Aquinas was concerned
with the liberty of autonomous persons to conduct their
affairs through civil conversation and rational persuasion.
He valued highly the practical order of civil society
through which each individual gains mastery of his own
liberty through the cultivation of habits and virtues.
Although it is not likely that Aquinas had formed the idea
of natural rights, he did recognize that all men are equal
in liberty even though there are wide inequalities and
differences with respect to their talents, capacities, and
callings. Aquinas spoke of indelible laws in man's being
that command the respect of everyone. Society involves the
mutual exchange of ideas, products, and services for the
sake of a good life to which its many individual members
contribute.
Aquinas explained that
government agents had certain limits beyond which they could
not function. They are bound by laws of human nature that
emanate from the act of God's creation. It follows that
positive laws that are inconsistent with man's nature should
not be enacted or should be overturned. Positive laws must
be just and must be derived from general principles of
natural law. An ordered society under human laws applies to
people at their natural level. Therefore, to ensure an
ordered society, human laws must be constructed.
According to Aquinas, a
ruler is needed even in the state of perfection or innocence
in order to provide direction and guidance. He adds that,
although people require an orderly political life, the
authority of government agents ought to be limited. Tyranny
is illegitimate and justice demands that a tyrant be
deposed. Aquinas explains that public action, rather than
individual violence, is the proper remedy against tyranny.
Justifiable resistance is a public act of the whole people.
He observes that political authority exists originally in
the whole people organized as a civic community. It follows
that there is no power to frame laws except as representing
the people and that legitimate title to power is the result
of a transfer by the rational act and consent of the
community.
Aquinas held the idea of
the limited scope of government authority. Although he
posited no real theory of the hypothetical best regime for
the ideal community, he favored a mixed regime for the real
world. He says that the regime worthiest of the human person
mixes the best elements of monarchy, aristocracy, and
democracy. This mixed regime would be limited by moral law
and legal or constitutional devices to prevent arbitrary use
of power. Realistic and pragmatic in his thinking, he saw
that a mixed government would be the best practical type,
would require consent and permit moral freedom, would
minimize the danger of tyranny, and would allow people to
believe that they had a say and a stake in the community.
For Aquinas, the
political community is the sovereign construction of reason.
He says that the political sovereign has authority to
legislate from God and is therefore responsible to God.
Accordingly, law should advance the common good. In his
writings, Aquinas linked ethics to politics and the
individual human person to the common good. He also
emphasized that civilized political institutions respect the
human capacity for reflection and choice which provide the
foundation of law.
Aquinas, in the
Aristotelian tradition, emphasizes the inexact character of
ethics and the mutability of law due to the contingency of
specific circumstances. He explains that law can be adapted
to time and place and properly changed due to changed
conditions of men. What is just depends upon the
circumstances. He adds that legislators must also consider
and test the usefulness of possible rules to determine that
which is most appropriate to be law. Aquinas maintains that
utility is an important standard or criterion for
ascertaining the justice of legal rules. Usefulness is a
standard for discerning when a law should be changed. Law is
not to be imposed once for all time. Observing that moral
and legal reasoning is an inexact science, Aquinas states
that good law is created through past experience and the
consideration of pertinent social circumstances.
According to Aquinas, the
function of positive law is mainly to embody and give
coercive force to the principles of natural law in the form
of authoritative direction. Recognizing the limits of law in
the production of virtuous citizens, Aquinas teaches that
law should not directly dictate the exercise of all the
virtues nor directly forbid the exercise of every vice. True
virtue consists in using one's reason and free will in
making the right choices. For Aquinas, the primary practical
problem of an individual's moral life is to decide what to
do in the unique circumstances in which each unique person
finds himself.
He stressed that
political authorities should be concerned with broad matters
of general interest rather than with small details of
individual conduct. No laws are capable of anticipating
every particular circumstance to which a law be applied. It
follows that laws should be stated in general terms,
expressing what is proper for cases of most frequent
occurrence. There may be situations in which a law that is
applicable to most cases would produce an injustice if
rigidly applied. Aquinas, therefore, suggests permitting the
judge to have the power of equity that allows him to
moderate promulgated law in order to achieve a just outcome.
Aquinas understood that
custom can create, abolish, or amend law. He favored law
that was consistent with prevailing customary practices.
Custom is an expression of widespread human rationality and
not just the product of the articulated rationality of a
select few. Aquinas was committed to liberty, loved
tradition, and had a sense of realistic hope and moderate
institutional progress.
Aquinas addressed a number of economic questions
particularly in Summa Theologica II, II. Among the
topics covered are the division of labor, property rights,
the just price, value theory, insider trading, and usury,
among others. Although he said there was something ignoble
about trade, he also recognized the usefulness of merchants
whose activities were to the community's advantage. Aquinas
taught that the operational principles of the economic order
are subordinate to the moral and political ends of the city.
