Mahatma Gandhi and Thomas Aquinas were two of the most influential philosophers of their respective times. Aquinas’s theological ideas on politics, ethics, and natural law have influenced have been a great influence western civilization and he is also held in high regard within the Catholic faith tradition, being honored as a saint. Gandhi was an influential leader in the movement for India’s freedom from British rule. He preached a philosophy of nonviolent civil disobedience and is held as the inspiration for civil rights leaders and non-violent activists around the world. Both philosophers sought to instruct others on how to live a virtuous life and help contribute towards the common good of all people. However, Aquinas and Gandhi hold different views on how their shared goal is to be met. When comparing the two philosophies, one finds that Thomas Aquinas’s philosophy of natural law is superior to Gandhi’s philosophy of Satyagraha since it allows individuals and countries a way to justifiably defend themselves against those who wish to do them harm. Thomas Aquinas held the view that violence was necessary when it was justified and meant to ensure the common good. Thomas Aquinas’s philosophy can be broken down into one easy to remember phrase, ““Good is to be done and pursued and evil is to be avoided.” All other precepts of the natural law are based on this” (Aquinas I-II.94.2). Aquinas’s bases his entire philosophy around the simple idea that evil should be shunned from individual’s lives and they should instead focus on the good. Yet, Aquinas did foresee that in certain cases, violence and war were necessary to ensure the common good, “Therefore, if a man be dangerous and infectious to the community, on account of some sin,... ... middle of paper ... ...he Taliban would cease its violence ways if American military operations ceased since they operate under the belief that what they are doing is morally right. In this case, the threat of physical harm is the only motivation strong enough to get these individuals to lay down their arms. Thomas Aquinas’s philosophy of natural law allows one to better act for the common good than Gandhi’s philosophy of Satyagraha since it allows individuals and countries a way to justifiably defend themselves against those who wish to do them harm. Violence for the sake of violence is never justified, however, one must have the courage and strength to stand up to those who do evil and do what is necessary to stop them. It may come at a great personal cost, however, no matter what physical pain or injury one may endure, one should compromise their morality and turn a blind eye to evil.
Among some of the subjects that Aquinas tackles in On Law, Morality, and Politics is the dilemma of War and Killing. Aquinas sums up the legality of war through three criteria: that the war waged is done by a legitimate authority, that the war is just because the enemy has done something grossly wrong, and the intention of the war is to solely right the wrong. Also we see Aquinas say that the killing of an innocent person is justified if God will's it.
Conflict is constant. It is everywhere. It exists within one’s own mind, different desires fighting for dominance. It exists outside in nature, different animals fighting for the limited resources available, and it exists in human society, in the courts. It can occur subtly, making small changes that do not register consciously, and it can occur directly and violently, the use of pure strength, whether physical, social, economic, or academic, to assert dominance and achieve one’s goals; this is the use of force. Yet, with the use of force, the user of force is destined to be one day felled by it. “He who lives by the sword will die by the sword.”
...xtent Gandhi achieved a moral victory as well as a political one. For adherents of faiths that encourage peace, it is also a religious one.
Aquinas as a medieval Catholic scholar reconciled the political philosophy of Aristotle with Christian faith, resulting in an understanding that a just ruler or government must work for the “common good” of all. Aquinas thought that one should believe only what is self-evident or that could be deduced from self-evident propositions. (Parmann)
Martin Luther King once said, “Nonviolence means avoiding not only external physical violence but also internal violence of spirit. You not only refuse to shoot a man, but you refuse to hate him”. Throughout history, people have committed numerous acts of crime from stealing to fighting, to war. These acts of violence had never done any good to mankind but had continuously harmed mankind. Mahatma Gandhi was a leader who had promoted and inspired people across the world to continue the acts of Ahimsa. Gandhi spread his acts of Ahimsa inspiring the American Civil Rights Movement, Nelson Mandela, and Harper Lee showing that Gandhi’s beliefs of non violence should be continued.
Martin Luther King, Jr. once said, “If humanity is to progress, Gandhi is inescapable… We may ignore him at our own risk.” King cited Gandhi as one of his biggest inspirations, which should come as no surprise, as Gandhi helped end racism towards as many if not more people than King himself. Gandhi pioneered the use of what he called satyagraha, or political change through nonviolence, and helped bring millions of India’s oppressed to equality. Lord Mountbatten, the last British ruler of India, is quoted as saying, “Mahatma Gandhi will go down in history on a par with Buddha and Jesus Christ.” There is no denying the truth in this statement because of the way he had a profound impact on the lives of those around him, just like these other two famous figures of history. Gandhi may have been very small man, relatively speaking, but he grew to be a giant in the eyes of the world.
Mohandas K. Gandhi, a great Indian philosopher, wrote the essay “My Faith in Nonviolence”. His essay focuses on the use of nonviolence means on overthrowing the British rule of India. Gandhi’s main claim on this essay is that love is the higher law of life and that “every problem lends itself to solution” (p. 203) , if we followed that law.
This is an essay about Mahatma Gandhi and his beliefs about the world, and his belief compared to what I believe and think about the world and how it works. I will be covering the points of non-violence, gods and higher power beliefs and the true behavior of people and what Gandhi and I believe about these points. Also the Hindu beliefs of Satya, Ahimsa, and Brahmacharya.
