Compare and Contrast between Thomas Hobbes and St. Thomas Aquinas on Kings

 Introduction

In this paper, I am going to compare and contrast St. Thomas Aquinas and Thomas Hobbes on Kingship. I will be drawing from a handful of sources. Most prominently, from the De Regno of Aquinas and the Leviathan of Hobbes. Father Jean Pierre Torrell situated the De Regno to “around 1267.” Father Torrell also cautions against using this work as a complete work of Political Theory. Rather, it is “a pedagogical and moral treatise for use of a prince.” For the purpose of this paper, though, it makes for a great resource to see what St. Thomas thought the origin and duties are for a King. It does need to be supplemented with his more formal political theory found in the Summa Theologica and other works. Thomas Hobbes wrote in the middle of the 1600’s and developed a political philosophy that gives Kings a large role. He reflects on the role, power and duty of Sovereign’s (King’s) in Part 2 of the Leviathan. 

Outline

In order to best compare and contrast these philosopher’s treatment of this subject, there needs to be some preliminary discussion of their more general political philosophy. So, I will take the following path in this paper. First, I will give a brief overview of St. Thomas’s political philosophy. Next, I will explore his notion of King’s as described in De Regno. Then, I will give a brief overview of Thomas Hobbes general political philosophy. Then, I will explore his notion of Kingship as described in Part 2 of the Leviathan. Then, I will spend separate sections comparing and contrasting their notions of Kings. Lastly, I will conclude with a recapitulation of the major findings of the compare and contrast. 

St. Thomas Aquinas’s Political Philosophy

St. Thomas doesn’t give an outright treatise on his political philosophy. However, in works like the De Regno and Summa Theologica provide synopsises of where political structure comes from, and key citations which point towards a more comprehensive vision of a political philosophy. For example, to begin his De Regno he begins with a common Aristotelian notion of formal and final causality. The formal cause is what makes a thing to be what it is, whereas the final cause is what the goal or end state for a thing is, given its nature. “Man has an end to which his whole life and all his actions are ordered; for man is an intelligent agent, and it is clearly the part of an intelligent agent to act in view of an end.” We see here that he is presupposing a nature (formal cause) and end or goal (final cause). 

From this, he pulls out another Aristotelian point: “it is natural for man, more than any other animal, to be a social and political animal living in a group. This is clearly a necessity of man’s nature.” So, man is a social animal and is therefore built to live in community. A few paragraphs later, he is already ready to give a general sense of just and unjust states. He differentiates these based on the end of the ruler. If the ruler aims at his own private good, it is an unjust state. If the ruler aims at the common good of the multitude, it is a just state. From this definition, he can go on to outline 6 types of government’s. This also, he draws from Aristotle. 

The 6 types of government are split 3 and 3 between just and unjust governments. The 3 mirror each other, as we will see. They are divided by the number of rulers. You can have one ruler, a small group of rulers, or be ruled by the multitude. Let’s treat the unjust first. Unjust rule by one is known as tyranny. Unjust rule by a small group is called an oligarchy. And unjust rule by the multitude is known as democracy. We can now define the three just governments. A just state ruled by the multitude is called a polity.  A just state ruled by a small group is called an Aristocracy. Finally, a just state ruled by one, he is called a King. 

Which political state is ideal, then? In De Regno St. Thomas argues that having a single ruler is best. However, in other works, St. Thomas argues for a mixed government. Although some Thomists see this as contradictory (see the last citation for an example), I think this can be explained. St. Thomas says consistently that tyranny is the worst form of government. If this is the case, arguing for a mixed government makes sense. Kingship can still be the ideal government, while a mixed form of government is practically speaking the best one to choose, because there is a lower risk of tyranny. Just like a person may think that football is the best sport, but choose to play soccer to avoid injury. It’s not that they think soccer is better, it's that it's more practical when the risks are taken into account. 

Now that we have given a general sketch of St. Thomas’s Political Philosophy, we can take a deeper dive into what he has to say about the Kingly office. 