His justification of mercantile profits offered many
examples of the benefits that commerce could bring to
society.
Foreseeing Adam Smith's
division of labor theory, Aquinas explained that
diversification of men for diverse tasks is the work of
divine providence and stems from natural law with different
men possessing abilities and inclinations for different
occupations and functions. He recognized the benefits of
exchange and the division of labor in satisfying the needs
and wants of individuals.
Aquinas views private
property as necessary for human life and as an extension of
natural law. He acknowledges that under natural law all
property is communal, but also contended that the addition
of private property was an extension, and not a
contradiction, of natural law. Aquinas explains that human
reason derives the notion of distinction of possession for
the benefit of individual human lives. He states that
possession of private property is necessary because: (1) men
will more resolutely and attentively take care of things if
they possess them instead of the goods being held in common
by all or many others; (2) possession advances order rather
than chaos and confusion as responsibility can be
determined; and (3) private possession promotes a more
peaceful state. Aquinas realized that, not only does
creativity require property, without property under the
dominion of every person the individual's liberty of action
is diminished. He accepted an unequal distribution of
private property but also approved of the regulation of
private property by the state. He also said that while the
ownership of goods should be private, the use of goods must
be in common (so that the poor and needy can have their
share) or must be in service of the common good.
It is difficult to judge
precisely what Aquinas meant by the term "just price." The
various interpretations of what he meant by just price
include, but are not limited to: (1) an equivalence in terms
of labor cost; (2) an equivalence in terms of utility; (3)
an equivalence in terms of total cost of product; and (4)
market price.
When speaking of the
"just price" in an organized exchange, Aquinas often appears
to mean the price that is paid in a more or less competitive
market. Noting that exchange takes place for the utility of
both parties, Aquinas states that the norm of commutative
justice is expressed in the principle of equivalence between
reciprocal contributions. Accordingly, there needs to be a
certain equivalence or proportion between what is given and
what is received. Aquinas describes commutative justice as
the principle of absolute equality in exchanges of goods and
services among individuals. He explicitly repudiated the
notion that prices should be determined by one's position or
station in life, noting that the selling price of any
commodity should be the same whether or not the buyer or
seller is poor or wealthy.
For Aquinas, the
valuation of goods does not seem to depend upon any
intrinsic property of the goods themselves. The equality to
which Aquinas frequently refers appears to be the mutual
satisfaction gained by each contracting party in an
exchange. Aquinas also observes that the one element that
measures all products and services is the need that involves
all exchangeable goods because all things can be related to
human needs. It is apparent that Aquinas was certainly not
reducing the value of a good to labor by itself. Recognizing
that market forces affect the value that is placed on goods
and services, Aquinas is clearly not subscribing to the
labor theory of value.
Aquinas wrote that buying
and selling seem to have been introduced for the mutual
advantages of the involved parties because one needs
something that is possessed by the other and vice versa. He
states that when market exchanges occur to meet the needs of
the trading partners then there is no question of unethical
behavior. However, if one produces for the market in
expectation of gain then he is acting rationally only if his
prices are just and his motives are charitable. The prices
are just if both the buyer and seller benefit and the
motives are charitable if the profits are to be used for
self-support, charitable purposes, or to contribute to
public well-being.
Aquinas presented a mixed
but somewhat benevolent view of trade. He said that while
trade may present opportunities for sin, it is not sinful by
its nature. Aquinas denounced covetness, love of profit, and
avarice but said that mercantile gain was justified when
directed toward the good of others.
The just price for
Aquinas is the one, which at a given time, can be received
from the buyer, assuming common knowledge and the absence of
fraud and coercion. Aquinas anticipates the problem of
"insider trading" when he observes that a person may sell a
scarce product at the prevailing market price although he
knows that more of the product is on the way and will be
available shortly. The implication is that there is no moral
duty to inform a potential customer that the price of the
product that one is attempting to sell is probably going to
be lower in the near future.
It appears that Aquinas,
at least implicitly, anticipated the concept of opportunity
cost. He explains the idea of price as just compensation to
the seller for the utility lost when he becomes detached
from the item sold. Aquinas also mentions the benefits
supplied by men of commerce when they conserve and store
goods, import goods that are necessary for the republic, and
transport goods from geographical areas where they are in
great supply to places where they are scarce.
Aquinas, like the Bible
and Aristotle, wrongly condemned the practice of charging
interest for the lending of money. All fail to see that
borrowers are not injured when they take out a loan and, in
fact, are likely to benefit if they can invest in a project
that yields a return greater than the interest paid. Aquinas
says that usury, the charging of money on loans, is sinful
and unnatural because money is barren and was simply
invented for the purpose of exchange.
|