How do the political theories of Aristotle and Aquinas differ? Be sure to mention in what way(s) each
thinker's view reflects the Zeitgeist of his particular era. Likewise, be sure to mention the role that religion plays in
the difference between the philosophies of these two thinkers."
Answer:
Although Aquinas's political philosophy relies heavily on Aristotle, it is misleading to think that the differences between the two are merely cosmetic. In what follows, I will show that Aristotle's and Aquinas's political theories are, in fact, quite different and that these differences are due to religious elements that Aquinas adds. First, (1) I will show how Aquinas and Aristotle differ on the issue of how and when we can obtain happiness, an issue that arises on account of Aquinas's religious convictions. Then, (2) I will look at how the two thinkers conceive of the proper role of government. Finally, (3) I will address the topic of what each thinker sees as the best form of government.
While Aristotle and Aquinas both see happiness as the goal toward which humans strive, they disagree on the issue of how one obtains happiness. Reflecting the "religious" ideas of his day, Aristotle had no conception of an afterlife. As a result, he understood happiness only as something that could be achieved within one's present life on earth. Aquinas, on the other hand, believed that true happiness could only be achieved when one is intimately and eternally acquainted with God (Lawhead 194). In his view, this cannot be achieved by any person during his or her time on earth. Hence, for Aquinas, true happiness can only be realized in the afterlife. Yet, how one leads one's earthly existence can influence what one can achieve in the afterlife. So, Aquinas does not completely discount earthly existence.
Secondly, Aquinas and Aristotle disagree about the role that a government is supposed to play in bringing about happiness.
There is one similarity between the two thinkers in that both agree that a government must promote and support earthly wellbeing. That is, the nature or quality of the state in which people live, does, in fact, play a large role in how happy the citizens can be. Yet, as was mentioned above, Aristotle recognized no other life than the one that people lead here on earth. On his account, the way in which an earthly government functions is intimately connected with everyone's ultimate happiness (Lawhead 196). Aquinas differs from this view because he recognizes the afterlife as a major component of a person's happiness. For him, it is the government's job to foster conditions within society that will best promote a person's ability to be happy in the afterlife. Thus, for Aquinas, a government that is always in turmoil or one that does not foster learning or support religion is doing a disservice to its citizens because the citizens will not have the proper tools and training that will enable them to attain true happiness in the afterlife. Here we see a major difference between the two philosophers. For Aristotle, the government is the only factor in a person's happiness. For Aquinas, it is ultimately religion and one's religious commitment that determine how happy one will be in the afterlife. Thus, for him, the secular government must be subordinate to the aims of the Church. It is the job of secular governments to make it as easy as possible for the Church to attend to matters that concern the person's afterlife. For Aristotle, if a government is bad, the citizens cannot be truly happy. For Aquinas, on the other hand, a person can be truly happy – in the afterlife – even if his or her government is bad; however, it is much easier for the person to attend to religious matters when the government is good.
