"Grace does not abolish nature but perfect it" How does this maxim influence Aquinas' political thought?

I never thought that I would be uploading this essay. I thought it was a complete and utter failure, as it was 1500 words (as opposed to the desired 2000) and because I feel like I didn't do the question justice. However, my tutor believes that this is the best essay that I have ever written for her. So, I am publishing it now. However, there are a few things to note before going into this essay.

First, I missed the most important part of the grace that God bestowed upon man, and that is the ability to reason. For, without reason, man can not have the natural law, and without that, man cannot have human law, and without both of those things, man cannot correct its perverted nature.

Second, I do not really go into the political implications of this, and the grace of God in particular. The most important aspect of this reasoning is that it is a divergence away from the writings of Augustine. Augustine believed that it was possible, if only just barely, to have a just government made by man. This was only possible though if it was led by good Christians, full of virtue and wisdom. Aquinas breaks away from this, and sets out the idea that reason is what is important, and that if a government is led by reason, then that government, even if it is not spiritual, and not led by Christians, is still a just, legitimate government. This is the first time in the Christian ethos that this idea is really presented.

But, that is the point of these tutorial essays. They are the starting point for the conversation. They are the way to get your thoughts rollings, to then be corrected and expanded upon during the tutorial sessions.

Now, given that preface, here is the essay.

During the Thirteenth Century, European philosophers were marveling over the writings of both St. Augustine of Hippo and the newly rediscovered works of Aristotle. Great thinkers of the time, such as St. Bonaventure and St. Albert the Great, spent a considerable amount of time rethinking political philosophy with the guidance of either Augustine's or Aristotle's writings, respectively. It was St. Albert's student, St. Thomas Aquinas, who would work to bring the philosophy of Augustine and Aristotle together, having tremendous respect for both of them. This essay will look at the political thought of Aquinas, looking specifically at Summa Theologiae IaIIae 57-60 and 90-97, those being a section on right, justice, and judgment, and a section of law, respectively. In particular, this essay will seek to answer how the maxim “grace does not abolish nature but perfects it” informs Aquinas' political thought.

Aquinas devotes quite a bit of his time in an attempt to understand and define what nature and the natural law is, and how this differs from the other manifestations of law. He begins by defining law as part of reason, as it deals with the rules and measures of human acts, which are ruled by reason. He then goes on to argue that laws are created by the community as a whole, or a trusted person, for the common good. After setting up these basic definitions of what makes a law, Aquinas then shifts to discuss the various types of laws that exist. There is the eternal law, that being the law of God, created from His Divine reason. Then there is the natural law, which Aquinas says is resultant of the participation is the observance of the eternal law by the rational creatures of God's green Earth. Human laws, then, are further derived from the natural law, and are meant to order the temporal, earthly society that we as humans naturally form. There are then lastly Divine laws, of which the eternal law is but one of.

Grace, being the goodwill and benevolence that God shows to the race of men, influences how Aquinas views the role of law, in both the sense of human law, but also in the sense of the natural and Divine laws. It is apparent from reading Aquinas that he believes, as many Christians do, that God is an omni-benevolent being. Augustine went so far as to say that He—that being God—is the one, sole good, that is simple and unchangeable. This idea of His grace being given to men is easily seen in how before the Original Sin was committed, only the eternal and natural laws reigned, and during this time, man lived in a literal paradise. After man was perverted by sin, however, God withdrew some of his grace, requiring instead the need for one to be virtuous and good in order to gain his favor. This is also present in the idea of Confession, where God forgives the faithful of their sins. While those are all true, they are all tangential to how Aquinas sees grace influencing and perfecting nature. For this, we look to his role of law. In his mind, Aquinas sees the role of law to be to make men good. This idea he takes from Aristotle, both from his Ethics and from his Politics. From Ethics, Aquinas takes the idea that by being virtuous, one is being good. From Politics, he takes the idea that obeying the law is a virtue for citizens. Thus, the law makes people good when they follow it. Law can also do this by punishing, or threatening to punish, bad behavior, thus modifying people to be good based on fear, which he also views as acceptable.

This ties into grace perfection nature thusly. All human law, which is what is being discussed when talking about making people good and punishing them for being bad, is derived from the natural law, which is imprinted on us by God. He gives us this law out of His grace, so that we might be able to live lives that are good and wholesome, and that we might one day be able to shed our mortal coils, and join our souls with him in Heaven, as opposed to spending an eternity without knowing Him in such a manner. So, by giving us the eternal law, by giving us the natural law, He seeks to improve us, and fix our perverted nature. This appears to be quite obvious to Aquinas, who additionally adds that virtues are given to us by God, as an additional way to redeem ourselves in His eyes.

How else though does grace perfect nature? Well, this is seen quite well in a discussion that Aquinas has as to whether or not the law of nature can be abolished from the hearts of men. In this section, he discusses how sin can blot out from the hearts of men parts of the natural law, and the grace of God. However, the general principles of the natural law cannot be entirely removed from the hearts of men. The way that this blot is removed, according to Aquinas, is through God's grace. So, here again we see that nature is not being abolished by the grace of God, but is, in fact, being restored by it—being brought back into perfection by His benevolence.

On the other side of law is justice and what is right. Justice, according to Aquinas, is about establishing equality between multiple parties, in attempt to make things right between the aforementioned parties. Thus, by doing what is right, justice is a virtue, and virtues are, as previously stated, give by to man by the grace of God to allow us to better ourselves, and to perfect our nature. Justice is unique among the virtues, as deals with multiple parties, and how they interact with each other, and thus is a virtue that is not only of one person, and also is able to rule over, or direct other virtues. Justice, then, seeks to control and regulate what is the “positive right,” which differs from the natural right, in that the natural right is the natural exchange between two or more parties that occurs, and satisfies all of those involved, and the positive right is such interactions happening through some sort of agreement or contract. So, justice then acts as a way for men to make and keep peace among themselves in the temporal world, as it is a virtue imparted on us by God, that seeks to perfect our perverted nature.

Judgment then, is the last of what Aquinas discusses in his section on rights, justice, and judgment. In discussion judgment, he sees it as a person, who is vested to be knowledgeable, fair, and a representative of the community and its interests, imparts justice on a situation. So, judgment is how justice is dispensed, and is vital in the maintenance of an ordered society. It is through the word of God that we are given this instruction to judge (from various Biblical entries). Thus, this is another way in which God's grace has been bestowed upon us to help us perfect our nature.

