Thomas Aquinas

===Political order===
Thomas's theory of political order became highly influential. He sees man as a social being who lives in a community and interacts with its other members. That leads, among other things, to the [[division of labour]].

Thomas made a distinction between a good man and a good citizen, which was important to the development of [[libertarian]] theory. That indicates, in the eyes of the atheist libertarian writer [[George H. Smith]], that the sphere of [[individual autonomy]] was one which the state could not interfere with.{{sfn|Smith |2008|p=18}}

Thomas thought that monarchy was the best form of government because a monarch does not have to form compromises with other persons. Thomas, however, held that monarchy in only a very specific sense was the best form of government—only when the king was virtuous is it the best form; otherwise if the monarch is vicious it is the worst kind (see De Regno I, Ch. 2). Moreover, according to Thomas, [[oligarchy]] degenerates more easily into [[tyranny]] than monarchy. To prevent a king from becoming a tyrant, his political powers must be curbed. Unless an agreement of all persons involved can be reached, a tyrant must be tolerated, as otherwise, the political situation could deteriorate into anarchy, which would be even worse than tyranny. In his political work ''[[List of works by Thomas Aquinas#De Regno, to the King of Cyprus|De Regno]]'', Thomas subordinated the political power of the king to the primacy of the divine and human law of [[Creator deity#Christianity|God the creator]]. For example, he affirmed:
{{blockquote|Just as the government of a king is the best, so the government of a tyrant is the worst.|{{cite web|url=https://isidore.co/aquinas/DeRegno.htm#4|title=''De Regno'', Ch. 4, n. 21|language=Latin, English}}}}
{{blockquote|It is plain, therefore, from what has been said, that a king is one who rules the people of one city or province, and rules them for the common good.|{{cite web|url=https://isidore.co/aquinas/DeRegno.htm#2|title=''De Regno'', Ch. 2, n. 15|language=Latin, English}}}}

According to Thomas, monarchs are God's representatives in their territories, but the church, represented by the popes, is above the kings in matters of doctrine and ethics. As a consequence, worldly rulers are obliged to adapt their laws to the Catholic Church's doctrines and determinations.

Thomas said slavery was not the natural state of man.<ref>Weithman, Paul J. (1992). [https://www3.nd.edu/~pweithma/My%20Papers/Augustine%20and%20Aquinas%20on%20Political%20Authority.pdf "Augustine and Aquinas on Original Sin and the Function of Political Authority"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211209001913/https://www3.nd.edu/~pweithma/My%20Papers/Augustine%20and%20Aquinas%20on%20Political%20Authority.pdf |date=9 December 2021 }}, p. 356.</ref> He also held that a slave is by nature equal to his master (''Summa Theologiae Supplement'', Q52, A2, ad 1). He distinguished between 'natural slavery', which is for the benefit of both master and slave, and 'servile slavery', which removes all autonomy from the slave and is, according to Thomas, worse than death.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://ldysinger.stjohnsem.edu/@texts2/1271_aquinas/08_aq_slavery-ST3.htm |title=Aquinas on Slavery |website= stjohnsem.edu |access-date=26 November 2019}}</ref>
Aquinas' doctrines of the Fair Price,<ref>{{cite journal|author1=Nureev Rustem, M.|title=Doctrine of "Fair Price" by Thomas Aquinas: background, laws of development and specific interpretation|journal=Journal of Institutional Studies|issue=1|volume=7|date=1 March 2015|pages=6–24|doi=10.17835/2076-6297.2015.7.1.006-024|issn= 2076-6297|oclc= 8773558345|doi-access=free}}</ref> of the right of [[tyrannicide]] and of the equality of all the baptized sons of God in the [[Communion of saints]] established a limit to the political power to prevent it from degenerating into tyranny. This system had a concern in the Protestant opposition to the Roman Catholic Church and in "disinterested" replies to Thomism carried out by [[Immanuel Kant|Kant]] and by [[Baruch Spinoza|Spinoza]].

==== Death penalty ====
In [[Summa Contra Gentiles]], Book 3, Chapter 146, which was written by Thomas prior to writing the [[Summa Theologica]], Thomas allowed the judicial death penalty. He stated:<ref>Summa Conta Gentiles, Book III, Chapter 146, paragraphs 2–5 https://isidore.co/aquinas/ContraGentiles3b.htm#146 {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221030102342/https://isidore.co/aquinas/ContraGentiles3b.htm#146 |date=30 October 2022 }}</ref>

{{Blockquote|[M]en who are in authority over others do no wrong when they reward the good and punish the evil.

[…] for the preservation of concord among men it is necessary that punishments be inflicted on the wicked. Therefore, to punish the wicked is not in itself evil.

Moreover, the common good is better than the particular good of one person. So, the particular good should be removed in order to preserve the common good. But the life of certain pestiferous men is an impediment to the common good which is the concord of human society. Therefore, certain men must be removed by death from the society of men.

Furthermore, just as a physician looks to health as the end in his work, and health consists in the orderly concord of humors, so, too, the ruler of a state intends peace in his work, and peace consists in "the ordered concord of citizens." Now, the physician quite properly and beneficially cuts off a diseased organ if the corruption of the body is threatened because of it. Therefore, the ruler of a state executes pestiferous men justly and sinlessly in order that the peace of the state may not be disrupted.}}

However, in the same discussion:
{{Blockquote| The unjust execution of men is prohibited…Killing which results from anger is prohibited…The execution of the wicked is forbidden wherever cannot be done without danger to the good. }}