How many more must die for the throne? or How to combat FUD! - Part 2 - Update 1 (Wherein Tradical Responds to Smith)

 +

JMJ

 A reader by the handle of Smith offered a solution to the discussion between Murrax and myself (link).

Here is his first claim ...

The dispute between you and Murrax lies in the fact that your Decision Tree leaves out an ESSENTIAL element of St. Thomas' doctrine on true obedience.He defines Human Positive Law as "an ordinance of reason, for the common good, promulgated by a legitimate authority". (I-II Q.90, a4).You have completely left out the REASON part.

I believe that he is correct, I missed this. However, I don't think it means what he thinks it means as he assumes that 'ordinance of reason' means a rational order. Which is why he makes the following assertion.

St. Thomas very clearly teaches that, if an authority, even legitimate, gives an order that is obviously irrational, it is NOT A REAL LAW, and need not be obeyed. This is firstly because irrationality itself takes a command outside of the definition of law, and secondly because obeying irrational commands is usually harmful to the common good. One CAN obey it, but only if doing so is not sinful in itself, and if obeying it will not cause harm. 

I did a little research into the meaning of 'ordinance of reason', because I know that the English is hundreds of years old, so phrases may not mean the same thing and Smith has definitely made an assumption.

Here's the article Smith cited:

Whether promulgation is essential to a law?

Objection 1: It would seem that promulgation is not essential to a law. For the natural law above all has the character of law. But the natural law needs no promulgation. Therefore it is not essential to a law that it be promulgated.

Objection 2: Further, it belongs properly to a law to bind one to do or not to do something. But the obligation of fulfilling a law touches not only those in whose presence it is promulgated, but also others. Therefore promulgation is not essential to a law.

Objection 3: Further, the binding force of a law extends even to the future, since "laws are binding in matters of the future," as the jurists say (Cod. 1, tit. De lege et constit. leg. vii). But promulgation concerns those who are present. Therefore it is not essential to a law.

On the contrary, It is laid down in the Decretals, dist. 4, that "laws are established when they are promulgated."

I answer that, As stated above (A[1]), a law is imposed on others by way of a rule and measure. Now a rule or measure is imposed by being applied to those who are to be ruled and measured by it. Wherefore, in order that a law obtain the binding force which is proper to a law, it must needs be applied to the men who have to be ruled by it. Such application is made by its being notified to them by promulgation. Wherefore promulgation is necessary for the law to obtain its force.

Thus from the four preceding articles, the definition of law may be gathered; and it is nothing else than an ordinance of reason for the common good, made by him who has care of the community, and promulgated.

Reply to Objection 1: The natural law is promulgated by the very fact that God instilled it into man's mind so as to be known by him naturally.

Reply to Objection 2: Those who are not present when a law is promulgated, are bound to observe the law, in so far as it is notified or can be notified to them by others, after it has been promulgated.

Reply to Objection 3: The promulgation that takes place now, extends to future time by reason of the durability of written characters, by which means it is continually promulgated. Hence Isidore says (Etym. v, 3; ii, 10) that "lex [law] is derived from legere [to read] because it is written."

Source: Summa

Then I did a quick google check for a definition of this and surprise Wikipedia has a good reference:

 

Treatise on Law is Thomas Aquinas' major work of legal philosophy. It forms questions 90–108 of the Prima Secundæ ("First [Part] of the Second [Part]") of the Summa Theologiæ,^[1] Aquinas' masterwork of Scholastic philosophical theology. Along with Aristotelianism, it forms theAquinas' notion of law

Aquinas defines a law as "an ordinance of reason for the common good, made by him who has care of the community, and promulgated."

Law is an ordinance of reason because it must be reasonable or based in reason and not merely in the will of the legislator. It is for the common good because the end or telos of law is the good of the community it binds, and not merely the good of the lawmaker or a special interest group. It is made by the proper authority who has "care of the community", and not arbitrarily imposed by outsiders. It is promulgated so that the law can be known.

accorsing to aquinas law is about good thingStrictly speaking, this is a definition of human law. The term "law" as used by Aquinas is equivocal, meaning that the primary meaning of law is "human law", but other, analogous concepts are expressed with the same term. basis for the legal theory of Catholic canon law.^[2] 

Source: Wikipedia

So the law needs to be based in reason or reasonable, however St. Thomas earlier states:

 A law, properly speaking, regards first and foremost the order to the common good.