The maxim “grace does not abolish nature but perfects it,” is a major influence on the political thought of Aquinas. It is from this maxim that Aquinas views virtues. It shapes how he believes that laws are supposed to function, and how justice and what is right are to be seen. This maxim appears to be one of the central tenants of the political thought of Aquinas.

The Wife's Diary

“Have a good trip Hun!” Conner said, waving at his wife as she pulled out of their driveway in her small black convertible. “I love you!”

“Love you too Hun!” He hears her yell back as she turned into the col-duc-sac. “Take good care of Tommy!”

And with that, she sped off, and making her way around the circle of asphalt, and then out into the greater part of the city.

Conner turned away from the street, and stepped into the living room, closing the front door behind him. He walked to his office, and sat down at his computer. Before him was a massive spreadsheet of numbers. The latest set of statistics he had to analyze for work. After toying around with them for a few minutes, he was graciously interrupted.

“--No! No! No! No! No! No! No! Mama Mia! Mama Mia! Mama Mia, let him go!”

He picked his phone up from off of his desk. The caller ID read Samantha.

“Sam?”

“Hey Conner! I was just calling to see if Brooke was around? Her phone is off.”

“Ah, yes. She is off to the airport. She has to fly to Seattle for work.”

“Oh, I see. When is she getting back? I was hoping to catch up with her.”

“She's coming back Sunday.”

“Three day trip? It must be pretty easy work then.”

“Relatively. She just had to serve as an expert witness for some corporate dispute.”

“Okay then. Well, give her my best. I'll try again Monday.”

“Alright, have a good day Sam.”

“You too Conner.”

He set the phone back on the desk, turning back to his spreadsheets, when he felt something brush against his leg. Looking down, he saw Tommy, his gray-white house cat. In reality, he belonged to both Conner and Brooke, but Conner liked to think that the cat liked him more. After all, he did feed him and deal with his litter. Tommy looked up at Conner, and meowed.

“What's up buddy? Do you want some food?”

Tommy meowed in response, with what seemed to be enthusiasm.

Conner got up out of his chair. “Okay buddy, let's get you some food.”

Making his way into the kitchen, Conner started for the dry food, before going to the cupboard and grabbing a can of tuna. He opened it, and poured it into Tommy's food bowl.

“Here you go buddy. A treat since Mommy's gone.”

Tommy meowed again, quite pleased with the break from the norm.

Deciding that he did not want to continue his work sifting through his work spreadsheets, Conner instead decided that he wanted to go on a walk in the park. He went to his bedroom to change. Upon entering the room, however, he noticed something strange. On Brooke's bedside table sat an unfamiliar book. It was a black leather book, with small gold-looking clasps on its front. Curious, Conner walked over the table, sat down on the bed, and opened the book. After thumbing through it, he realized that it was Brooke's diary. Conner had not known that Brooke had a diary, but he was not surprised. The amount of information that Brooke had to deal with on any given day for her work as a chemist was astonishing, and he did not understand any of it. He was about to close the diary, and put it back how he found it, when he noticed his name on one of the pages. He could not resist looking.

January 15th, 2007.

Today was a hard day at work. Johnson seemed to have an fire under his ass. He kept checking in every ten minutes or so on my progress. I think that he has a lot riding on my work. I just hope that I can deliver. 

I had lunch today with Jeremy. I feel bad, because Conner doesn't like me meeting with him. He gets so jealous! I don't think that I will tell him about it...not for a while at least.

Conner's ears began to burn. It was a good choice that Brooke did not tell him about her meeting with Jeremy. Jeremy was her ex-boyfriend, and he had shown up drunk to their wedding, and professed his love for Brooke. Brooke seemed to think that it was not a problem, but he had always thought it was strange for her to be around him after that. Wondering what else she had been keeping from him, Conner continued to read.

January 20th, 2007

Today thing were weird at work. Johnson was waiting for me when I arrived at my lab. When I got in, he slammed the door behind me, and asked me how the project was coming along. When I told him that the specimen had lived, his face went stark white. He asked me if I had submitted the results. I had. When I told him, he got this look in his look in his eyes, almost like that of a caged animal. He didn't say anything after that, and he left the office. 

I went back to my work, and a few hours later, Richmond came in, which never happens. She brought with her a man I've never seen before. His name was George Cook. She said that he was replacing Johnson, who had been transferred. She never said where he was transferred to though. I think he was fired. I think he was fired because my tests hadn't brought the results that Richmond wanted. I hope that he's okay.

January 27th, 2007

After a week with Cook, I have to say that he is not the worst boss in the world. He checks in more than Johnson used to, but he is always pleasant. Today he even bought me a coffee. I think things are going to go well with him and I. I still feel bad about Johnson though. I mean, it wasn't his fault that the results didn't pan out right for him.

March 24th, 2007

I think that I am getting close to the solution. The last few tests have proven extremely successful, with the sample's dying every time, and no trace remaining of the chemical remaining after several hours.

March 25th, 2007

Cook was waiting for me today outside of my office. He said that he was happy with my results, and that we were going to go to visit Richmond, but instead of going up to the third floor, we took the elevator down to the basement. He led me down the long hallway to a small room. It was pitch black once he closed the door behind us. Then, the room seemed to move beneath our feet. This happened for a few seconds, before the wall opened, and a different hallway appeared before us. 

He took my arm, and pulled me along the corridor. It was whiter than snow, and there were glass windows along it's entire stretch. Inside of them, there were people in hospital beds, strung up with a bunch of wires. They were all asleep. 

We finally reached the end of the hall, and Cook opened the large, double door, shoved me inside, and then closed them behind me. Inside, Richmond stood with her back to me. She was looking at a single, large medical room.

She turned when the door shut, smiling at me. She said that she read my findings, and was pleased that I had succeeded. She had me come up to the glass, so I could see my chemical being tested on a full sized subject.

