Summa Theologica (1265-74) – Thomas Aquinas

Foundation of Political Economy

Topic: Summa Theologica (1265-74) – Thomas Aquinas

Essay 1: 1014 words

Question 1:

From the reading, we can see that Thomas countered arguments from the legal, historical and psychological perspectives. In respect of legal aspect, he cited civil law of Cod. IV, xliv, De Rescind. Vend. 8,15 to explain that it is acceptable for deception between buyer and seller. Law is made to protect people from being deprived, yet cheating is a kind of human behavior which cannot be restricted. Unless the excess is too great, the law cannot punish any cases regarding personal virtue. Moreover, the term “just” cannot be estimated by mathematical precision, there is ambiguity in the definition of “just” among the law, seller and the buyer.

As written in Objection 2, he mentioned that there was one buyer who bought a book and pretended to be dissatisfied with the price to ask for a lower price. He then boasted to his friends after the little trick. It is evident to observe that reality is wicked, and there is greed in human nature. The common desire of taking advantage of others is inborn with one another. Therefore it is just a natural phenomenon to cheat in favour of getting benefits.

“Like” is a very subjective concept; you never understand why someone likes a certain thing. Thus if a buyer is on mutual agreement with the seller to buy something priced at a premium, it is understandable that the receiver is in great need of that thing for taking that offer. The utility of the thing cannot be measured by one’s standard. It is the friendship in forming the deal. And we can finalise that the usefulness accruing is equal to the thing priced that the “value” of a thing has no definite answer.

From all the above three arguments, I fall for this stance as this tends to be more “realistic”; I believe that a country will never be prosperous or strong if there is no one being deprived of or underprivileged. “The fittest will survive”, it is fair enough to take advantage of others to an acceptable extent.

Question 2:

Aquinas basically stated his counterargument saying that it is sinful to devise a fraud by selling a thing for more than its just price. Once again, it comes back to the idea of “just”, first, let us separate the buyer and seller. A person shares common advantage with the other person through an establishment of a contract; someone requires something which originally belonged to the seller, and he or she is happy to purchase, and vice versa, money can be the “commodity” the seller is in need of too. Thus, if one did not add burden to another party as a consequence of the deal; it should be fine.

Some people say the quality of a thing is dependent on the price amounted to it; therefore it came the invention of money. During barber times, there was not any issue about “just”. For the fact that in ancient times, you trade in something you have whilst others are in need of for something you really want. Therefore, the existence of equality of justice can never be measured on a simultaneous level. It can only be measured by the degree how a person really likes that thing, and the desire to get it, and is willing to dedicate an amount that two parties agree on the same page.

Besides, if one party is “accidentally” taking advantage of another party, it should not be said to be unlawful or sinful either in the case of if one person gets something from the other person, they reach a consensus and the deal is done; then the buyer sells it to another person at the same price. No parties are harmed because the original seller is not at a loss. However, if this is a pawn shop, a father is selling the heirloom he has got to save his dying son’s life, no matter the shop owner gives him a fair amount of money or just little money; there is legal regulation to protect both parties.