F
fakename
Guest
Summa Theologica: “Now possibility or faculty of action is due to an interior habit or disposition: since the same thing is not possible to one who has not a virtuous habit, as is possible to one who has. Thus the same is not possible to a child as to a full-grown man: for which reason the law for children is not the same as for adults, since many things are permitted to children, which in an adult are punished by law or at any rate are open to blame. In like manner many things are permissible to men not perfect in virtue, which would be intolerable in a virtuous man.”
Could anyone comment on this and how it applies to present politics? For instance, if people are too disposed to kill others (abortions), then should there be a law to stop them from doing so?
Another question: people many times say that one should treat a child harshly because he is especially disposed to be bad. But how does this square with Aquinas because here he says that children are not disposed to virtue and so should be treated leniently. But isn’t it true that to be undisposed to virtue is to be disposed to vice and vice versa? So wouldn’t Aquinas be contradicting the idea that worse people should be given worse treatment? Or is there a way out if this?
Could anyone comment on this and how it applies to present politics? For instance, if people are too disposed to kill others (abortions), then should there be a law to stop them from doing so?
Another question: people many times say that one should treat a child harshly because he is especially disposed to be bad. But how does this square with Aquinas because here he says that children are not disposed to virtue and so should be treated leniently. But isn’t it true that to be undisposed to virtue is to be disposed to vice and vice versa? So wouldn’t Aquinas be contradicting the idea that worse people should be given worse treatment? Or is there a way out if this?