St. Thomas Aquinas on King’s

St. Thomas states in the prologue of De Regno that his goal is to “carefully expound...both the origin of kingly government and the things which pertain to the office of King.” It should be said that the kingly government arises from a lot of the same themes we discussed in the last section. That man is a rational and social animal, and so needs to live in community. Naturally, some will be best fit to govern the community. He gives 4 arguments why it is better to have a single ruler than to have many. First, one of the main functions of government is to secure peace. That’s what people look for in uniting themselves socially. It is easier to secure peace with one ruler than with several, because there is a united vision. Second, groups tend to have more dissension, and so there will be more difficulty in procuring peace. Third, in nature we see governance by one more often. In the body, the brain controls the nervous system. In animal species, there is often a single leader. In creation, there is one God who governs and sustains all things in being. So, Aquinas argues, “it follows that it is best for a human multitude to be ruled by one person.” Lastly, St. Thomas argues from history and experience that areas with a single ruler enjoy more periods of peace then areas with several rulers. This is something that many readers will scoff at, but he makes an interesting rebuttal that oftentimes tyranny arises from a grasp of power from an individual in a democracy or aristocracy, not from a monarchy turning towards tyranny. 

Be that as it may, St. Thomas spends the rest of Book 1 looking at what rewards and punishments are due to Kings. In Book 2 he looks at the duties of Kings. I will summarize these in order. He begins negatively by stating what is not a reward to be sought for Kings. For those familiar with his treatise on happiness, this won’t be surprising. He argues that Kings need to seek something higher than honor and glory. Most dangerously, he thinks, is the fact that when Kings don’t feel like they have gotten enough honor and glory, they turn to seeking “pleasures and riches, and so will resort to plundering and injuring his subjects.” He cites the emperor Nero as an example, saying that these tyrants “surpass the beasts in the vices of cruelty and lust.” St. Thomas thinks that because Kings and Tyrants are in an office that has people subject to them, they are in part responsible for the vice and virtue built up in their subjects. So, the fruit of the injustice of tyrants is vice in the subjects. This will have temporal consequences, but more importantly for St. Thomas, will lead to greater degrees of punishment in the next life, because of the failures of leadership. 

On the positive side of these opposites, though, Kings should seek God as their reward. Temporal goods are not a good indication of a King's virtue. This is because wealth and prosperity are given to virtuous and vicious people alike. So, St. Thomas follows St. Augustine by saying that if a King rules justly, they will be happy. This, again, follows St. Thomas’s ethics which start with the idea of happiness being a result of seeking the highest good. Interestingly, St. Thomas concludes this chapter by stating that the tyrant's motivation for honor and glory is correct, just misplaced. Rather than seeking the honor and glory from his subjects, he should seek the glory from God by living and ruling justly. Following the same principle indicated earlier: acts are exacerbated by the dignity of the office. Therefore, Kings that rule justly, lead more of their subjects to virtue, and so deserve a higher degree of heavenly beatitude. 

In Book 2 of the De Regno, St. Thomas discusses the duties fit for Kings and the goods that should be sought in the founding of a city. The latter group is outside the scope of the paper so I will not comment on that section. In Chapter 1, St. Thomas picks up from the political philosophy that he opened the first chapter of the first book with. The major implication he draws here, is that man’s Kingship is unique over the animals in that he can govern with reason. Now, this governance must be ordered towards an end. This he argues is “virtuous living to attain the possession of God.” This is for all men in the society, not simply for everybody as an individual. While the Kingship of Christ takes precedence over the earthly King, and therefore Christ’s Priests have an important kingly role in the society, the earthly King does have some responsibility for his subject’s reaching this end. Most notably, they need to construct the law in a way that commands things that lead to happiness and “as far as possible, forbid the contrary.” It is in this way that Kings are ultimately promoters of the good life. St. Thomas gives 3 classes of ways that Kings can do this. 

First, Kings need to aim man at the good life. This requires a desire for virtue, but also sufficiency of bodily goods. This will obviously entail economic policies which lead to adequate amounts of food, shelter, etc. That being said, Aquinas’s main concern here is the establishment of a unity of peace. Second, Kings need to look for the conservation of the good life. St. Thomas addresses this negatively by describing things that shake men out of the pursuit of the good life. He cites the mortality of men, the perversity of their wills, and the attack of enemies. To combat these three dangers, he argues that Kings need to appoint successive rulers well, reward and punish actions accordingly, and keep the nation safe from external enemies. Third, Kings need to push for continued improvement in pursuing the good life. This is done by correcting disorder, supplying for what lacks, and continued effort.

Thomas Hobbes Political Philosophy

Thomas Hobbes political philosophy is built off of two cornerstones. First, a darker conception of human nature. Second, an articulation of the social contract theory. These should be explained in order. Hobbes begins his political philosophy by describing the different powers of man. He begins to get into the meat of things, though, when he describes the power of rationality or reason. The ability to reason, Hobbes thinks, is the ultimate equalizer of man. This is because reason allows men who may not be as strong, quick, or sneaky, to be just as lethal. The weaker man can defeat the stronger man through cunning or collusion, both acts of reason. 