But, to my horror, I realized who was in the room. It was Johnson! Richmond laughed when I realized who it was. She told me that he had volunteered to be the first test subject. I asked if he was sick, which only made her laugh more. She explained to me that I wasn't testing an new medicine. Then, Cook entered the room, and injected Johnson with the chemical. After a few minutes, he began to violently convulse. Then, after a few moments, his head snapped violently back, and foam began to ooze out of his mouth. He was dead.

It was then that Richmond told me the true purpose of my research. I had developed a new poison for her. She wouldn't tell me who she worked for though, and who had wanted this poison. She just told me that I was now complicit, and that if I told anyone that I would regret it. They said that both Conner and I are under constantly under surveillance, and that if we do anything, that they will know.

Conner set the diary down. He could not believe what he had just read. Had Brooke really been working on creating poison? Was she really responsible for Johnson's death? He picked the diary back up, and continued to read.

March 26th, 2007

Today, I went back to the hidden facility. I have decided to call it Hell, for that is what it really is. They are having me test the my poison on more people, to prove its efficacy under different circumstances. Today, I had to watch as young man, whose convulsions were much more mild than Johnson's. Instead, he slowly asphyxiated on the white foam that filled his lungs, and then trailed down his chest. His name was Brian. The chart said that he was a homeless man that they had taken off the street, offering him a bed and food for participating in a clinical trial. Looking at the other charts, it seems like that is how they got most of the people.

Then there was this young woman. Her name was Michelle. While I was administrating the chemical to her, she grabbed my arm. As the poison took its hold in her, she began to shake violently, and her grip tightened hard around my arm. I had to pry her hands off after she had finished convulsing. 

I had to kill ten others today. I don't know how I am going to do this. I can't keep killing people, but if I stop, they'll just replace me and kill Conner. And if I tell anyone, they'll kill Conner...and I can't let that happen. 

Please God, forgive me.

The next two months of entries went into great detail as to what she had done each day, giving the names of all of the people that she had tested the poison on, and going into ever more elaborate prayer for forgiveness from God. Tears streamed down Conner's face. Tommy jumped onto the bed, and meowed at him. Absentmindedly, he reached out and pet him, eyes still glued to the diary.

June 5th, 2007

Today is the first day that I didn't have to descend into Hell. Instead, Cook sent me to the lab that I had originally developed the chemical in. He told me that the poison had been discovered, and that they needed a new one, one that would be unknown to the world. I can't believe that I have to make another way for them to kill people...but at least it keeps me out of Hell, at least for a little while.

The next few months were devoid of any entries.

October 11th, 2007

I finished the new poison today. They took me back to Hell. 

The next few weeks detailed her tests of the new poison, ended with an entry from the day before.

December 2nd, 2007

Tomorrow, I have to go to Seattle. They want me to go to some central lab there, and meet with some other scientists that the company has. I am afraid of what is to come. I hope that Conner and Tommy with be okay. 

Conner set the diary down, and went back to his office. He grabbed his phone, and dialed Brooke's number. It went straight to voicemail.

“Brooke, honey. It's Conner. I found your diary. Are you okay? Please call me back. I'm scared honey.”

He stood there, eyes locked on his phone, his hand shaking.

Then, he heard someone knocking at the door.

He made his way through the living room to the door, and opened it. Standing there was a man in a black suit and sunglasses. He smiled, and pushed Conner back, into the house. Stepping in, he closed the door behind him, and then stabbed Conner with a syringe. The man held him down for a few minutes, and then dragged his body out of sight of the front door and windows, and then left him lying there, alone in the house.

Does Democracy Represent a New Threat of Tyranny for Tocqueville?

The Nineteenth Century was a period of great change, of revolution. It was during this time that the spirit of democracy swept across the continent of Europe, bringing the poor masses of people to flock to its banner, rising up against the aristocracies and monarchies of the era, and establishing new governments founded on the principles of liberty and equality for all. Or at least, that is the image that is commonly held today. At the time, democracy was new, and it brought with it an uncertainty that is, by its very nature, unsettling. While there were many great authors who wrote, contemplated, and discussed the ideals and consequences of the newfangled democracy, one in particular stands out as an figure of note, and that is the Frenchman Alexis de Tocqueville. Tocqueville lived through a period of severe instability in the history of France, and saw first-hand the affects of the revolution to the French society. He is known best though for his two-volume work Democracy in America, in which he discusses the intricacies of democracy, and how it relates to the American States (these comparisons are drawn from the time that he spent in the United States). It is from this work that this essay will be based on. The question is, given his background and experience, was Tocqueville afraid of democracy? The answer to this question is self evident, and immediately apparent upon opening Democracy in America—he is terrified of it, and the threat that it represents to society, to a level bordering on religious terror. Moreover, he is also saddened by the great moderating force that, in his mind, the ideas of uniformity and equity bring to the world, blunting the extremes that to him, make the world so great. What is the more interesting, and more important question, which this essay will seek to explore is why Tocqueville was afraid of democracy, and, why he thought that the American Democratic Republic had been able to, and continues to, overcome the inherent problems with the democratic state, and thus maintaining liberty and equity for all of its citizens.

Tocqueville was first attracted to America because of the equality of conditions that it possessed—something that has not existed with liberty within the European continent. While equality of conditions did exist in Europe, it was equality under the rule of the aristocracy, in which almost all were in the same abject poverty. In America, this was different. In the United States, liberty and equality were a fundamental aspect of the founding of the state, with the English bringing with them the knowledge and positive valuation of the jury, of freedom of speech, of freedom of the press—which he views as vital in the maintaining of equity in a democratic state, when individuals are all relatively powerless when compared the the state—, a sense of the significance of individual liberty, the importance of independent courts, and the idea of individual rights. These together created a foundation for free institutions that did not exist on the mainland of Europe, which had spent its time under the control of various monarchies and aristocracies. This is one of the integral reasons why the United States is different, and an exception when discussing the habits and trends of democratic states and peoples, lying in the Providence of the United States (as does its isolation from other great powers, and its vast reaches, allowing for expansion without conflict and the ability to turn what would be vices—that being the desire for the accumulation of great wealth and the drive to be independent—actually serve to benefit the state, as it allows for the colonization of the extensive uninhabited parts of the nation, among other things). The other axioms that hold the American Democratic Republic together, keeping it from the ruin of tyranny, are the laws that it has, and the habits and mores it possesses.

