Aquinas And Ghandi's Argument Analysis

The argument presented by St. Thomas Aquinas is superior to the argument presented by Ghandi because it is consistent with and in accordance to what know to be truths concerning justice. But before we discuss the merits of the arguments, it is important to state why murder is wrong and why killing is not wrong. Based on the most undeniably objective moral truths, all human beings have natural rights or natural entitlements, or natural abilities inherent in their nature, regardless of the existence of contracts, covenants, or sovereigns. Of these rights, the right of life, the right of self-defense, and the right to pursue one’s happiness will be the most pertinent to the works of Aquinas and Ghandi regarding war. Murder strips away a human
Therefore, I did not go into detail of proof or how these ideas are more truth than other ideas regarding rights. If we are to reject moral relativism, Individualism is the truest of all ideas. There is no denying the existence of natural entitlements inherent in the nature of
Aquinas stipulates that just wars must be declared by sovereign power. Although Ghandi’s reasoning forbids war, if we are to substitute Ghandi’s actions such as protest in place of war, we see that even Ghandi’s methods require sovereign declaration because action on behalf of others requires consent to avoid authoritarian injustice. Consent is inherent within the contract between the citizenry and state; a private citizen cannot represent the citizenry. A possible objection to the point above would be to claim Ghandi’s way is applicable to the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s in the United States, and this serves as proof to validate Gandhi’s way. This objection ignores the fact the Civil Rights Movement did not meet the criteria of just cause according to Aquinas because means of war would not have been proportional to the injustice. Aquinas explicitly states that only states may declare war and individuals may seek redress via the courts of the state. When it comes to issues where justice cannot be sought within the boundaries of the state, such as invasion or genocide or tyranny, just cause may be applicable.

Furthermore, those who have follow the path to justice using Ghandi’s way do so at the expense of those facing injustice at the present time, thus, this way is not true justice. Ghandi’s argument is an argument of appeasement. The passive resistance is complicit in injustice since it