The country that I now deeply love, and even get a little teary eyed when I sing the National Anthem, did not used to be so welcoming to me and people like me. Before my time there were laws against African-Americans living a normal life. A normal life many before me fought for. Life in the 1950’s was not the easiest for African-Americans. Many Whites still saw African-Americans as an inferior race. This meant many simple everyday task were that much harder for Africans-Americans. Housing Segregation, discrimination in courts, discrimination in public places prevented many African Americans from living the American Dream. All of these examples are only the tip of the ice berg. Going out to eat, shopping, even just going for a Sunday afternoon stroll in the park was nearly impossible. Living was hard for African-Americans as well as trying to work. Many men tried to get work but could not because even though slavery was gone segregation as well as discrimination was thriving. Many African-American men may have been well qualified for a job but would be over looked merely for the fact the color of their skin was two shades too dark. In spite of the double standard in society African-Americans were allowed to fight in American wars. While African-American men were struggling to get simple jobs even hard labor jobs nobody wanted Uncle Sam had no problem sending them to the front lines to fight for their country. African- Americans were allowed to fight in the Army and lay their lives on the line for a country that could not even stand to have little white children and little black children sit in the same class room. While African-Americans were allowed to fight in the Army they were not allowed to be in a same platoon as White men. T...
...Because of Gandhi’s power, his flaw, and his catastrophe, one would say that Gandhi fits the model of a Greek tragic hero. Gandhi’s power was his heightened goodness, proven by his innumerable civil disobedience acts, where he continued to fight even while he was regularly jailed. His flaw was his tolerance and acceptance of everyone which led to his catastrophic assassination by Nathuram Godse. Gandhi’s teachings of nonviolence and peace still live on today, as they have inspired many other human rights leaders, such as Martin Luther King Jr. and Nelson Mandela. Gandhi’s teachings are responsible for the successes of civil rights movements in other countries. He not only helped free India from British rule, but also gave people new thoughts about violence and imperialism around the world. Even today, India continues to live and remember the tutelage of Gandhi.
life based on this doctrine. Non-violence looks good on paper, and seems like it would function
Mahatma Gandhi was an exceptional and prominent leader of the British-rule India. According to Gandhi, civil disobedience is much more dominant than a violent act. That is the main reason as to why he concentrated on redirecting much of his attention at leading non-violent movements to challenge the British government. Civil disobedience is more powerful than violence because the philosophical idea is not a violent approach and can influence a lot of people. It is worth to remembering that very few people have willing hearts of jeopardizing their lives in violence to acquire what they want as distinguished to civil disobedience. In fact, civil disobedience is reflected as the most modest initiative for addressing issues and challenges that
Conflict and violence is around us throughout the world and the mass media has made a huge impact of what we think of violence and the relation to religion, especially in the last couple of years. In addition violence has been considered as being part of human nature and comes from our biological structure of aggression. It is an out let for us to relieve stress levels and some believe that it can be a device of vengeance and a positive mechanism to human survival. For example it is a system for the survival of the fittest and reproduction. Another way that we can look at it on a different spectrum is the way religious beliefs utilise non violent mechanisms that try to diminish the impacts of aggressive behaviour. When we think of religion and violence we do not think to situate them together. This is because “theologically, it can certainly be concluded that all religions have the goal of peace” . People who are outsider of a religious tradition can make many generalisations. In this essay it will discuss why some religious traditions in South East Asia oppose violence. In addition the rejections of violence have shaped and changed religious practices within Jainism, Hinduism and Buddhism. There have also been many generalisations about the above traditions. Moreover I will try and answer why non violence has become a generalisation and how it has impacted India as a whole.
When one hears the word violence one typically thinks of sordid images. This is because violence has developed a negative connotation. When one thinks of violent acts or cruel methods like coercion it is frequently correlated with evil. But there are instances in which there is a need to commit brutalities in order to put an end to catastrophes and help the good prevail. Many posit the notion that nothing good will ever come from violence while neglecting the positive things that have emerged from it. It may seem illogical but since kindness is often abused one needs to resort to violent means to demand justice and peace. Violence is gradually converting into a virtue as it becomes an imperative component in making progressive reforms. In order for one to triumph one must be dauntingly assertive even if it means turning to violence. Using forceful tactics should not necessarily make one malicious if the reasons behind them are benevolent. Violent acts are justified as long as they’re done for the greater good, solve disputes, and serve justice. And what better way to prove this than with legit historical facts.
In question 94 of his On Law, Morality, and Politics, Thomas Aquinas initiates his interpretation of natural law. He defines law as, “an ordinance of reason for the common good by one competent to make it, and promulgated” (10). Here, he suggests law is derived from an act of reason which commands or prohibits. Thus, it compels behavior. It must be rational and ordered to the common good of a community. Throughout On Law, Morality, and Politics, Aquinas analyzes four kinds of law: human, divine, eternal, and natural. Although human law is integral for the order of society, humans require more in order to live virtuous lives. Therefore, natural law is important due to its focus on human beings and their societies, as well as for its interconnected