This equality quickly puts man in a position of quarrel. Since there are limited resources, men have to compete. From competition spiral two other causes of quarrel: distrust and glory. Competition causes men to start wars for gain, distrust causes men to start wars for safety, and glory causes men to start wars for reputation. This condition, he argues, is natural.He believes this can be proved by analyzing our actions. Since we lock up our things and try to protect things we cherish, we prove Hobbes' picture of human nature as rife for conflict. It is with this view of nature: that war is the natural state for man that he comes up with his famous dictum: “the life of man [is] solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.” So much so that when man is in the state of war, all other pursuits seem to be meaningless because we are in a constant state of fear. And so, while we have short periods of peace (absence of war), these are short and intermittent, just like periods of calm in a storm. 

The second aspect of his political philosophy is the social contract. The term he uses is Commonwealth. He thinks that in order to protect themselves men gather in groups. But, in order to actually protect the group, individuals need to give up some of their individual freedoms. They need a leader. And so he concludes: 

“The only way to establish a common power that can defend them from the invasion of foreigners and the injuries of one another, and thereby make them secure enough to be able to nourish themselves and live contentedly through their own labours and the fruits of the earth, is to confer all their power and strength on one man, or one assembly of men, so as to turn all their wills by a majority vote into a single will.”

This is where the title of the work comes from. Just as the Biblical beast of the Leviathan is an amalgamation of individual parts that work together as a whole, so men must form a commonwealth in which they give up some individual freedoms to a sovereign ruler. The vital part of making this work, he thinks, is that this is done voluntarily. 

Thomas Hobbes on Sovereign’s

When discussing these Sovereign’s (Kings), Hobbes begins with a distinction between institutional sovereignty and acquisitional sovereignty. The former is constructed by the vote of a commonwealth and the latter by natural generation. He discusses several duties for institutional sovereigns. First, they are not bound by the norms of previous sovereigns. Second, he is above the contract, because he is not a decider of the contract, but is the result of it. Third, those who are not part of the majority who elected the sovereign are still bound by him. Fourth, because he was chosen by the people, he cannot be accused of injustice. Since morality is a result of cultural norms, he is the standard for the cultural norms, and so cannot be determined to be unjust. Fifth, he is exempt from punishment. Sixth, the sovereign needs to regulate the thoughts and media of the nation. Seventh and Eighth, the sovereign is the legislature and judge of the nation. Ninth and Tenth, the sovereign alone can declare war, and he elects those responsible for executing the war. Eleventh, the sovereign determines rewards and punishments. Lastly, the sovereign is the standard for determining the values of the nation. 

Although Hobbes posits this kind of ruler, it is helpful to look at how he contrasts it with the sovereign of acquisition. Notably, he begins by saying that his type of ruler is built on a common fear of one another, not fear of the sovereign (as he takes to be the consequence of the opposing view). He also thinks that the consequences for the citizens are the same in both cases, the advantage of his system is that the people at least get to choose their ruler.

Lastly, Hobbes has a chapter in which he deals with the office of the sovereign. Here he describes what duties are fit for the Sovereign. The main job of the sovereign is to “procure the safety of the people.” He can do this only by protecting the rights that are due to him. If these rights go away, the commonwealth can then fall back into the three problems that cause quarrel. Also, the sovereign has a duty to teach people in the commonwealth how and why this authority must be revered and guarded. 

Good governance is essential to maintaining the social order. The Sovereign must provide punishments for offenses against his laws that are equal. Also, he must maintain a certain equality among the citizenry. He must choose good counsellors who will not undercut his authority. Having faithful counselors is vital to the commonwealth, because they can ensure the reverence of the subjects toward the Sovereign. 

Compare

Now that we have some background on the political philosophies and notions of Kingship of both thinkers, we are in a position to compare and contrast their descriptions of Kingship. There are several ways in which St. Thomas Aquinas and Thomas Hobbes have similar views on Kings. First, is that both thinkers view the seeking of peace as a primary goal of Kingship. For Hobbes, this is the 1st Law of Nature in his social contract. There is a key difference between their notions of the goal of Kingship, but this will be treated in the contrast section. St. Thomas thinks that this is too narrow a conception of the King’s role. The King has a duty to not only defend against enemies, but also has some positive goals as well. In fact, you could say that the negative goal (peace, or absence of war) only exists because the positive goals exist, for Aquinas. However, both give a significant emphasis on the point that Kings need to provide peace for their citizens. 