As to the laws in which the United States has, Tocqueville is referring in particular to the administrative system of Federalism that exists within the United States, the political power that the town has, and subsequently the way in which power flows from the people and the town upward toward the federal governments, as opposed to the opposite in France, and the underlying foundations of the judicial system in the United States, and how it acts as a counterweight to the unchecked evils of democracy.

The model of federalism in which Tocqueville so greatly admires is based on the idea of decentralizing the administrative capabilities of the state. In France, there exists a hierarchy of the administration, with each level of administration accountable to the one above it, and with the eventual head of the administration, that being the monarch, accountable to the people, not in the way of being elected, but in the way that if he were to act against their interest, they would be able to rise up and overthrow him. With democracy, Tocqueville does not believe that this is possible, as each individual is quite weak, having surrendered their power to society, and through it, the state. Tocqueville believes that in order for the state to do anything substantial, it needs to have a certain degree of administrative centralization (with states being able to accomplish more the more centralized they become). However, administrative centralization also creates a government that is in the perfect set of conditions for despotism and tyranny to take hold. Federalism works to counter this, with the federal government making laws that apply to everyone, but only dealing with aspects of life and governance that are extremely specific, and laid out in the American Constitution, leaving all else up to the States. The States in turn legislate only on the issues that are held common between all of the counties that exist within its borders, and the counties do the same for towns—leaving the smallest political institution with a great deal of power, and spreading out the administrative duties of the government out across four different levels of government.

The political power of the town in America is, in itself, quite simple, and so it will not be explored in great detail. Suffice to say, towns are directly democratic institutions that see the most of the everyday needs of the people who live within them, and act as entities on the behalf of their citizens when dealing with the other levels of government, and due to their power as an entity, they have the ability to exert great influence over the proceedings of the county and the state.

Last on the list of the three things holding the American Democratic Republic from ruin is the court system that it has. What Tocqueville notes as important in the American court system is that it has a strong, independent judiciary, which he believes is vital if liberty is to reign supreme. The American judiciary is able to remain independent, and yet somewhat accountable, by the nature of jurists being appointed by the executive, and approved by the elite of the two branches of the legislature—that being the Senate, when regarding the federal Congress. After they have been appointed, however, the American jurist is able to exercise extreme freedom in the judging of cases, and of laws, for unlike in other states, the American jurist is able to act as a legislative agent in the sense that he can strike down or modify laws that are viewed as contrary to the Constitution of the country. This allows for the jurists to put an end to any laws that would seek to work against the democracy as a whole, which they—the jurists—are in favor of, for it favors them, thus forming a symbiotic relationship between the two. Together, these three facets of the American Democracy serve to counter the inherent problems of democracy, which we will now examine.

It was said by William Churchill in an address to the House of Commons that “democracy is the worst form of government, except all of the other forms that have been tried.” In this, Tocqueville would tend to agree Churchill. Tocqueville's fears of democracy are founded in the way in which democratic peoples think about themselves, and about the world. One of the core principles of a democracy is that all people who have suffrage—that being all of the citizens—are equal to each other, at least under the law. This is the important distinction between democracies and aristocracies, in the latter of which you have a small elite that are given the right to vote. In this form of government, you have an inequality that is then implicit between the aristocrats and everyone else. The benefit of this system is, according to Tocqueville, that because people are unequal, people have the ability to rise up against tyrannical forces, whenever they rear their head. This is not possible, in Tocqueville's mind, for democracies, as democratic peoples, believing themselves to be equal to all of their fellow citizens, and having sacrificed much of their own power to the state and to society, will not able to fight against a tyranny that installs itself within the state. Democratic peoples would argue that this is not a problem, as the society would stop the tyranny from materializing in the first place. This is, at least in Tocqueville's mind, not the case.

Tocqueville observes that when there is an equality of conditions within a society that the people of that society tend to stop believing in the supernatural. Instead, they move to believe in the greatness of human reasoning, a belief that he thinks is often inapt. This belief in human reasoning is then translated into a trust in the beliefs and decisions of the public, for such a vast amount of people is certainly incapable of being wrong. It is here that the danger that democracy represents begins to emerge. For, the belief in the public leads to ever more extreme consequences. First, with the belief that the public is going to be correct in its decision making, people are willing to sacrifice a great amount of their power as individuals to the state, since it is the greatest embodiment of the public and its opinion. This initial forfeiture is just the begin of the rights that will be given over to the state. Another cause of people willingly handing over their rights to the state is when they feel unsafe, or when they feel as if the peace of the society is threatened. This can be combined with, and exploited by the person or persons who are entrusted to lead the state, as Tocqueville notes that democratic people hate complicated things, and thus relegate enormous amounts of power to their leader or leaders, favoring simplicity over the potentiality of exploitation for tyranny and despotism. This, Tocqueville views, as one of the many weaknesses of democracy. It is a way in which it can be corrupted. So those are the avenues in which democracy becomes perverted, but what is the result of the perversion? Tyranny and despotism are warned of, but how do they manifest themselves while the state remains democratic, and does not fall to dictatorship?

There are two answers that are presented to these questions. The first is presented quite early on in Democracy in America, and the second comes near the end of the work. The first, and most simply form of tyranny that can exist within a democracy is the tyranny of the masses—or, by another name, the tyranny of the majority. Democracy, by its nature, works to benefit the greatest number of people, which is something to be admired about it. However, this can be abused. The worry of the tyranny of the masses is that the masses will use their power to oppress the minority of the society. In democracies like the United States, because they are set up to favor the majority, the institutions that exist within are made in such as way as to allow the majority to rule like a tyrant. A perfect example of this is the treatment of Japanese and Japanese-Americans in the United States during the Second World War, in which the majority decided that to deprive people of Japanese descent of their rights and their liberty for the duration of the war, fearing that they would pass along information to the Japanese Government, purely on the basis of their heritage. This suspension of the writ Habeas Corpus and to a free and speedy trial as guaranteed to everyone under the Constitution occurred because of the tyrannical majority. It is this kind of scenario that Tocqueville fears, though it is not the only form of tyranny that he fears comes from democracy. For, the tyranny described above is the tyranny of the democratic people, not the tyranny of the democratic state, which has the potential to be equally as terrifying.

