FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   556   557   558   559   560   561   562   563   564   565   566   567   568   569   570   571   572   573   574   575   576   577   578   579   580  
581   582   583   584   585   586   587   588   589   590   591   592   593   594   595   596   597   598   599   600   601   602   603   604   605   >>   >|  
ach thing according as it is, and when judging of persons, to interpret things for the best as stated above. _______________________ FIFTH ARTICLE [II-II, Q. 60, Art. 5] Whether We Should Always Judge According to the Written Law? Objection 1: It would seem that we ought not always to judge according to the written law. For we ought always to avoid judging unjustly. But written laws sometimes contain injustice, according to Isa. 10:1, "Woe to them that make wicked laws, and when they write, write injustice." Therefore we ought not always to judge according to the written law. Obj. 2: Further, judgment has to be formed about individual happenings. But no written law can cover each and every individual happening, as the Philosopher declares (Ethic. v, 10). Therefore it seems that we are not always bound to judge according to the written law. Obj. 3: Further, a law is written in order that the lawgiver's intention may be made clear. But it happens sometimes that even if the lawgiver himself were present he would judge otherwise. Therefore we ought not always to judge according to the written law. _On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Vera Relig. xxxi): "In these earthly laws, though men judge about them when they are making them, when once they are established and passed, the judges may judge no longer of them, but according to them." _I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1), judgment is nothing else but a decision or determination of what is just. Now a thing becomes just in two ways: first by the very nature of the case, and this is called "natural right," secondly by some agreement between men, and this is called "positive right," as stated above (Q. 57, A. 2). Now laws are written for the purpose of manifesting both these rights, but in different ways. For the written law does indeed contain natural right, but it does not establish it, for the latter derives its force, not from the law but from nature: whereas the written law both contains positive right, and establishes it by giving it force of authority. Hence it is necessary to judge according to the written law, else judgment would fall short either of the natural or of the positive right. Reply Obj. 1: Just as the written law does not give force to the natural right, so neither can it diminish or annul its force, because neither can man's will change nature. Hence if the written law contains anything contrary to the natural right, it is unjus
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   556   557   558   559   560   561   562   563   564   565   566   567   568   569   570   571   572   573   574   575   576   577   578   579   580  
581   582   583   584   585   586   587   588   589   590   591   592   593   594   595   596   597   598   599   600   601   602   603   604   605   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

written

 

natural

 

Therefore

 

judgment

 

positive

 

stated

 
nature
 
individual
 

lawgiver

 

called


contrary

 
Further
 

injustice

 

judging

 
determination
 

agreement

 

ARTICLE

 
purpose
 

rights

 

manifesting


Always

 

Whether

 

Should

 
derives
 

diminish

 
change
 

things

 

interpret

 

establish

 

persons


authority

 

giving

 

establishes

 

Written

 

unjustly

 

intention

 

happenings

 

formed

 

wicked

 

Philosopher


declares
 

happening

 

present

 

passed

 

judges

 

established

 

Objection

 

making

 

longer

 

According