This is achieved by more than military power, as well. Hobbes' whole political philosophy can be seen through this lens. All power and authority that is given to the Sovereign, is given so that there will not be insurrection. Similarly, St. Thomas says that “ the chief concern of the ruler of a multitude, therefore, is to procure the unity of peace.” Aquinas thinks that this is done defensively with the military, but it is also done internally by enabling virtuous living. So, we can see that for both Aquinas and Hobbes, government’s are ordered towards peace, and this needs to be sought through means additional to the military. 

A second comparison is that both philosophers think that the monarchy is the ideal political system. It was stated above that St. Thomas seems to posit that mixed government systems are the most practical. But, as I said there, that doesn’t mean that he doesn’t hold Monarchy to be ideal. Both can be true at the same time. In fact, when you look at his arguments for why there should be one ruler in the De Regno, most of them are arguments of fittingness. Hobbes seems to hold a similar view. He allows for the possibility of a small group governing, but prefers a Sovereign.

A core element of why both Hobbes and Aquinas think this is that there is a certain unity to having a King. When authority is divided among a group, you lose a certain amount of unity. Hobbes thinks this cuts against the power that needs to be given to the state. St. Thomas appreciates and emphasizes these same points, but adds a couple arguments. He states that there is a certain fittingness to having one King, because this is what we see in nature. Just as one God governs all of creation, and just as the heart regulates all of the flow of blood through the heart, so one person should rule the multitude. It might be tempting to compare Hobbes notion of the Divine Right of Kings here, but I think St. Thomas’s larger point is that nature is filled with this example of a single ruler, so it should be the same in politics, if possible. 

A third similarity is that both philosophers see that man’s nature is broken. St. Thomas holds the doctrine of original sin, which states that men are inclined to selfishness. This “perversity” leads to at minimum sins of omission, but at maximum “transgressing justice, they disturb the peace of others.” Hobbes similarly thinks that men are heavily inclined to conflict. And so, while these philosophers would surely disagree on some aspects of human nature, both see that there is a brokenness inherent in it, that lends itself to conflict. 

A fourth comparison is that both Aquinas and Hobbes argue that the King has a major role in the moral life of the nation. Again, there will be a major difference here in the following section. But, both thinkers argue that Kings need to lead in the following ways. They both cite one key way is by legislating rewards and punishments in keeping with the moral norms. The law is a teacher. So, both by legislative and judicial powers subjects learn what is expected of them in their respective nations. Now, Hobbes would hold that the King is the legislative and judicial system. Aquinas, on the other hand, doesn’t address whether the King needs to be as hands on, or whether he can delegate this power. I suspect he would want to leave this up to tradition and cultural norms. Regardless though, for both Thomas’s, the King has a major role in the virtue and vice of the citizenry. 

I think that both of these thinkers appreciate the fact that the law is a teacher. When citizens perceive their King as just and virtuous, this is an excellent model for them. If citizens perceive their King as tyrannical, unjust and vicious, this also models something for them, although it is obviously negative. In addition to the King’s behavior though, is his legislation. His legislation teaches as well. By punishing certain actions, the King condemns them. By not punishing certain actions, the King gives some complicity to that action. 

A fifth comparison is that God is the judge of a King. So, while Hobbes holds that the King’s authority is absolute, he still holds that his rulership is reliant upon God, and that God will judge the King. Similarly, St. Thomas outlines how because of the dignity of King’s office, he will be judged more sternly. Since so many souls are subject to him, he has a greater responsibility. If he rules justly, he will be rewarded greatly and if he rules unjustly, he will be punished all the more gravely. 

So, we’ve seen how both thinkers have a similar conception that the King should seek peace for his subjects. Also, that monarchy is the ideal political system. Next, that human nature is inclined to conflict. Then, the King has a duty to set the moral norms for that nation. Last, that God will judge Kings according to their merits. Now, I will contrast the two thinkers' notions of Kingship before concluding. 

Contrast

We have seen multiple ways in which Hobbes and Aquinas are similar in their conceptions of Kings. There are less differences; but, these differences are perhaps more significant than the similarities. There are deep differences in the goals, means, and expectations for Kings in these thinkers that need to be explored. I will describe two major differences. First, the ultimate goal for Kings. Second, the King's role in the moral life of the nation. 