The tyranny of the democratic state is resultant of the aforementioned process of the consolidation or centralization of the administration of a state into the hands of one person or a small group of persons, as well as the forfeiture of many or all of the rights of individuals to the government. This centralization seems to correspond with the level of equality in a society. As the government increases its power, it is thus able to increase the dependence that the individuals in the society have to it, and thereby is able to increase the state of servitude that individuals have to the government. As a result of the increased power, the government then begins to take over aspects of society and of life that were never before under the purview of the state during the times of the aristocracies. Among these facets of society that the government takes control of are charities, education, and industry. The cost of this now much larger administration is much higher than it was in the past, which then requires new avenues for the generation of revenue for the state, as cultivation of the lands held by the government and taxes no longer suffice. This leads to two problematic situations, in the eyes of Tocqueville, though I believe that only one of them would be considered a problem today, and that is the government having to take out loans from the rich, thus becoming debtors to them. The fear here is not that the rich will be able to ruin the economy by calling in the debt that the state has, as that would be counterproductive to do. No, the worry here is the undue amount of influence that the rich are able to gain by lending money to the government. By giving money to the state, they are able to make their opinions have more weight to legislators and the executive than those of the common people. This is an inherent threat to democracy. The other worry that Tocqueville has with funding is banks, and in particular those led by the state, however, as time as showed, banks are not to be feared, so long as there is regulation and an amount of banks that is great enough to prevent an oligopoly.

Now that the state has increased power, and the core of democracy is corrupted by the rich having undue influence, we can see the beginning of what Tocqueville fears is the tyranny that the state will exert. The tyranny that Tocqueville sees is one in which from birth, people are shaped by the government to fit a particular mold, a particular role for it. They are raised to do as they are directed by the state, to be docile, like a herd of sheep, with the government being their shepherd, constantly hindering them, and obstructing their liberty and their right to self determination. He believes this is possible for the reason listed above, but then also because he believes that, for the most part, a large amount of people want to be led. However, since they also want to be free, it ends up being that people essentially are choosing “freely” their masters, who they will then obey without hesitation. This is a tyranny that is unlike any of the others that has existed in the whole of Humanity's existence, and because of that, Tocqueville is afraid of it.

Earlier in this essay, it was mentioned that Tocqueville believes that everything is moderated by democracy. This is because democracy promotes unity and equity. This is a beneficial aspect of democracy in many respects, as it is able to abate poverty and hunger, and bring the masses of the uneducated into literacy. It also moderates the wealth of individuals, eliminating aristocracy. It can even, in Tocqueville's mind, moderate tyranny that will assert itself within democratic states and peoples. It also has negative effects, such as the moderation of great minds, and all other good extremes that exist in the world. Due to this, Tocqueville is saddened by the shift toward democracy, and the moderation it brings, for it, in his mind, makes life much less interesting and diverse.

It is quite clear and simple then what Tocqueville believes about democratic peoples and states. Tocqueville is both terrified of democracy, and also conceded that it is inevitable. He believes that democratic people, through their misplaced faith in human reasoning, give undue credence to the will and opinion of the majority, and thus, to the government. This power, and faith, can then be used and exploited by the government to gain additional power, and expand its influence into facets of life and society that until recently have been considered completely private matters. By amassing power at these levels, the state is then able to shape and control citizens at a subconscious level, and is able to deprive them of their right to self determination. The other aspect of this faith in the majority is that it allows for the majority to, on its own, act tyrannically toward minority groups, such as was done in World War Two with the Japanese internment camps, or as is still going on today with institutional racism in the United States, and elsewhere. Tocqueville does have some hope though in the stemming of the tyrannical tendencies of democracy, and those manifest themselves quite exemplary in the American Democratic Republic through its Providence, its laws, and its customs and mores.

Satan's Telemarketer

“Hello, is Francis Moore available?”

“Yes.”

“Is this he?”

“It is.”

“Hello Francis. My name is Carl, and I am calling on behalf of the Lord of Darkness, Satan, with a once in an eternity offer! How do you feel about selling your soul to the Devil?”

“Jack? Is this you?”

“No sir, this is Carl, calling on behalf of the Lord of Darkness, Satan.”

Francis laughs, “Okay Jack, whatever you say. I'll see you at the Danny's tonight, yeah?”

“No sir, I am not 'Jack.' My name is Carl.”

“Keeping to the gag, eh Jack? I like it! See you later tonight mate.”

The phone clicks off. Carl pushes away from his desk, tearing off his headset.

“What's wrong Carl?”

Carl sighs.“The usual Jerry. Nobody takes me seriously. I am so far behind quota. At this rate, I am going to go back to the Inner Seventh Circle.”

“Oh, come on now Carl, it can't be that bad. Besides, it's just part of telemarketing. It is a tough game, but it is better than the desert of burning sand and the burning rain though, right? I'll take the First Circle and this hell any day.”

“Yeah, this is certainly better. I am just so very bad at selling things. I want to get into the PR Department. I feel like I would shine there.”

“Ha! You want to work in PR, but you can't get people to sell their souls? Come on, there is no way you're getting into PR unless you shine here.” Jerry scoffs.

“Yeah? Well, fuck you Jerry! It must be second nature to you, coming from the First Bolgia.”

Carl turned back to his terminal, and punched in the next number.

“Hello, is Emily O'Brien available.”

“Speaking.”

“Hello Emily. My name is Carl, and I represent the Lord of Darkness, Satan. I am calling to give you a once in an eternity opportunity, a chance to sell your soul to the Devil!”

“...”

“Emily? Are you still there?”

“I...um...yes.”

“So, what do you say? Do you want to sell your soul to the Devil for amazing power in the mortal world?”

“Is this a joke?”

“No ma'am, I am one-hundred percent serious. If you sign today, you can have your powers immediately. All that is required is your desired gift from the Lord of Darkness, and give an oath of eternal servitude.”

“...”

“Emily?”

“Yes, yes. I am still here. I am just trying to wrap my head around this. You're saying that I can have near limitless power, and all I have to do is make some sort of oath?”

“Well, yes. Though, it isn't some random oath, it is a pledge of eternal servitude to the Lord of Darkness.”

