of glory of members of the earthly city: such corruption is the inevitable consequence of the fact that members of the earthly city attempt to find their enjoyment— - “the earthly city was created by self-love reaching the point of contempt of God.” The earthly city “glories in itself,” “looks for glory from men,” and “lifts up its head in its own glory.” In it, “the lust for domination * lords it over its princes as over the nations it subjugates.” - In the earthly city, “its wise men who live by men’s standards have pursued the good of the body or of their own mind, or of both.” - The “citizens of the earthly city are produced by a nature which is vitiated by sin, - “Thus, when man lives ‘by the standard of man’ and not ‘by the standard of God,’ he is like the Devil.” - (disordered) ultimate ends of its citizens that are members of the earthly city, Theoretical Political Consequences -All political institutions will forever be constituted of both citizens of the city of God and citizens of the earthly city. -Augustine’s theory of the two cities suggests that there is strikingly little that the citizens of the heavenly city and those of the earthly city have in common by way of such goals and purposes. Augustine’s distinction of fructus and usus 1. Enjoyment (fructus) - enjoyment pertains to those things in which lies our happiness. - Augustine maintains that it is an objective fact that human beings have a certain nature, purpose, or function and that only the “enjoyment” of fulfilling that function or living up to that nature constitutes true human happiness. - “True objects of enjoyment, then, are the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,’ 11 Tantan, Jessie Boy L. - (Confessions, “for Thou madest us for Thyself, and our heart is restless until it repose in Thee.”) 2. use (usus). - use is either good or evil, and in the way temporal goods belong to one of the two cities, (Johannes van Oort) -The ultimate motivations (fructus or enjoyments) of the two kinds of person are of entirely different orders suggests that this difference in ultimate motivation will thoroughly color their attitudes to subsidiary goals and purposes— their conceptions, in other words, of what is useful and of how it is so. the corruption of human nature resulting from the Fall The problem is that, due to the corruption of human nature resulting from the Fall, human beings often try to enjoy what should be only an object of use; and, not infrequently, they attempt to enjoy what should be avoided altogether—both as an object of enjoyment and as an object of use. Peace - The citizens of each of these desire their own kind of peace, and when they achieve their aim, that is the kind of peace in which they live. - What political organization rightly contributes to human existence is peace. And, as I said earlier, he generally thinks of the kind of peace that the state can supply simply as the suppression of anarchy and of those forms of evil that most disturb civil tranquility. - The maintenance of peace, according to Augustine, does include the suppression of the worst forms of vice, which can certainly detract citizens from attaining what they take to be their ultimate good. That is, peace is at most of instrumental value—perhaps in some instances a necessary condition—with respect to the citizens of a state attaining their ends. But the sort of instrumental value that it possesses is very different for citizens of the heavenly city as ’ contrasted to citizens of the earthly city. - And, in fact, Augustine emphasizes the point that the peace and stability supplied by the state may be of use to the citizens of the city of God who are also members of such a state. This fact supplies a motivation for cooperation by members to the state. Evil - Evil, according to Augustine, typically lies not in the nature of the object of desire but in the very fact that such desire is “disordered”: that is, what should be desired and sought only as an object of “use,” and should be of only instrumental service to human beings, becomes an object of enjoyment.” - “Thus, when man lives ‘by the standard of man’ and not ‘by the standard of God,’ he is like the Devil.” - The ethical consequence, so to speak, of this doctrine is that the pursuit, as “ends in themselves” or ultimate ends, of any “natural” human functions or goods—for example, 12 Tantan, Jessie Boy L. biological * life, health, security, pleasure, family or social life, knowledge, or even the practice of virtue—is evil. “predestinarian” doctrine that is, it is essentially the work of God's grace that incorporates those whom he chooses into the city of God. That is why the city of God do not necessarily needs politics. State - state is (usually) not in a position to do much to assist directly, as it were, its citizens in achieving what they take to be the human function or attaining what they take be their “enjoyment” or ultimate good. - kind of peace that the state can supply simply as the suppression of anarchy and of those forms of evil that most disturb civil tranquility. - Supplier of peace and stabiltiy Political philosophy of St. Thomas ((1224-1274) -his political writings are secondary to his theological works -he is partly idealist and realist State - The result of sin and its consequences need to be mitigated since body is embodied with soul - Necessary for the development of man whose end is happiness or eudaimonia or flourishing (supernatural end rather than natural end - Is important since it maintains order and educational function for their future life - A natural command Similarities They certainly agree that the ultimate nature, function, or purpose of human beings is “to know [God our Creator and Redeemer], to love Him, and to serve Him in this world, and to be happy with Him forever in heaven.” they both