This guy represents...

My boy St. Aquinas (on the left no doubt)

While there is no clear-cut definition of “the common good”, it can generally be assumed as a good designed for the benefit of all the members of the community. If anyone were left out of the realm of this common good, how could it, in fact, be common? To exclude anyone from the common good would take away from the entire meaning of the phrase. Even the weakest in a community must be included, because they still make up part of the community, and as the saying goes, the chain is only as strong as its weakest link. In theory, the system of laws that govern our society should constitute the common good, but laws are always flawed and are never perfect. Divine law should ultimately determine what is right and what is wrong, but not everyone chooses to follow divine law and therefore man-made laws must preside.

There is a difference, however, between the principles of common good and greater good. The concept of utilitarianism would suggest that the greatest happiness comes from what is good for the greatest number of people. This idea supports a complete democracy, where the will of the majority wins over the will of the minority. Two different groups of philosophers come to mind here. John Rawls would say that the common good arises from a veil of ignorance, that if we were all behind this veil we could not see or discover our situation in society and therefore could not initiate any principles to our advantage. No one could reign over anyone else, and no person or group would be favored. According to him, what is moral is what is fair for all, i.e. the common good. On the other hand, according to the British philosophers Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, happiness is the greatest good, and it comes from pleasure and the lack of pain, moreover hedonism. Mill would say to seek happiness for the greatest number of people, which directly refers to utilitarianism. However, what the greater number of people want is not always what is best or most morally just.

For instance, in a hypothetical situation where a community of people suddenly ran out of basic necessities including food and water and had no way of getting these provisions, they would most likely panic. Say after things looked gloomiest for this community someone came along and said that they could be provided with free bountiful food and water for a lifetime if they agree to establish a factory. The only thing is that in this factory a small orphan child would be enslaved for the rest of his life and the energy created from his labor would produce all the food and water for this community. This is a clear example of utilitarianism, where the good of the individual conflicts with the good of the majority. Would it be right for the community of people to agree to put up the factory where the orphan boy would slave for the rest of his life? Everyone would be benefiting except the boy. The greater good is not always right. Democracy does not always define the common good. What if a community of atheists agrees to have a nun killed because they feel she jeopardizes the safety of their community? This sounds more like a common evil than a common good.

Utilitarianism can be directly correlated with slavery in this aspect, where the claims of the majority, whites, dominated over the claims of the weaker group, blacks. While St. Thomas Aquinas had an excellent opinion on many things, it is hard to agree with his claim that slavery does not violate the natural law. His claim is quite condescending, actually. If natural law is derived from determining what is common good, and common good is what is fair for all, than there is no way slavery can be included on the common good side. Clearly African Americans gained little if not nothing from a 500-year era of slavery. The only thing they might have benefited from slavery is unity with each other. In the film On The Downward Spiral slaves would unite in the beginning to try to convert to Christianity so the white Dutch Christian slave owners would treat them equally, even though this did not work. Later in the film slaves banding together to escape or overthrow their masters, as vividly displayed with the Stone Rebellion. Other than that slavery proved to be toilsome and cruel for any slave, or for blacks in general. Even if Rawls’ view on common good was a fallacy, though, and common good referred more to hedonism and utilitarianism, how would slavery fall under this common good category? According to Mill, happiness refers to pleasure and the absence of pain. However, no pain comes from not having slaves. No one has slaves today, and having no slaves has no negative effect on anyone.

For a saint to say slavery is fine is even more irrational. To be a slave owner is like playing their god. As a slave owner, one has complete control over all the actions of their slaves. Anything the master wants he or she can get via the slave, and if the slave fails to obey, he or she gets punished. In this aspect the slave has no control over his or her own life. The slave’s life is in the hands of the master, who, in this aspect, plays a god-like figure. However, according to the Christian belief, there is only one true God, and no other gods can replace Him. How is it feasible, then, that Aquinas, a prominent Catholic philosopher, would agree that slavery was fine in accordance with the common good?