“Okay. I know you're pranking me, but I'll humor you. Yes, I will sell my soul to the Devil. In return, I would like to have ten million dollars.”

“Ten million? Okay, not a problem, I can most certainly authorize that.”

“Great!”

“Okay, in order to finalize the sale of your soul, repeat after me: I Emily O'Brien.”

“I Emily O'Brien”

“Do, of my own volition, grant my soul in eternal servitude.”

“Do, of my own volition, grant my soul in eternal servitude.”

“My soul to the Lord of Darkness, Satan.”

“My soul to the Lord of Darkness, Satan.”

“Great!”

“That's it?”

“Yup, that's it!”
“Okay...so when do I get my ten million?”

“Check your bank account. It's all there.”

“Yeah, okay. Sure.”

“I assure you it is. The Lord of Darkness always keeps his bargains. On behalf of our Master, I would like to thank you for selling your eternal soul to him. I can't wait to see you once you die!”

Carl ends the call, and pushes his chair back, hands held high.

“Jerry! Jerry! I did it!”

“You did what Carl?”

“I got someone to sell their soul, and only for ten million dollars!”

“Hey, there you go Carl! Good on you! Looks like you won't be going back to the Inner Circle after all, eh?”

Does Augustine's Theory Imply That the State is a Servant to the Church in City of God?

Saint Augustine of Hippo, hailing from what is now Tunisia, was one of the premier thinkers of the Christian Church, and was responsible for some of the first great advances of Christian theological thought since the New Testament. While he wrote an enormous amount of books and essays, the most extensive of his work would have to be his Concerning the City of God Against the Pagans. This work, comprised of twenty-two books and spanning over a thousand pages, discusses various areas of debate within the Christian world, including such things as the discrepancies between different editions of the Bible, why there must be evil in this world if we as a species are to have free will, the creation of our world and the Universe as a whole, and much more. Augustine also discusses the idea of the City of God, and the City of Men—which he also refers to as the Heavenly City and the Earthly City, respectively. The goal of this essay will be to explore the relationship that exists between these two cities, with the ultimate goal of determining whether or not the state should be a servant to the church based off of the theories presented by Augustine in City of God.

Augustine, in City of God, is writing a theological work—being that it assumes the existence of God, and views him as predicate for the existence of the Universe. He believes that we must all follow what the Scriptures tell us, for they tell the truth of the world, as they are the word of God, passed to us through his messengers—that is, the prophets. Now given this, Augustine defines the City of God as a city that is upheld by the Scriptures, with the guiding power of God's supreme providence. It is from this city that joy spreads to the whole of the Earth. To be a member of this city, one must subjugate themselves to the one true God, and not the false idols that those of the Earthly City have a tendency to worship. In many ways, this City of God is essentially the Heaven that we think of today, with it even being populated primarily by angels. Through worship of the one true God, that being the god of the Catholic Church, and subjugation to him while in the Earthly City, one makes themselves a pilgrim for the length of their stay in the Earthly City, with the ultimate reward for their devotion being ascension to the City of God after the death of the body in the Earthly City.

Going back to the time of Adam and his prodigy, we see two distinct lines. There is that of Cain, who created his line after fratricide, created the first physical Earthly City. They were not to ascend to the Heavenly City, due to their sins. This is in contrast with the sons of Seth, who were the devout, servants of God, and through the purity of their devotion, were to ascend to the City of God. The corruption of the Sons of Cain grew to such a great extent, however, that the line had to be removed by the biblical flood—though the Earthly City itself would remain, as all men are a part of it, and many of the children of Noah and his sons would be members of only the Earthly City, and not the City of God.

The Earthly City is that of which all men are a part of. The hope is that through worship, and service to God, one will have only to experience the death of the body, and that they will not have to experience the second death, which is the worst punishment of all—life without God.  The reason for the existence of the Earthly City is that we as a species corrupted ourselves through sin from the original perfection that God gave us. Thus, we live a life of perversion in the Earthly City, to be freed of the perverted form upon ascending to the City of God. God gave us a way to salvation though, and that is through worship and obedience to him, and his son, Jesus Christ. One form of obedience to Him and His laws is through humility—which Augustine says exalts the mind. In addition, one can better themselves and show their devotion to God by doing acts for their own sake, which betters oneself and society as a whole. In contrast, doing acts to better oneself, and for the purpose of being prideful is to ultimately hurt oneself, for being prideful is asserting one's own dominion as more important than that of God, thus breaking the fellowship that exists between God, oneself, and one's fellow man. However, it is important to note that while the Earthly City and Heavenly City are distinct, they are also intertwined, and they evolved together.

Augustine goes into a bit more detail as to how human society is formed, and how the Earthly City is organized. As men spread out after the Great Flood, they began to form different groups. These groups were built on the fellowship of those who shared common geography and culture, and these groups worked to benefit themselves primarily. Thus, human society, as it naturally formed, is divided against itself. In essence then, the common aim of human society, of Earthly City, is worldly advantage and satisfaction of desires. According to Augustine, this is not what the final aim of the Earthly City should be though. The final goal of all things should be peace, as peace is instinctively desired by both the irrational beast, and by the rational man. This, Augustine argues, is evident in how people conduct themselves. Even those who seek war, he says, are really only seeking to redefine the order of peace to better fit themselves and their position.

Augustine believes in a multitude of peaces, each satisfied by some ordering of relevant variables. Most important to the discussion of the role of the state and the church, however, is the peace between men, and thus, the peace of the Earthly City. This peace is established through an ordered agreement between two or more people. Peace with the Heavenly City is different, with it being achieved through “harmonious fellowship in the enjoyment of God, and a mutual fellowship in God.” Thus defined, the peace of the Earthly and Heavenly Cities are different, and require different conditions to be satisfied. This is the foundation of the argument that Augustine lays out for the separation of the state from the church.

He argues that the use of temporal things is related to the enjoyment of the earthly peace, which is different from the eternal peace of the Heavenly City, which comes from service and subjugation to God. This use of the temporal goods that God gave to the world, then, must be to satisfy the bodily pleasures enough to quench the thirsts of the irrational soul, so that one may exercise and satisfy the rational soul, which is satisfied through the acquisition of some sort of profitable knowledge that he will use to order his life and his moral standards. This requires the direction of the Divine, which can only be gotten by adhering the the guidelines given above to enter the Heavenly City. This process, then, is one that is for individuals. It in no way suggests or warrants the church having dominance over the state. This idea of individuals needed to work toward salvation, and the difference of the objectives of the Earthly City and the Heavenly City are continued throughout the rest of the nineteenth book of the City of God, which is where Augustine focuses on the role of the Earthly City in relation to the Heavenly one.