subscribe to a Christian anthropology that is “extravagant” in the following sense: 1. it postulates a human ergon—a human work or function—(1) which transcends any state or activity that is fully achievable in this mortal, biological, and social life, and 13 Tantan, Jessie Boy L. 2. which is not achievable -by human beings at all without specific divine assistance. The question, then, is “what is the role of the state, or of political organization more generally, in helping human beings to fulfill this function or attain this end?” the political theories of Augustine and of Aquinas scarcely does justice to the interest and complexities of the political thought of these two great theologians and philosophers. Differences Augustine and Aquinas have rather different theoretical conceptions of this relation between the ultimate, supernatural function of human beings and their subsidiary natural activities and ends. This difference—which I shall explore in some detail in this chapter—in part explains their different conceptions of the proper role of politics in human affairs. - Augustine holds that the most that one can reasonably expect from a political structure is that it should promote, to a greater or lesser degree, peace. And he tends to view this central political task negatively, as the suppression of anarchy and of those forms of evil that most disturb civil tranquility. - For Aquinas, on the other hand, political PHILOSOPHY organization, chiefly through the instrumentality of human law, has the capacity of furthering, in a more direct or positive way, at least the natural aspects of the human function. Aquinas’s more positive conception of the role of secular political organization is related to the fact that he sees a greater degree of continuity than does Augustine between the praeternatural (“beyond the natural”) aspect of the human function or good and the natural aspects of that function. Law "an ordinance of reason for the common good, made by him who has care of the community, and promulgated. 1. rational, 2. establish by property authority, 3. made known by subject, 4. common good 14 Tantan, Jessie Boy L. The “Parts” of the Eternal Law: Divine, Natural, and Human Law Eternal law - exist since the beginning - governed by divine reason; not subjected to time and space natural law - Man’s participation of an eternal law is called natural law - Portion of eternal law for man due to his rational capacity Human law - The statutes of government derived from the precepts of natural law Divine law - pertains to the sacraments and theology of Christianity and, in general, to what is particular to the Christian dispensation with respect to moral and social matters. - that man is directed how to perform his proper acts in view of his last end. natural law VS legal positivism natural law = morality (good and evil) legal positivism = only concerned to legality not on morality (abortion, nazis law, unjust law must be restricted acc. to Thomas, segregation in America) Thomas Hobbes (1588 to 1679) The life of Thomas Hobbes spans ninety-one eventful years, from 1588 to 1679. He was born at Westport near Malmesbury, England, the son of a vicar. His education at Oxford stirred in him a fascination for classical literature, whereas his exposure to Aristotelian logic left him bored. Tutor of Earl of Devonshire, William Cavendish, Cavendish family afforded him the opportunity to travel in continents and to meet thinkers ( Galileo, Descartes, Bacon) Interested in classics (Thucydides and Euclid Elements a book which shifted his interest to mathematics, geometry, and analysis) Author of Leviathan 1651 and De Cive (The Citizen) in 1642, De Corpore (Concerning Body) in 1655, and De Homine (Concerning Man) in 1658. Influence of Geometry upon Hobbes’ Thought deeply impressed by the precision of science and above all by the certainty of scientific knowledge. Example: Copernicus (1473-1543) had called into question the traditional view of astronomy, which had remained virtually unchanged and unchallenged since Ptolemy (second century, Egypt) had argued that the earth is the center of the universe. Against this Ptolemaic view, 15 Tantan, Jessie Boy L. Two considerations led Hobbes to formulate his unique theory of political obligation. 1. The first was the political turbulence of his times, which saw Cromwell preparing to lead his men in a savage civil war. 2. Secondly, Hobbes looked at political philosophy as a variation of the science of physics. Political Philosophy and Morality Hobbes’ political philosophy, we find that he employed 1. his theory of motion 2. his logic, 3. the method of geometry Just as he looked to the concepts of motion and bodies to describe nature/ only in the sense that from axiomlike premises he deduces all the consequences or conclusions of his political theory, and most of these premises cluster around his conception of human nature. Hobbes’ theory of state is that he approaches the subject not from a historical point of view but from the vantage point of logic and analysis. He does not ask, “when did civil societies emerge?” but asks rather, “how do you explain the emergence of society?” The State of Nature 1. the condition of men before there is any state or civil society. 2. In this state of nature all men are equal and equally have the right to whatever they consider necessary for their survival. - Equality here means simply that anyone is capable of hurting his neighbor and taking what he judges he needs for his own protection. 3. The “right of all to all” which prevails in the state of nature does not mean that one man has a right whereas others have corresponding duties. - The word right in the bare state of nature is a man’s freedom “‘to do what he would, and against whom he thought fit, and to possess, use and enjoy all that he would, or could get.” The driving force in man is the will to survive, and the psychological mood pervading all men is fear, the fear of death and particularly the fear of violent death. 