The first contrast is in the object of the King. As expressed in the comparison section, there is some overlap here. Both St. Thomas and Thomas Hobbes think that peace is a primary goal for Kings. It stops here for Hobbes, but St. Thomas thinks this goal is ordered towards a more ultimate goal. The Kingdom needs to be ordered towards justice. He analogizes that just as the body needs to be governed by the soul, so the King must rule the multitude justly. From this, he deduces the final end of a Kingdom: “it pertains to the King’s office to promote the good life of the multitude in such a way as to make it suitable for the attainment of heavenly happiness.” He continues, “that is to say, he should command those things which lead to the happiness of Heaven and, as far as possible, forbid the contrary.” This is a much loftier conception of the Kingdom than we see in Hobbes. Rather than the King being one who protects and defends from the constant threat of war, for Aquinas, he is the one who pushes society to live for heaven. By practice and by law the King should lead men to their beatitude. It is in this way that the model of Old Testament King’s leading their armies into battle takes on a whole new meaning. The true King should lead his citizens into battle against sin and selfishness in order to help them gain the victory of heaven. 

A second difference pertains to the relationship between the King and the moral norms of the nation. Hobbes thinks that the King is the highest authority, and that morality follows from his Kingship. Aquinas argues that morality is outside of the King, and that he is teaching morality that is external to himself. This has an important implication. Namely, that a ruler can be judged as a King or Tyrant. If the King establishes what is just and unjust, then it’s at least difficult (and maybe impossible) to act unjustly. If, however, morality is outside of the King, then he is under the same law that the citizens are, and can be judged accordingly. 

One can see how these two differences are related to each other. It is because St. Thomas thinks that the earthly Kingdom is ordered towards salvation, that he can argue that the King is underneath the law as well. It follows clearly from this, that the King has a care of souls, and should seek to lead those subject to him to the heavenly Kingdom. Hobbes, on the other hand, see’s the Kingdom as ordered towards peace (an absence of war). To achieve this, he thinks that all authority needs to be given to a single Sovereign. And so, pushing back against this sovereign by appealing to a higher moral law, is only going to cause more strife and perhaps war. Rather, he thinks, the moral law starts and stops with this Sovereign, and so citizens should revere and respect the law and lawgiver. 

Conclusion

In this paper I have compared and contrasted St. Thomas Aquinas and Thomas Hobbes on Kings. I began by outlining their general political philosophy. Next, I explored in more detail their descriptions of Kings. In particular, we were looking at the goals, duties, and authority of this office. Then, we compared and contrasted their philosophies. We found that they were similar in several respects. First, that Kingdom’s are ordered towards procuring peace. Second, that monarchy is the ideal political system. Third, that man’s nature is broken and this leads to conflicts. Fourth, Kings have a role to play in establishing and enforcing the moral norms of a society. And fifth, that God is the judge of a King’s merit. 

To contrast Hobbes and Aquinas here, we saw two core differences. First, that St. Thomas viewed the peace procured by the King as ordered towards virtuous living and the seeking of beatitude. This contrasts from Hobbes who thought that peace procured was the end goal of Kingship. Second, Hobbes argued that morality comes from the King, through the law. And so, morality is largely legalistic, and created by the Sovereign. Aquinas, on the other hand, thought that morality comes from outside the leadership of a given country, and so rulers and subjects alike are bound to this morality. 

Bibliography

Aquinas, Thomas. On Kingship or De Regno found in Opuscala. Edited by The Aquinas Institute (Green Bay, WI, 2018). 357-400. 

Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologica. Translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province. Christian Classics (New York, NY, 1948). 

Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan found at https://www.earlymoderntexts.com/authors/hobbes. Edited by Jonathan Bennett, 2006. 

Lloyd, Sharon and Sreedhar, Susanne. Hobbes Moral and Political Philosophy found at https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hobbes-moral/ . Published 2018. 

Philpott, Daniel. Sovereignty found at https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sovereignty/. Published 2020. 

Torrell, Jean-Pierre. Saint Thomas Aquinas I: The Person and his Work. Translated by Robert Royal. Catholic University of America (Washington DC, 2005). 169-171. 

Short Summary of Thomas Hobbes' Political Philosophy

I will be writing this short paper as a summary of Thomas Hobbes political philosophy. I will be drawing from our classes text by Hobbes and from our class lecture. I will begin by introducing Thomas Hobbes and discussing the historical and philosophical milieu that surrounded him. This is important to get a sense of his worldview, which impacts his political philosophy. Next, I will describe his political philosophy, emphasizing its two most important aspects: theory of human nature and the social contract. Then, I will conclude the paper by going through the smaller details of his political philosophy. 

Historical and Philosophical Surroundings

Hobbes lived from the end of the 1500’s through most of the 1600’s. His most important work on Political Philosophy was written in 1651 with the title: Leviathan. Dr. Kirwan cites 4 important historical influences on Hobbes: 1) the 30 years war, 2) the English Civil War, 3) the Scientific Revolution, and 4) John Calvin’s Protestantism. All 4 of these historical influences will have major ramifications on his anthropology and by extension political philosophy. 