In addition to setting out how one is to interact and use the temporal objects of this world, the Scriptures also set out clear commandments on how one should live their life in relation to others. First, one should love God. Second, one should love their neighbor as they love themselves. The need to love God is fairly self-explanatory, though the reason to love your neighbor requires a bit more of an explanation. One should love their neighbor because they should want their neighbor to love them, so that if they are in need of assistance, their neighbor will help them. Therefore then, one should also help their neighbors, for this relationship of mutual love can only exist if both sides are satisfying their part of the arrangement. If this is had, then society will be organized in the righteous way of a peace among men based on a mutual love, with man doing harm upon no one, and coming to the aid of others. Again, this does not lend toward the state being a servant of the church, but toward men acting in the interest of the common good of the Earthly City. It just so happens to also be in-line with the Scriptures, and thus also satisfying part of the requirement to enter the City of God.

Important to the ideal ordering of society that is listed above is the domestic peace of individual households. Individual households are what society is based on, and so the peace of society is based on the peace of individual households. The heads of households should achieve this peace by giving commands based off of faith, and by treating all of people within the household as the same, with punishments being given to benefit the offender, being meant to deter them or others from re-offending. All of this then, should be based off of the laws of the city that one is a part of, to prepare those in the household to be obedient to the city they are also members of. Thus is how societal peace, and thus earthly peace, is in part achieved. Yet again, the church has no place in this.

So what else is involved in the earthly peace? For it is ordered agreement among men, based off of neighborly love and domestic peace, but there is more to it. In this, Augustine is heavily influenced by Cicero, taking from him the idea of needing justice and service toward the commonwealth being essential for society. Wrong institutions and states, then, would be interested only in the good of the strongest, or some other smaller part of the society, which would then be contrary to the commonwealth, justice, and therefore the early peace. This is then a reason for the Church not being the master of the state, as it would be interested in serving a particular group of people—that being Christians. This causes issues when one considers that society is not comprised of solely Christians, but of people of other faiths as well. Thus, the Church holding power over the state would create an injustice. Augustine acknowledges this, explaining that the Earthly City, being based not in faith, must aim for the earthly peace, as it is concerned with the interactions in the temporal existence between mortal men.   It is assumed that because of the impiety of the Earthly City—which is a result of the philosophical minds of men being able to be swayed from the truth—that it is lacking the justice, as without true religion, there is no true virtue. This then requires there to be laws concerning religion and tolerance in the Earthly City, those do not exist within the Heavenly City, as to exist within the Heavenly City, one must accept the one true God and be subservient to Him.  Due to the nature of the Earthly City, the temporal peace must be shared by both the good and the bad alike, as Earthly or temporal peace requires cooperation between the members of the society, while only through one's own actions can they achieve heavenly peace. Thus, the Heavenly City does not interfere with the laws of the Earthly City and that which is requited for mortal life, though it does require a level of devotion and loyalty to it while in the Earthly City (as stated previously).  Augustine concludes then that all seek to get to the City of God, but only those who pass personal judgment will one get there—those who are wretched will not enter the City.

Thus, it would seem, that Augustine is not in favor of a religious state. In fact, it appears that the contrary is true—that he is in favor of a secular state. For he explains that the Heavenly City does not care about the differences between cultures, laws, languages, and all of the other aspects of human existence that are used to divide us, as long as such states that have these qualities promote the earthly peace, and do not hinder the worship of the one true God. This can be combined with his aforementioned belief in the need for the Earthly City to be run as justly as possible, and to have not a group that would be favoring any particular group—as the Church would—and not the commonwealth as a whole and the fact that one can only ascend to the City of God through their personal efforts, it is clear that Augustine would not want the state to be subservient to the church.

What is the relationship between self-interest and the demands of society in Cicero's philosophy?

Of the utmost importance in government is the idea of public interest and the common good. This is especially true in the realm of republican and democratic forms of government, as opposed to aristocratic or monarchical forms. The fabled senator and consul of the late Roman Republic Cicero had much to say on this topic in particular, especially in regards to the relationship between self-interest of an individual and the demands that the society—in this case, the Roman Republic—places on the individual. This essay will examine this relationship in Cicero's political thought, looking at his On Duties and On the Republic.

It is the belief of Cicero that there is no part of life that is without duty. By duty, he means what we could call today responsibility. These duties are held to that which one is in fellowship with, with the different things in which a man can have fellowship being: those of race or tribe or tongue, those of city, and those of relations. The different fellowships of relations then are those stemming from the ties of marriage, of children, of the house, of brotherhood, of distant familial relations (in particular, cousinship), and then those between houses. Of these fellowships, the most important is of course to the Republic. So, duties are owed to those that one has a fellowship with. However, there is more to duties than to whom they are owed. In dealing with duties, one must do what is honourable. Honourable acts are described as actions being in line with the four parts or virtues, those being the perception of truth and integrity, the preservation of fellowship among men and to the agreements that one makes, the greatness and strength of a lofty and unconquered spirit, or the order and limit in everything that is said and done—which he notes includes modesty and restraint. These virtues are broad, and they are often intertwined with each other, though duties all come from at least one of these virtues.

Duty also deals with the concepts of justice and liberality. Justice, in the sense that Cicero discusses here, refers to not acting in an unprovoked manner. This means then that it is unjust to strike a man, however if he struck you first, then you are in your right to strike back. But, it is not just doing actions when unprovoked that is unjust. Failing to stop injustice from occurring when it is in ones power to stop it is also unjust. Justice also deals with respect for property, contributing to the common good, and keeping faith. So, it is up to a man who is just to uphold these ideals, and by doing so, uphold their duties. This is honourable. Cicero says that when men forget justice that they then strive for military command or honors or for glory. When they do this, they are acting dishonourably. Thus, justice is an integral part of honour and duties.

