AM DG

Jermaine Quijano Garcia

2011-40427
Philosophy 111

Soul, Murder and God

 Everything is permissible but not everything is beneficial (1 Cor. x. 23)

This biblical quote may summarize or even synthesize all of the misconceptions and
contradictions present when an attempt to interpret the bible is made. This banner statement only
brings about more confusion in interpretation, as it already tackles the totality of what is morally
good, or what is socially acceptable. So for the sake of understanding this concept of morality, it
is necessary for the issue to be boiled down to one murder.

Murder, as defined by Saint Thomas Aquinas, is the infliction of the greatest injury on
ones neighbour (Aquinas, 1948). It would be best to focus on the idea of murder in order to
answer notion of morality in medieval and even in the present, since murder already
encompasses the idea of evil, will, punishment and sin. Murder, in this paper, will be tackled
through the philosophies of Aquinas as written in his book, Summa Theologica.

But, before we dwell further about murder, there is a great need to understand two
concepts that will lighten up doubts on the issue about God. First is the transition from the Old
Testament to the New Testament and second is on the problem of evil. When we talk about the
process of transition of the Testaments, it is in this study that we will understand why there
existed in the Bible killings and slaying that an individual might come to consider as murder.
Also, we can also see how the shift from the Old to the New Testament was a change in Gods
approach to human beings.

First of all, the Old Testament can be characterized as a period where law was given strict
implementation and value (Bailey, 1987). Meaning, there was an equal punishment for every sin
committed, especially when the sin was a direct disobedience to the Ten Commandments. We
can see in the writings of the Old Testament that there were indeed instances wherein God would
severely punish those who go against His will. In Exod. xxxii, what happened was that the
people made a calf out of gold, and they began to worship it. This angered God, and commanded
Moses to gather those who still believe in Him and to slay everyone in that camp.

Now, based on what was the prevailing pattern or characteristic during the New
Testament, we can define how God chose to reveal Himself to the people. Though it can be said
that God is the consistent forgiving and merciful one, it was mutually exclusive to God in the
Old Testament the traits of being holy, just and righteous (Schumacher). Note, however that this
does not mean that in the New Testament, God did not possess the qualities mentioned, but it
should be understood more of the manner of how God displayed and manifested the traits of
being holy, just and righteous during the Old Testament. God displayed His holiness, or how He
is incomparable to human beings, through the exercise of His Divine authority through the
punishments that He delivers to those who do not follow. It was also in this line that it was also
in the Hebrew Bible or the Old Testament when capital punishment was a socially accepted
practice (Bailey, 1987).

Next, when we talk about the New Testament, it was considered to be a period wherein
instead of law like in the Old Testament, it was gospel or grace. Grace is defined as that which is
given to us that is not deserved, like salvation. If during the Old Testament, there were a lot of
laws, but in the time of New Testament, it was summarized into two: first is to love God with all
capabilities, and second is to love your neighbour as you would love yourself. In fact, God sent
Jesus to us to serve as a balance in Gods wrath and mercifulness.

Though we can see from the transition that the traits God exemplified in each period was
different. How in the Old Testament, God displayed His wrath, and how in the New Testament,
God displayed His grace and mercy by sending out Jesus to save us from our sins. But, the fact
remains that Capital Punishment was still practiced in Judea in the early years of the New
Testament (Bailey, 1987).

Now, we move to discuss the concept of evil. Since we are talking about murder, it is an
undisputed fact that there will always be something immoral or unjust when it comes to the
taking of another persons life. So therefore, it would be valid if someone would question why
evil is present the world, given the fact that we are working on the premise that God is
omnipotent. If God is omnipotent and is good in nature, then therefore it would be easy for Him
to abolish everything that is evil. Here is where we can see how the existence of evil is justified.

In order to explain the existence of evil, it is necessary that we establish that we are
working on the premise that God gave us free will. Meaning, we are free to decide on our
decisions whether or not to do good or to do evil. If we think about it, God had two decisions in
terms of His creation of human beings. First is to create human beings who would always do
what is right. Second, is to create human beings who were free to decide on their actions (Cahn,
2006). God chose to create the latter, or those human beings who were free to choose their
decisions, because a person choosing the good action freely rather than being forced to do the
good is better.

One might ask how evil is justified in the situation mentioned above. Evil now in this
scenario is considered as necessary on the principle that God is an omnipotent Being who aims
for the attainment of good. Through the presence of evil plus the fact that an individual has the
free choice of doing what is good or evil, the individual is placed in a position of voluntarily
choosing the good over evil, which is more valuable than being forced to do so. It is through this
scenario that the individual gets to hone not only his decision making, but as well as for the
welfare of his soul since the world is considered to be a place of soul-making (Cahn, 2006).