4. In the state of nature all men are relentlessly pursuing whatever acts they think will secure their safety. - The picture one gets of this state of nature is of men moving against each other, bodies in motion, or the anarchic condition Hobbes called “the war of all against all.” 5. in the state of nature there is no obligation for men to respect others or that there is no morality in the traditional sense of goodness and justice. 16 Tantan, Jessie Boy L. 6. in the state of nature, men know these natural laws, which are logically consistent with man’s principal concern for his own Safety. 7. in the state of nature anarchy is the logical consequence of independent individual judgments, 8. even in the state of nature men have knowledge of the natural law, and in a special sense the natural law is binding even in the state of nature. Hobbes describes men, 1. is in the state of nature, which is the condition of men before there is any state or civil society. 2. Men are fundamentally egotistical in that they are concerned chiefly about their own survival and identify goodness with their own appetites. - logical outcome of egotistical individuals all deciding how best to survive would be anarchy, where there were “no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nast = it would appear also that men did not possess the capacity to create an ordered and peaceful society. = natural laws - “is a precept, or general rule, found out by reason,” telling what to do and what not to do. - is binding even in the state of nature 1. Men have a right to all things in the state of nature not because there is no obligation, but because if a man were modest, tractable, and kept his promises 2. men act to preserve themselves, they are not free from rational natural laws, for even in the state of nature they ought to act in good faith: “... if any man pretend some- what to tend necessarily to his preservation, which yet he himself doth not confidently believe so, he may offend against the laws of nature.” 3. To avoid such a condition of anarchy, the chief cause of which is the conflict of individual and egotistical judgments of right, men, following the dictates of natural law, seeking peace, renounce some of their rights or freedoms and enter into a social contract and thereby create an artificial man, that great leviathan, called a commonwealth, or state. Why do men behave this way? Hobbes analyzes human motivation by saying that all men possess a twofold endeavor, namely 1. appetite 2. aversion. These two endeavors account for man’s motions to and from persons or objects, and have the same meanings as the words love and hate. Men are attracted to what they think will help them survive, and they hate whatever they judge to be a threat to them. The words good and evil have whatever meaning each individual will give them, and each person will call good whatever he loves and evil whatever he hates, “there being nothing simply and absolutely so.” The third laws of nature 17 Tantan, Jessie Boy L. 1. is therefore that every man ought to “seek peace and follow it.” 2. “a man be willing, when others are so too, as far forth as for peace, and defense of himself he shall think it necessary, to lay down his right to all things; and be contented with so much liberty against other men, as he would allow other men against himself....” 3. “that men perform their covenants made,” and he indicated that this is the “fountain of justice.” Hence, to keep the contract in which you agreed to obey the sovereign is the essence of Hobbesian justice. Obligation in the State of Nature - two ways in which these natural laws are applicable in the state of nature, saying that 1. “the laws of nature oblige in foro interno; that is to say, they bind to a desire they should take place 2. in foro externo; that is, to putting them in act, not always.” -If law means the sovereign’s command and if justice means obeying the law, there can be no unjust law - If the sovereign engages in iniquitous acts, this is a matter between the sovereign and God, not between the citizen men, following the dictates of natural law, seeking peace, renounce some of their rights or freedoms and enter into a social contract and thereby create an artificial man, that great leviathan, called a commonwealth, or state. The Social Contract’ The contract by which men avoid the state of nature and enter civil society is an agreement between individuals, - “as if every man should say to every man, I authorize and give up my right of governing myself, to this man, or to this assembly of men, on this condition, that thou give up thy right to him, and authorize all his actions in like manner.”arti Two things stand out clearly in this contract. 1. the parties to the contract are individuals who promise each other to hand over their right to govern themselves to the sovereign; it is not a contract between the sovereign and the citizens. The sovereign has absolute power to govern and is in no way subject to the citizens. 2. Secondly, Hobbes clearly states that the sovereign can be either “this man” or “this assembly of men,” suggesting that in theory, at least, his view of sovereignty was not identified with any particular form of government. It may be that he had a preference for a single ruler with absolute power, but he recognized the possible compatibility of his theory of sovereignty with “democracy.” 