In regards to liberality, Cicero has a great deal to say. In his mind, liberality is one of the fundamental parts of being honourable, and of upholding one's duties. Liberality, or as he also liked to call it, kindness, could manifest itself principally in two ways: that being in granting of wealth to good causes, or the granting of kind services (and then also returning them).  To Cicero, being a liberal person with ones time and wealth was one of the most important things one could do, for several reasons. The first of these reasons is laid out in On the Republic, in which he points out that the state, in this case, the Roman Republic, did not raise and nurture its citizens without the expectation that they would not give back to it. This not only defends the idea of giving to the Republic so as to maintain it, but it also works as an argument for people to get involved in politics—which is in itself giving back the Republic, and thus fulfilling the fellowship that one has to it and one's fellow citizens. Though, as Cicero points out in On Duties, it is of the utmost importance that if one does get involved in public affairs that they remain as unbiased as possible, and that they work in the favor of the Republic as a whole, and no special interest group in particular. Corruption, according to him, is one of the gravest offenses. Though this is a bit off of the topic of liberality. The other reason that one should be liberal is because of the benefit that it provides for individuals that one's liberality is bestowed upon, and for the society as a whole. Being liberal promotes gratitude among those who receive the kindness that one bestows, and then further cultivates a culture of giving, one that cascades both temporally and spatially to create a better society in which citizens are conducting actions that provide benefits for others, and the society as a whole. Of course, this is assuming, as Cicero does, that the liberality that is being shown does not harm anyone in the giving, that it does not exceed the means of the one who is giving, and that the giving is in accordance with the standing of the person who is receiving the kindness. Thus, if one follows those simple rules, one is being both honourable and beneficial when they are being liberal.

It is here that the foundation of Cicero's argument lies, and how it relates to self-interest. For, it is the interest of everyone to be honourable, and Cicero argues that what is honourable is also beneficial. So, by fulfilling one's duties, one is being both honourable and beneficial. This therefore fulfills both the self-interest of individuals, and at the same time the demands of the society. While the end result of this logic does lead to that which is good a just—that being a society in which people care for each other and the Republic, participate actively in politics, and fulfill their various duties—it is based on fallacious logic, which causes a great deal of frustration for those with liberal inclination who agree with Cicero, and yet are unable to look past his illogical argument.

The argument that Cicero makes is thus. First, what is beneficial is just. Second, what is honourable is just. Ergo, what is honourable is beneficial. However, the conclusion that he reaches is false in nature. By his logic, the only guarantee is that what is just is either also beneficial or honourable. The correct way to link both the honourable and the beneficial would be as follows: what is just is beneficial, and what is just is honourable, ergo that which is just is both beneficial and honourable. A seemingly small distinction, but vital to the argument that he is trying to make. This is not saying that what is honourable is not also beneficial, but that by the argument that he makes, that one cannot assume that inherently what is honourable is also beneficial, and vice versa. This is of incredible import when one looks at the third book of On Duties, in which he devotes an incredible amount of his page to arguing against behaviors that he deems to be without benefit on the grounds that they are dishonourable. He argues this because he makes the inference that if an honourable action is beneficial, and any dishonourable action would be unbeneficial. This logic, does not hold though, as the basis of his initial argument also does not hold, as a beneficial thing does not have to be honourable—in fact, it can be dishonourable.

Take, for instance, the following scenario into consideration, which Cicero himself posed.  Say you have a merchant who is going to supply Rhodes with corn, as recent famine and blight has made the price of corn skyrocket. This merchant reaches the port, and is going to sell the corn to the people of Rhodes. However, he has information that would decrease the amount of money that he would make—that being that there is more ships with corn that will arrive in several days time. Is it beneficial for the merchant to not inform the people of Rhodes of this incoming shipment, thus lowering the price that he would be able to get for his corn? The answer, according to Cicero is no, as it would be dishonourable. However, that is untrue. The merchant would benefit, at least in the way of material wealth, even if he were to take a hit due to claims of dishonesty and/or dishonour resulting therein. That is, of course, assuming that the actions of the merchant are dishonourable at all. I would agree that it would be dishonourable to lie about the existence of the shipment of corn that was on its way to Rhodes, but if the people of Rhodes simply did not ask as to whether or not the merchant knew of any additional shipments that would be coming to the island, the merchant could simply remain silent. There is no action being taken here by the merchant, no deception being made on his part. Thus, there is no dishonour. The only real argument that Cicero makes in regards to dishonour being unbeneficial is that dishonourable actions are directly contrary to the law of nature, however, this too is bad logic. First, it assumes that natures is the source of laws, which it is not, as law comes from humanity and society. Second though, as he describes the law of nature, it simply says that nature desires that which is right, appropriate, and constant, and that it rejects the opposites of those. It says nothing about what is beneficial and what is not, and therefor, it cannot be used to justify that which is dishonourable being unbeneficial. The final issue with his logic is that he believes that all pleasures are dishonourable. This is perhaps one of the most wild of his claims. For, if this claim is true, then it is dishonourable to experience pleasure in partaking in, for instance, a glass of wine. This is a ridiculous notion, as is the idea that pleasure itself is a bad thing. Here Cicero joins in the delusion of the ascetic movements that have existed in our society for such a long time—or at least, it would seem he does.

Yet, despite all of this, Cicero's aims are good. He wants people to work for the benefit of the Republic as a whole, citing how it benefits them as well. And that logic is true, and Cicero should be applauded for such an excellent argument in favor of civic duty. However, his fallacious logic cannot be ignored, which is why it was discussed. So, through his linking of what is honourable and beneficial—which does often align, especially in regards to the duties in which he lists in On Duties—he links the interests of the individual with the demands that society as a whole has for the individual.

The Door

There is a door.
A door at the top of a stair.
A stair that is at the bottom of a tower.
A tower that is on top of a hill.
A hill that is on top of a plain.
A plain that is on top of a continent.
A continent that is on top of an ocean.
An ocean that is on a planet.
A planet that is in a solar system.
A solar system that is within a galaxy.
A galaxy that is within a galactic group.
A galactic group that is within a galactic mega-cluster.
A mega-cluster which is part of the fibres that together create the Observable Universe.

And behind that door,
Behind that door is you,
You with the ability to change everything with your actions,
If only you go out that door and try.