Now that we have established all the basic premises necessary to understand the topic at
hand, we now analyse every tenet included in Saint Thomas Aquinas inquiry on murder.

On the first Article, the question that was posed was if it was unlawful to kill any living
thing. On the first level of argumentation, it was argued that it would be unlawful to kill any
living thing on the basis of first how it was stated in Divine providence that it was necessary for
us to preserve everything that God has given us. Second is how it is unlawful to take the life of
any living thing, since life is common to man, plants and animals.

Aquinas answered this by saying that it is no sin if we use something for the very purpose
of its existence. In this case, he was referring to how plants are there to sustain the lives of
animals, and how animals are there to sustain the lives of us human beings. He backed this up
by citing Gen. i. 29,30 which said that God had given us all the herb, plants and animals to serve
as sustenance to the physical needs.

First, we begin to question the idea that was stated on the first objection regarding the
idea of the preservation of life. This is to be a crucial detail in this inquiry, because of the fact
that the preservation of everything that is living will be tackled in the future articles. Next is on
Aquinas response of using something due to its purpose and end. This idea can be compared to
utilitarianism, which defines the moral right to be that action that will produce the most good
(The History of Utilitarianism, 2009). Though it may be tempting to conclude that Aquinas was
in the same line of thinking as Mills, due to his justification on the use of plants, it would be
easily disregarded due to the fact that it was not the value of the purpose of the plants and
animals that was important to Aquinas. Rather, it was the mere fact that God had commanded us
to use our resources was the one that he believed to be of more value.

Next, on his second article, the question was if it was lawful to kill sinners. This article
actually is very near, if not the very same capital punishment that is being discussed at present. It
was argued that it is a sin to kill sinners on the basis of repentance and how no good may come
out of any evil act.

Aquinas answered this by using the logic of the imperfect for the perfect. He argued that
since the imperfect plays a role for the perfect, or how an individual plays a part in the
community, it is necessary to ensure that the individual should exist for the sake of the
community, or the whole. Ergo, if the individual only exists as a burden and detriment in society,
it would only be necessary that that individual be discarded from society. In this case, the sinner
should be put to death in order to prevent the spread of his terror.

What we can notice in this second article is how Aquinas values the chance of
repentance. In his reply, he conceded to the idea that there is a need to eliminate those
detrimental to society, but they have the right to have time for repentance. He refers to this as
saving the sinner until the last judgement. But we have to question this idea since if we are to
wait for until the final judgement, there is a need to recognize those criminals who are in nature
violent, and thus reform through repentance would be not much of a possibility to happen
(Mappes & Zembaty, 1982). It could be a contention that sinners or criminals are already a
detriment in society, but the only criteria that Aquinas presented in knowing if the sin is grievous
to merit death is if the person is dangerous to others. This in nature is problematic.

There is another question that arises in this matter. If God would determine who dies and
who lives solely based on the degree of the offense that the individual has done, does that mean
that Gods notion of justice would be punishment in equal to what the offense is? We will find
that if this is the case, this is in line with present arguments coming from those who want capital
punishment to be retained. According to them, when the moral order is upset by the commission
of some offense, it is only right that the disorder be rectified by punishment equal in intensity to
the seriousness of the offense (Mappes & Zembaty, 1982). In fact, Immanuel Kant, in his
principle of retaliation, also has the same idea of justice, when he said that punishment is to be
inflicted in a measure that will equalize the offense.

Article four focuses on the power of an individual to also slay a person who has sinned.
Basically, it has been argued that it would be lawful for these individuals to kill sinners on the
grounds of fulfilment of a duty to do what is the good for all.

Aquinas answers this by defining first who has the right to decide on such matters. He
then, said that the only ones who can judge a person if deserving of death is someone who holds
a position in office. According to Aquinas, it is the job and duty of the person in office to secure
the welfare of the whole by making sure that the part or the individual is not a detriment to the
community.

It is necessary to point out that an individual may not have the qualities that a person in
office or a judge may have in order to correctly rule out a decision. According to Kant,
interpretation of moral laws is in need of a power of judgement or Urteilskraft guided by
experience (Louden, 1992). They recognize the fact that formal instructions are inadequate or are
not enough in order to produce a good judgement. Also, it is believed that those in office are
people who act Gods laws in accordance to His will. Everyone must submit himself to the
authority except that which God has established (Rom. xiii.).

On the fourth article, on the question of if it is lawful for clerics to dispose of evildoers, it
has been argued that it would be lawful given the fact that clerics are Gods ministers in Earth,
and therefore have the spiritual blessing and power of slaying evildoers.