18 Tantan, Jessie Boy L. = But whatever form the sovereign would take, it is clear that Hobbes saw the transfer of the right to rule from the people to the sovereign as both absolute and irrevocable. = The only way to transform multiple wills into a single will is to agree that the sovereign’s single will and judgment represent the will and judgment of all the citizens. Resistance against the sovereign by a citizen is therefore illogical on two counts, 1. first because it would amount to resistance to himself, and 2. secondly, to resist is to revert to independent judgment, which is to revert to the state of nature or anarchy. The power of the sovereign must therefore be absolute in order to secure the conditions of order, peace, and law. Civil Law versus Natural Law Law - begins only when there is a sovereign. judicial or legal sense, - a law is defined as a command of the sovereign. (where there is no sovereign, there iS no law) Hobbes identifies law - with sovereign command and makes the additional point that “there can be no unjust law.” - Hobbes’ severe authoritarianism expresses itself in more startling form than when he argues that there can be no unjust law. It appears that justice and morality begin with the sovereign, that there are no principles of justice and morality that precede and limit the acts of the sovereign. “To the care of the sovereign, belongeth the making of good laws. But what is a good law? By good law, I mean not a just law: for no law can be unjust.” Hobbes gives two reasons for saying no law can be unjust: 1. first, because justice means obeying the law, and this is why justice comes into being only after a law has been made and cannot itself be the standard for law; 2. secondly, when a sovereign makes a law, it is as though the people were making the law, and what they agree upon cannot be unjust. third natural law Hobbes speaks of - is “that men perform their covenants made,” and he indicated that this is the “fountain of justice.” Hence, to keep the contract in which you agreed to obey the sovereign is the essence of Hobbesian justice. -Hobbes pushed his logic of obedience to the point of making religion and the church subordinate to the state. To the Christian who felt that the sovereign’s command violated the law of God, Hobbes 19 Tantan, Jessie Boy L. gave no comfort but insisted that if such a person could not obey the sovereign, he must “go to Christ in martyrdom....” -With these bold strokes, Hobbes altered the course of philosophy. He was among the first to apply the methods of science to the study of human nature, providing novel explanations for human knowledge and moral behavior, departing also from the medieval notion of natural law, and arriving in the end at a highly authoritarian concept of sovereignty. Although Hobbes did not win widespread approval in his day, and even though there is much in his philosophy to question and criticize, his enduring influence was assured by the precision of his formulation of the problems of philosophy. Peace Studies 2 concepts of peace studies 1. Pedagogical- method of teaching, transmission of knowledge to others in order to create knowledge 2. research activity- Create knowledge by - knowing the conflict of the cause of dispute - source of knowledge 2 conceptions of peace 1. Negative peace - to the absence of direct violence. (e.g., direct violence, war, abuses) 2. Positive peace - to the absence of indirect and structural violence, and is the concept that most peace and conflict researchers adopt. - is the presence of justice. - (e.g., structural violence, hunger, poverty) The basic distinction between positive and negative peace was popularized by prominent peace theorist Johan Galtung. The church on peace Gaudium et Spes, n. 78) 1. Peace is not merely the absence of war; nor can it be reduced solely to the maintenance of a balance of power between enemies; nor is it brought about by dictatorship. 2. Instead, it is rightly and appropriately called an enterprise of justice. 3. Peace results from that order structured into human society by its divine Founder, and actualized by men as they thirst after ever greater justice. 4. , peace is never attained once and for all, but must be built up ceaselessly the achievement of peace requires a constant mastering of passions and the vigilance of lawful authority. 5. Hence, peace is likewise the fruit of love, which goes beyond what justice can provide. 20 Tantan, Jessie Boy L. 6.. For by the cross the incarnate Son, the prince of peace reconciled all men with God. By thus restoring all men to the unity of one people and one body 7. For this reason, all Christians are urgently summoned to do in love what the truth requires, and to join with all true peacemakers in pleading for peace. shalom is the goal of society arms of mass destruction – condemned by the magisterium peace is the teaching of the church pius xii- nothing last in war unlike peace God on Peace Ephesians 2:14 English Standard Version 14 For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility 1 Chronicles 22:8-9 English Standard Version 8 But the word of the Lord came to me, saying, ‘You have shed much blood and have waged great wars. You shall not build a house to my name, because you have shed so much blood before me on the earth. 9 Behold, a son shall be born to you who shall be a man of rest. I will give him rest from all his surrounding enemies. For his name shall be Solomon, and I will give peace and quiet to Israel in his days. Isaiah 9:6 English Standard Version 6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon[a] his shoulder, and his name shall be called[b] Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. church on war is war just? -no, it is immoral (e.g., war of aggression) December 8 1941- pearl harbor 21 Tantan, Jessie Boy L. War defense? - Justified When will the war justified? - Acceptable if it is only compensation to the effects - Isit good to maintain soldiers? - As long as it is for peace, legitimate defense, to secure freedom of the country for contribution of peace 22