Aquinas Unjust

doesn’t hold the potential of only ordaining just laws. To fully understand Aquinas’s statement, ‘an unjust law is no law at all’ (19), it is necessary to differentiate between just and unjust laws. Just laws are all rulings that establish equality, are practiced for the common good of everyone, and it shouldn’t be a burden on any individual. Unjust laws on the contrary, embodies tyranny, opposes divine good and sets ‘disproportionate burdens’ (21) on people. This unequivocal difference allows one to recognize why human laws can’t preach justice in its entirety. At times, humans are encouraged by vice, evil and lack virtue; and the decisions and judgements made aren’t logical but the result of such temperaments. The meaning of

If any of these conditions were excluded, the ruling would be an unjust law; and if a person established a law, having no authority, it would be called ‘judgement by usurpation’ (30). These requirements allow one to easily translate Aquinas’s proclamation, ‘an unjust law is no law at all.’ This is a accurate and fitting statement in all categories of all. The role of laws is to lay out an ordinance and rules that promote safety, peace, equality and justice. The meaning of this statement reflects morality, as a sense of justice is relative to morals and ethical decisions. If a law fails to fulfill its fundamental purpose of being just, then it cannot be recognized as being a law at all. Any rule cannot implement good or benefit if it isn’t based upon a moralistic value such as rightness and justice. Since in today’s time, humans are most abiding of human law, it is considerable to relate Aquinas’s statement to this type of law. Bounded by their limited knowledge of any presented matter, humans cannot execute pure just laws. Lawmakers may reach a judgement that may victual a solution for a crime or vice, but they are not capable of absolute impartiality and veracity. Any litigation would be dependent on the evidence, witnesses, and granted knowledge. This is

The role of a providence in such laws, allows no room for fault and error. Hence, if a law is obeyed under these two categories, it’s for the common good and serves justice. The standpoint of this essay is in agreement with Aquinas’s view. It is certain that an unjust law cannot be a law in the remotest sense, for all laws would be incomplete when it doesn’t practice fairness. Reason must be present in decisions that aren’t made as judgements for the common good of all. The result of the law and judgement should also be concerned with the betterment and welfare of the people; an example of the contrary happening is presented in the matter of trade agreements. Joseph Stiglitz states that, “the developing countries were worried that another unfair trade agreement would be foisted upon them, (one which, like the last), would leave some of them actually worse off.” (80) Some laws and judgements are focused to benefit those who are in a better social, financial and political standing than others. In such cases, the concept of law is being abused and taken for granted, further proving the fault in human