However, his views on adultery and homosexuality do hold relevant in accordance to the violation of natural law. Adultery, at least in the Catholic tradition, is one of the worst forms of mortal sin. Even to think lustfully about a woman other than one’s spouse is adultery. Adultery fundamentally can lead to worse crimes, like rape. Adultery violates the deadly sins of lust, greed, and envy. By committing this act, one is obviously lusting over someone he or she should not be, but is also envious of whomever the other person is already in a relationship with and greedy because he or she wants what they do not have, in this case a stranger in which they want to commit sexual acts with. Even if drawn away from the religious aspect of it, adultery still violates the common good. Adultery cannot be said to be good for all, or anyone at all for that matter. This grave act can lead to worse things than just infidelity. A husband might go so far as to kill the man he caught his wife cheating with. Two married people might get divorced because of infidelity and cause a great turmoil in their children’s lives. Adultery could even lead to rape, if someone gets the mindset that they can constantly get what they want and start getting more aggressive about it. Even if adultery did not violate the standard principles of society, things like murder and rape do, and infidelity in most cases takes a major toll on the persons involved, and not everyone handles it in the best manner.

Homosexuality, on the other hand, does not always violate the common good. I can see why Aquinas would say it does, being a religious figure and everything, but it does not seem to have a great impact on an entire community, at least not in these modern times. Back in the days of Thomas Aquinas homosexuality probably caused major uproar among society. Even in the bible it refers to homosexuality as a sort of undeniable evil. Corinthians 6:9-10 says:

“Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral not idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders…will inherit the kingdom of God.”

Although I agree with this passage, I do not think gays are a burden on society. Certainly they can stir up some heat among a community, but so could anyone else. The only thing I do not think homosexuals should not indulge in is marriage. That to me violates the common good. As a Christian, that destroys the sanctity of marriage, which is a holy bond between a man and woman. Also, if children are involved, that creates another whole set of problems. Kids with gay parents take a lot more grief from their peers than normal kids. Even if gay marriage was totally accepted and children grew up learning that it is right to be gay, this would conflict with the natural law, because we can only continue the human race via the joining of a man and a woman, but if homosexual marriage becomes more and more accepted and popular, the human race will slowly become extinct, and God’s plan to continue the advancement of humans will be foiled. Even if God is taken out of the equation, humans cannot possibly consider it the common good to allow themselves to become extinct because they choose to avoid reproduction with the opposite sex. Thus, homosexuality, or at least gay marriage, violates the common good.

Even though his position on slavery can easily be argued against, I do not believe Aquinas’ theory of natural law is refuted. Part of his reasoning comes from the era from which he lived. In his time slavery was widely accepted, whereas today even the thought of slavery is greatly shunned. It is not so much about slavery as it is about the principle of natural law in general. Aquinas says that people can reason well enough to make good decisions, and that people should stick to customs, because to break customs could destroy a community. These are viewpoints that still hold true today. The thing is that modern times have significantly changed from Aquinas’ era. While he could have included slavery when preaching to his community, it is still broad enough of a view to apply to us today as well. Therefore, while Aquinas may have been wrong about slavery, he was right about his overall thesis of natural law and common good, and I don’t think one little flaw in his explanation of natural law would refute his entire argument. Besides, he explains that where we question natural law, we should refer to Scripture. He obviously knew that his natural law theory could never be perfect and that there would always be questions about it. I think it is more of a guide, not to be taken critically, because we must all still make our own decisions. Aquinas was just one man with his own point of view. What he explained as natural law could easily be bended to fit anyone’s personal ethics and morals. No theory is concrete, which is why they are theories. I do not believe Aquinas’ theory of natural law can be completely contested because it serves as a guide for which we can take ideas from for our own theories of common good. We cannot base our entire ethical faith on one individual or group of philosophers. Of course the theories of philosophers are going to make sense and sound practical to live by; they are philosophers after all. They spend time theorizing and making their own opinions about things. Aquinas formulated his own opinion about natural law, and that does not mean everyone has to take it to heart. Instead, his theory should be used as a tool for us to discover our own feelings about the common good, and no room is left to completely refute his arguments.