Aquinas answers this first by differentiating the public authority with the cleric.
According to Aquinas, the public authority (as proved in article 3) has all the power to put
sinners to death as Gods appointed men of law. Clerics now have the spiritual connection with
God, but it does not necessarily mean that they are to meddle with the duties of those in office.
Aquinas provides us with two points on this. First is that the clerics are to practice the ministry of
the Altar, which is to not strike back even when struck (1 Pet. ii. 23). Second point is on how the
clerics should follow the New Law, or what is stated in the New Testament, which focuses
more on mercy and grace rather than law.
 The question arises on the idea that is being forwarded by the first point. If clerics are
then not allowed to strike back when struck, does this mean that clerics are forbidden to practice
self defense? The answer would be different based on interpretations. If a person will interpret
based on what has been said in the first point, then this would definitely be forbidden. But, one
can also look at the perspective of intention, wherein it can be argued that the cleric did not have
the intention of killing, but rather of self-preservation.

The fifth article is mainly concerned if suicide is just or not. According to the arguments
presented, it is just to kill ones self if the person himself is a sinner and if the act is done in order
to avoid a greater evil.

Aquinas answers this by first establishing the premise that there exists an innate love for
ones self and therefore, any act that would bring an absence of love is unlawful. In this case, the
person deprives himself of the chance to repent for his sins, which means deprivation of a chance
to be a better person. Another premise that Aquinas established goes back on the idea of how an
individual is part of the whole. Therefore, if a person who is part of the community, kills himself,
he then injures and maims the community as a whole. The last point is on how an individual has
no right, whether he is part of public office, to judge himself.

The point to be discussed in this article is on the argument of killing ones self in order to
prevent a greater evil. The example used in this case is that if a woman who was sexually
violated wanted to be free of the humiliation of committing such a sin would then decide to kill
herself in order to do so. It was argued by Aquinas that the value of consent plays a big role in
judging if a person did commit a sin or not. On the first point, it is not for the person to decide if
she really is saved from a greater sin when she kills herself. In fact, the act of suicide even is a
greater sin than being violated (on the assumption of no consent). Second, in the process of
death, there is no assurance that the fate of that individual will be better, as God is the only one
who can decide on this.

The sixth article states that it is not a sin to kill an innocent man on the argument that it
would be more of an evil to kill a sinner than an innocent man because the innocent, when killed,
will ascend into heaven and leave the uncertainties and sorrow of this world. But, the most
controversial of the arguments is in the situation when a judge decides to execute an innocent on
the basis of the evidence present.

Aquinas goes on and counters this by proving that it is lawful to kill an innocent man on
the basis of his contributions in the community. If a sinner is considered as a detriment in society,
then the innocent man is one who contributes most to the welfare and improvement of society. In
the killing of the innocent, the premise of injuring the community is applicable here. Also, it was
argued by Aquinas that in order to understand the gravity of a sin, and in this case the case of
killing the sinner and the innocent, we have to consider the nature. Killing the innocent would
mean hurting who which deserves more of our love and charity.

The very point in this article is how there is a great responsibility tied to a judge in terms
of decision making. Without the qualifications for proper judgement, there really would be
instances that would make the judge prone to mistakes. As how Aquinas argued it, it would not
be a sin of the judge if he makes the wrong decision of executing an innocent man, (on the
assumption that the judge has the qualities of doing the job) but the sin will go to those who have
condemned the innocent man.

The second to the last of the articles, on self defense, may be one of the most crucial of
all the articles stated next to article 2, or on capital punishment. In the arguments, it has been said
that it would be lawful to kill a man in self defense is basically because how it is not right to take
the life of another in order to preserve ones own life.

Aquinas now answers this by using the idea of intentions. According to Aquinas, an
action has two effects, but only one is the desired. In the case of a man being killed due to the
self defense of another, the desired effect or intention is the preservation of self, not the death of
another. This is not in itself unlawful because it is only natural for a being to keep itself in being
or preserved.

The idea of intention here requires more analysis in order to understand. According to
Aquinas inquiry on intentions, he defined intention as to tend something. He further added
that intention is an act of the will. Given the definitions of intention, it is basically the desired
end that a person wants, or it is what the person would will. Now, when we talk about the will,
there are the two types. First is the necessary will, and second is the free will. The necessary will
is that which is of absolute necessity, like how food is necessary for survival. Without these
necessities, the desired end or will will not be attained. On the other hand, we have the free will.
In the free will, man has the option to either do good or do evil. It is in this idea where we find
the value of intention in the case of self defense.

A person whose intention is solely based on self-preservation, then it means that he is

working under a good will. A good will is defined to be that principle that plays a role in
avoiding an act to become extremely bad (Bronstein, Krikorian, & Wiener, 1972). So, if a man
under the context of self defense, would intend the death of another man, then here we find that
the desire or will of that individual is not of the good.

Though Aquinas justifies the lawfulness of self defense, he still recognizes the limitations
innate to this. It was then unlawful for men in self defense to exert or use excessive violence to
mitigate the attack.