The wars led Hobbes to a dark vision of human nature. The scientific revolution also led Hobbes to philosophical positions that contribute to his darker anthropology. In particular: materialism, empiricism and nominalism. The Protestant influence informs his belief in the Divine Right of Kings, which is a major element of his Political Philosophy. 

Human Nature and Social Contract

As mentioned in the introduction, the two major elements of Hobbes political philosophy are his perspective on human nature and the social contract. Hobbes begins his treatment of human nature by describing human beings as equal. This equality stems from the common rational nature. Even though one man may be stronger than another man, the rational nature makes them equal. The less strong man can beat the stronger “by secret machination, or by confederacy with others, that are in the same danger with himself.” 

This equality, though, breeds quarrels which lead to violence and war. Men seek competition, diffidence and glory which lead to quarrels. This leads to invasion for the end of gain, safety or reputation. It is in this way, that war is natural to man. Famously, Hobbes states: “the life of man [is] solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.” 

It is easy to psychologize Hobbes by saying that he saw two brutal wars in his own day, so his philosophy is too personal. However, war seems largely normative to human life. Any knowledge of history demonstrates the seeming constancy of war in human life. And so, I think it is valid to debate the merits of Hobbes' problem and the solutions that he proposes. 

And so, given the constancy of war in human life, things like morality, justice and law are arbitrary and convention. It is this problem that Hobbes seeks to correct with his political philosophy. He does so through the Social Contract. 

His first premise to solving the problems of human nature is that men should seek peace, and only use war as a means of achieving peace. His second premise is that men need to realize that you need to give up some lesser rights to maintain this fundamental seeking of peace. He understands this to be a covenant. Namely, to acquire higher goods, you have to concede lower ones. He goes on to give several more laws that have to do with justice between men. 

Next, Hobbes argues that to protect and preserve this commonwealth that is ordered toward peace, there needs to be a King. “The only way to erect such a common power, as may be able to defend them from the invasion of foreigners, and the injuries of one another...by their own industry, and by the fruits of the earth, they may nourish themselves and live contentedly; is to confer all their power and strength upon one man...that they may reduce all their will, by plurality of voices, unto one will.” Notice in the quote, Hobbes argues that this is necessary defensively, but also offensively. The King is necessary to fend off invaders and insurrection, but also to best utilize resources to make the society profitable. And so, for Hobbes, to solve the brute violence of human nature, men need to enter into a covenant with society. They need to give up some of their freedoms to one man, so that he can rule them towards peace. This is the social contract. 

Hobbes goes on to describe what rights and authority a sovereign (King) has in this system. It is difficult to summarize what these rights are, because this section is extensive. I will leave it at this: the Sovereign has the exclusive and exhaustive authority in the commonwealth. Any splintering of this authority is misplaced. Next, he describes what types of things lead to the breaking of the commonwealth. He includes here: desire for absolute power, conscience of individuals to determine right and wrong, seeking sanctity through faith rather than reason, subjecting the sovereign to civil laws, among others. 

Conclusion

Thomas Hobbes political philosophy involves the identification of a major problem in human nature and a proposal to solve the problem. The problem is that man is easily disposed to violence and war. This leads to unsatisfactory lives. His proposed solution is the Leviathan. Just as the beast is a mix of multiple different parts working together as a whole, so politically, men should give up freedoms to an absolute sovereign. By doing so, they will secure protection, security, and better allocation of resources. By entering into the social contract we can secure peace, which is the goal of political life. 

A Defense of Happiness as the Starting Place of Ethics

 Introduction and Outline

There are multiple theories of right living, or ethics. The most popular theories today are Kantianism and Utilitarianism. However, there is also the Aristotilean notion of Eudaimonism which was incorporated into Natural Law and Virtue Ethics of St. Thomas Aquinas. One way of contrasting these theories is to look at their starting points. What is the foundation of the given ethical system? In this paper, I will be defending the Thomistic position that ethics should start with an exploration of human happiness. 

I will begin by describing how St. Thomas starts to outline his ethics, which revolves around the human good, or happiness. Next, I will look at objections to this perspective. To do this, I will look at other starting points from popular perspectives on ethics: namely, Utilitarianism and Kantianism. Then, I will show why the Thomistic perspective is the strongest of the three. Last, I will look at a couple implications for why this matters. 