Grammatically breaking down St. Thomas' definition of law we have:

• ordinance of reason for the common good,
•  made by him who has care of the community, 
• and promulgated
  

Taking these together, the 'ordinance of reason' is not separate from the common-good. The order needs to be based in reason and  ordinanted for the common-good. Otherwise it is not for the common-good. The common-good is the sphere of their authority, so if it is just because they want it that way without any basis in reason, then they are acting the part of the tyrant.

So, it seems to me that just because someone believes it to be irrational to be ordered to wear a mask, does not make it a fact. 

P^3

P.S I may revisit this later ....

Update 1:

Smith as posted two comments:

SmithMarch 23, 2021 at 1:35 AM

Dear Tradical,

First you say that I am making an assumption when I say that " 'ordinance of reason' means a rational order".

Then you go to considerable trouble of due diligence -- something quite deserving of respect and which few people do -- to study how St. Thomas himself defines 'law'.
The upshot though is that you discover exactly what I discovered when I myself went to that trouble: to wit, Law is an ordinance of reason, for the common good, promulgated by him who has (legitimate) authority over a community.
But can you explain how an 'ordinance [command] of reason' does NOT mean 'a *rational* order [command]'?
If not, how was it that I made an assumption, rather than a simple statement of fact?

I wholeheartedly agree that a mere *belief* that an order to wear a mask is irrational does not make it irrational in fact, but I do NOT believe such an order is irrational, I KNOW it is.

In the present circumstances and for the supposed reasons given by the authorities, it is a *fact* that wearing a mask is irrational. That is exactly why I say that the mask laws are not real laws. They do not fulfill the condition (essential to the very nature of human law) that the command be rational, because the command is not in accord with the facts as to whether masks actually *work* to slow or stop the spread of viral diseases. Nor, even if masks did work, is the command in accord with the facts concerning the true threat of COVID, which is small as balanced against the social and other harms caused by wearing them, or the fact that we are already over a year into COVID, so that herd immunity has been reached anyway, etc.

These facts are NOT matters of belief or opinion.

Admittedly, however, one has to do due diligence, and quite a bit of it, to verify this for oneself. And this is especially difficult given the severe oppression of truth perpetrated by the medical and media Powers That Shouldn't Be.

Wow, you have packed in quite a lot of things.

Did you read this bit: 

Law is an ordinance of reason because it must be reasonable or based in reason and not merely in the will of the legislator.

 Now the question is whether or not the legislator's command is based in reason. A key point is this: all that is required is for the person in the position of authority to have a rationale reason for the law,  they may be in error but that is irrelevant.  

So if the person in a position of CIVIL authority has a reasonable basis to issue the order to wear masks in enclosed spaces, then it is a valid law.

It is irrelevant if we believe the civil authority to be in error.  It takes more than that to invalidate a law (civil or otherwise).  It would have to contravene a higher law. 

Now for a bit of a segue...

 While Smith asserts that he "know's" it to be irrational, that isn't really true - unless he has done the experiments himself - which I highly doubt, it is a belief. In other words, he prefers to believe someone other than the civil authority. What's more, Smith gets to pick and choose which authority he is going to 'believe' and decide whether or not to disobey a civil law.

Does this sound familiar?  It should it is a thought process based in liberalism.  Now, I am not accusing Smith of being a liberal. I am pointing out that the thought process is based in the foundation of independence of the individual from authority - that is liberal.

Now, to be specific, I believe the scientists and I have based my assessment on my knowledge of particulate filtering, the nature of the transmission of the virus in droplets, the size of these droplets, the efficiency of various mask materials etc.  I have also not drawn my information from sources with a clear bias, but peer reviewed or historical sources that pre-date the emergence of SAR-CoV-2. More importantly, we have access to the rationale (link).

That is basically all that is required for the law, following St. Thomas, to be legit.  They law is not merely a whim of the legislator, it is directed to the common good and it isn't contraveneing a higher law.