Lastly, the arguments in the eighth article tried to prove that it is unlawful if in the event
that a death of an individual occurs by chance.

Aquinas answers this in the basis again of the intentions mentioned in article seven. He
said that what should a person focus on is the intended, not the unintentional end. Though what
Aquinas did was to present criteria in order to still give justice to deaths that occur by chance. A
first criterion is that the person who was the cause of the death of another should be in a lawful
occupation so as to give assurance that the work done is in no way of hazard to anyone. The
second is that the person should always be aware of avoiding carelessness.

Now that the eight articles of Saint Thomas Aquinas on murder was presented, I find it
necessary to critique the morality of Aquinas in relation to criteria of measuring morality that
somewhat tackled Kantian philosophy. (Note however that the measure will only cover the
discussion of Aquinas inquiry on murder)

First is the characteristic of a morally excellent individual to view morality as a means to

forward the improvement of the soul and self (Louden, 1992). Part of this characteristic is to
fulfil ones active social duties. In Aquinas inquiry on murder, it is clear that the intention of
improving ones self is present. It can be proved by the fact that the study of knowing what is just
and unjust in murder is in itself a way to forward the improvement of the soul. Without proper
knowledge and awareness of what is just and unjust, a person is prone to commit an injustice to
others, and to himself.

Second characteristic is how a morally excellent individual will put the burden on himself
to promote the interest and development of all other people (Louden, 1992). Moreover, Kant
defines this moral duty of people as to promote with all our powers the highest good in the
world. On the initial analysis, it would be clear to say that the study of the lawfulness of murder
would always be equated in promoting the development of society. If we go back to his writings,
we can see how he characterized the public authority as a person who aims to promote the
welfare of the whole, or the community by judging the individual.

The last characteristic is how a morally excellent individual fulfils his duties in justice
and respect through respect of all people and especially himself. Further, his commitment to
respect and justice limits the moral individual to what they will allow themselves to do to others
and themselves (Louden, 1992). In this characteristic, the author provided a situation that proves
how one responds to his duty of respect and justice. There is no need for innocent persons to
suffer for the sake of the majority, much like how one is not obligated to die for the lives of five.
Again, Aquinas inquiry on murder even empowered the individual by stating how it is unlawful
for the individual to commit suicide. And, this suitably summarizes the principle behind the
arguments of Aquinas on murder: that in the fulfilment of the moral individual of his duties to
respect and justice, one must be able to assert the importance of protecting the community.

Is everything permissible? We find that with the free will that God has given us, He has
imposed on us a challenge that will surely test if we are morally excellent individuals. It is true
that everything is permissible but not beneficial. Those that are not beneficial are that have in
store for them punishments equal to the degree of the offense made. Those beneficial are the
decisions that we make with good intentions and will that is for the improvement and
development of our spiritual well-being. We have to be aware that the evil present in our world
are opportunities to showcase our good will and intentions, and we must take it into ourselves to
heed to call to morality and to live a life of goodness.
Bibliography

The History of Utilitarianism. (2009, March 27). Retrieved March 9, 2013, from
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/utilitarianism-history/

(n.d.). The Bible. In P. t. Apostle, First book of Peter.

Aquinas, T. (1948). Summa Theologica (Vol. III). New York: Benziger Bros.

Aquinas, T. (1948). Summa Theologica (Vol. II). New York: Benziger Bros.

Bailey, L. (1987). Capital Punishment: What the Bible Says. Tennessee: Abingdon
Press.

Bronstein, D., Krikorian, Y., & Wiener, P. (1972). Basic Problems of Philosophy. New
Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Cahn, S. (2006). God, Reason and Religion. New York: Thomson Wadsworth.

Creech, C. (2011). The Difference Between the Old Testament and the New
Testament. Retrieved March 10, 2013, from Bible Gems:
http://www.biblegems.com/DIFFERENCE_OT_NT.HTM

Kagan, S. (1989). The Limits of Morality. New York: Oxford University Press.

Louden, R. (1992). Morality and Moral Theory: A Reappraisal and Reaffirmation. New
York: Oxford University Press.

Mappes, T., & Zembaty, J. (1982). Social Ethics. United States: McGraw-Hill Inc.

(n.d.). The Bible. In Moses, Exodus.

(n.d.). The Bible. In Moses, Genesis.

(n.d.). The Bible. In Paul, Corinthians.

(n.d.). The Bible. In Paul, Romans.

Pegis, A. (1945). Basic Writings of Saint Thomas Aquinas. New York: Random House
Inc.

Schumacher, R. (n.d.). Is the God of the Old Testament a Merciless Monster?

Retrieved March 11, 2013, from Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry:
http://carm.org/god-of-old-testament-a-monster