St. Thomas on the Human Good

In his treatise on human beings, Saint Thomas Aquinas begins with a very Aristotilean notion of ends. Things work towards their natural ends, and so human beings also should work towards their natural end. Now, because man is “the master of his actions” in a way that irrational things are not, he will reach his end through reason and will. Next, he shows that man has only one final end. This is because it is impossible to go on to infinity “in causes of movement.” There needs to be a prime mover, which in the realm of human action would be the end that we are pursuing. So, although we pursue a variety of ends, these must all be subordinated to a single final end. This last end, he goes on to argue, is happiness. Even though men disagree on how to get there, we all pursue happiness as our final end.

From this starting point, St. Thomas builds his ethics. In question 2, he famously looks at different options for what happiness consists in: wealth, honor, fame (glory), power, the body, pleasure, the soul, or a created good. He finds all of these wanting. In question 3 he takes a more positive approach and reasons that happiness consists in contemplation of the divine essence. Then, St. Thomas relates his epistemology to a theory of human action. Then, he builds up an account of what makes human actions good or evil. From here, he will go on to build his virtue ethics. He begins by analyzing habits, which he breaks down into virtues and vices in general. Lastly, he analyzes particular virtues and vices. 

Objections 

In this section we will look at alternative theories to the one expressed in the above section. We will look at two: Kantianism and Utilitarianism. As usual with Kant, we need to start with epistemology. He thought that ethics must start with synthetic a priori principles. Kant, rather than beginning his ethics from a pursuit of happiness, begins with a sense of obligation. This obligation must be informed by a maxim derived from reason. He summarizes the maxim he reasons to as follows, “I ought never to act in such a way that I couldn’t also will that the maxim on which I act should be a universal law.” Universal, here, means that this law needs to be applicable universally. He gives the example of lying: you would never encourage someone else to lie to you to get out of a difficulty; in the same way, you shouldn’t lie to get out of difficult situations. This would undercut the very notion of speech, because if lying is permissible, then speech cannot be trusted. 

In Chapter 2 he refines the Categorical Imperative based on his emphasis on duty: “Act as though the maxim of your action were to become, through your will, a universal law of nature.” Practically speaking, this means that people should only be treated as an end, and never as a means to an end. 

And so, Kant’s Deontological Ethics would object to Aquinas that ethics needs to start with universifiable maxims that are rooted in synthetic a priori propositions. Aquinas’s failure is that his ethics is based on a posteriori phenomena, and is therefore a mere tautology. Kant’s critique (unsurprisingly) is largely epistemological. He is concerned that different disciplines have a proper epistemological grounding. This is imminently clear in his Prolegomena on any Future Metaphysic. The same is true in this work on ethics. He is concerned that ethics built off of a posteriori knowledge (like happiness) is circular. 

A second Kantian critique is that taking pleasure in a moral action actually depletes the quality of the action. It is more noble, according to Kant, to do something out of duty, rather than deriving pleasure from it. We can all picture scenes from movies where the protagonist has to do the right thing, even though it’s not in their self-interest. We, as the audience, see this as more noble, because it was more difficult of an action. 

Utilitarianism begins with the proposition that one should cause the most happiness for the most people, or limit the most pain from the most people. In this way, it is similar to Aquinas’s perspective that ethics needs to start with happiness. Although Utilitarian philosophers have different perspectives of these notions of goodness, pleasure and happiness; they all emphasize the notion of maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain. What makes utilitarianism distinctive, though, is that it focuses on consequences of actions alone. It is only by analyzing the consequences that one can measure the merits of an action.

And so, the utilitarian objection to Aquinas would be that happiness is the starting point of ethics only insofar as it is the consequence of an action. St. Thomas fails to look at the implications of actions in a satisfactory way, since it's in these that happiness is found. 

Response

There are three objections that need to be responded to in this section. First, there are a pair of Kantian critiques. One, that ethics needs to start with maxims that are able to be made universal; and, two, that happiness as a starting place is self-interested. Third is the Utilitarian critique that ethics need to start with a calculation of maximizing pleasure or minimizing pain. I will respond to them in order. 

There is some common ground between St. Thomas and Kant in the beginning of their ethics. Both think that an accurate epistemology is important in the opening stages of developing an ethical system. Saint Thomas spends several questions right after his treatment of happiness reviewing and applying concepts from his anthropology and epistemology that are found in book 1. He uses these as the basis for judging actions as good or evil. However, St. Thomas is right to begin with happiness rather than epistemology. 