 Moving on ... I take all of this together and conclude that it is reasonable to require the donning of masks in enclosed areas.

I comply with this order, having come to a rational conclusion that the reason behind the order isn't simply a whim of the government.  It is an order based in reason with the information that they have.

That Smith discounts this information is his prerogative, but it does not escape the rational conclusion that masks do slow the progression of the virus.

I won't get into it here and now, but Smith should look up viral load and how the immune system responds and when it would be overrun by a virus.
 

 With respect to:

true threat of COVID, which is small as balanced against the social

 I am aghast at people who use the same argument as abortionists. Just because the virus poses a greater risk to the elderly, Smith is ready to throw them under the bus.  - See my rebuttal of Martin Blackshaw for more info (link).

 

SmithMarch 23, 2021 at 2:32 AM

Your post is quite apropos of the whole mask thing discussed elsewhere.
What if our Abbot John, who cheerfully obeyed the command to water a dry stick for a year, were here with us today.
Would he cheerfully obey the mask mandates?
To answer that question we have to compare the two commands and their attendant circumstances.
Are the authorities legitimate?
Yes in both cases.
Are the commands rational?
Viewed from the standpoint as to whether they actually achieve good material results, no in both cases.
Are the commands for the common good?
Again, no in both cases. The stick isn't going to grow, and will produce no fruit or wood for anyone. The masks don't protect anyone.
Yet Abbot John watered the stick. Why?
For two reasons. First, from the material standpoint, there was no *harm* (no sin), either to himself or to others, in doing so. At worst, the act was simply a waste of time. Second, from the *spiritual* standpoint, this was a great opportunity for Abbot John to practice humble obedience. So it was of spiritual benefit to him personally, thus in that respect not even a waste of time.
Would Abbot John wear the mask?
No, for two reasons. First, wearing the mask is materially harmful. It is not merely useless and a waste of time, but quite likely actually increases disease of various kinds (e.g. bacterial infections around the mouth), and can cause oxygen deprivation. Second, wearing a mask is spiritually harmful. It encourages the evil authorities in their tyranny, causes dissension in communities, depersonalizes people, and worst of all, it is a perfectly clear sign that you *agree* that the mask mandate is a rational order, when it is not. If you are an informed person and are thus aware that it is not, then every time you wear the mask you are LYING to yourself and the world; pretending that you believe something you don't believe. [Tradical: Really, have you read the scientific papers and historical documents surround the Spanish Influenza and impact of wearing masks?]
Finally, the stick watering thing was a matter between Abbot John and his superior alone. John surely wasn't wasting water that was needed by the community, and he wasn't scandalizing the community. Everyone knew that such "crazy" orders were given precisely in order to test the virtue of subjects. No one was expected to *believe* that watering a dry stick was a materially rational thing to do.[Tradical: I recommend that you read the entire series on obedience and keep in mind that you have crossed from obedience to a civil authority to religious authority.]
The mask thing is quite different. The authorities are most vigorously insisting that it is materially *rational* to wear masks. By wearing one, you declare to the community that you agree that the order is *not* crazy, when it actually is.[Tradical: That is your belief -unless you have done actual tests you are simply believing someone else] So you are scandalizing others.[Tradical: Wearing a mask is causing others to sin???  Please describe the causal chain.]
Finally, lest I cause scandal myself, I have to grant that a *particular* person has his particular circumstances to consider. Thus you may have to wear a mask even if you know better, in order to keep a job, etc. However, a pro tip: You can almost always do so while *also* letting people know one way or another that you don't believe the BS. That way you can avoid making a liar of yourself, or aiding the tyranny. [Tradical: Masking is a tyranny?  I think you have been looking under the wrong rock.  There are much better elements that you could use to support your belief.]
I have never once worn the mask, and I prefer to just adamantly refuse regardless. But that's just me.

Wow - masks are harmful.  I guess we should tell the coal miners who use N95 masks to take them off.

Ok - Smith - here's a challenge:

In your own words produce arguments for and against the efficacy of masks in slowing the progression of the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

Add references at the bottom, but put it in your own words - start with a thesis statement and then demonstrate rationally the support for your thesis.

... and then I shall enjoy destroying your thesis like a Graduate Thesis Supervisor.

P^3