To respond to this Kantian critique though, we need to say something about their epistemologies. As should be clear, if St. Thomas is correct in his epistemology, then Kant’s critiques fail. If Kant’s epistemological critiques of Aquinas work, then we at least can turn to question his notion of happiness as the starting point of ethics. Kant and Aquinas see epistemology in opposite directions. Aquinas thinks that truth is conformity of the mind to the object. Whereas Kant thinks that objects form to cognition. Because of this, Kant’s epistemology makes it difficult to see how we grasp things at all. It seems rather, that we are left only with our perceptions of things. With Aquinas, we should see that the senses are able to grasp the natures of things, even if it's only in a limited way. This is more in keeping with our experience. When we take in things through our senses, we automatically try to categorize it based on previous sense data. We group things based on the kinds of things they are; based on their natures. And so, because St. Thomas’s epistemology seems at least to be a sustainable epistemology, it seems that we don’t need to fall for the Kantian critique of happiness (or other a posteriori notions) being our starting place for ethics. 

As for Kant’s second objection, I think that St. Thomas’s perspective here is stronger as well. Aquinas gives a more nuanced and balanced position to the role of emotions in moral life. One extreme would say, you should always follow your emotions, because they are natural, and can’t steer you wrong. The other extreme, is the Kantian one, that the emotions are inherently selfish and therefore should be scorned in a moral calculus. Aquinas takes the middle position. Emotions are neutral. If they are not well tempered, they will probably fall prey to Kant’s critique. However, if they are rightly ordered, we should take pleasure in doing the right thing. Father Thomas Petri puts it this way, “For Aquinas, the virtuous person is someone who knows the moral thing to do, does it in the right way, and takes delight in doing it.” 

This quote is pointing to a doctrine of Aristotle that Aquinas would be sympathetic towards. Namely, Aristotle’s discussion of Continence and Incontinence. Aristotle thinks that there are four levels in the moral life. There is the vicious person who relishes in doing vicious things. The next level is the incontinent person, who wants to do the right thing, but just can’t bring himself to do it. Then, there is the continent person. This person does the right thing, but has to grit his teeth to do it. Finally, there is the virtuous person who does the right thing and takes pleasure in doing it well. It seems that Kant confuses virtue with continence. Doing the right thing and being trained to take pleasure in doing the right thing is better than struggling to do the good (which although good, is less so). 

I think that St. Thomas’s perspective stands up well against the Utilitarian starting point as well. Recall that Utilitarians think that ethics should start with the premise that we need to maximize pleasure (or minimize pain) for the most people with each action. Interestingly, they are starting with a notion of happiness just like Thomas does. So, insofar as this happiness is understood correctly, Aquinas would probably be sympathetic to this system, even if he had some problems with it. The largest problem that utilitarianism has is that consequences are not the only thing to analyze when judging a moral act. As Aquinas shows, “the goodness and malice of the will depend, not on the circumstances, but on the object alone.” This is because circumstances are accidental (not essential) to the act. Whereas the object (what the act is in itself, theft for example), is essential to the action. So, while intention and circumstances are important to human action, they are secondary to the actions themselves. 

Implications

We have seen that when St. Thomas’s starting place for ethics is held up against his competitors; it holds its ground soundly. In addition to defending him against competitive theories though, I want to give a positive reason in favor of Aquinas’s position. I think that by starting an ethical system from the perspective of our end, we will be more able to order our lives with clarity. It’s a common trope today that setting goals gives us greater propensity to achieve at higher levels. It's hard to picture how this could be false. If I draw out a grocery list that is comprehensive and organized, I am more likely to get everything that I need, than if I go to the store and wing it. The same should be true with our lives. If we take the time to reflect on what makes a good life, what will make us happy, what we want out of life, we are more likely to order our lives accordingly. 

This brings us to a second positive implication of taking Thomas as our guide. If we have a clear end, and can sort the means to that end well, this will give us greater motivation to live well. This is because now we are after a set objective, rather than a vague sense of pleasure. Since we are more motivated, we have an easier time dismissing things that we know aren’t good for us, and pursuing things that are. 

A third positive implication of Aquinas’s ethics is that it avoids basing itself on fear of punishment as so many law based ethics do. For St. Thomas, we should live well because it will make us happy. We should avoid sin because it makes us unhappy. This is a more satisfactory calling to right living than, “if you don’t live the right way, you will be punished” (whether it is by God or the state). 

Conclusion

In this paper I have defended the perspective of St. Thomas Aquinas that ethics should start with an exploration of human happiness. I have defended this position against two Kantian critiques. One epistemological and one that regarded the relationship between emotions and the moral life. I have also defended this position against the consequentialist critique of Utilitarianism. I have shown that St. Thomas’s theory holds up against these theories, but also helps us to order our lives more clearly and gives us deeper motivation for living well. By doing so, we will live more meaningful lives.