Augustine, Aquinas and Locke: The Truth About Ownership - Essay Example

Augustine, Aquinas and Locke: The Truth About Ownership The truth about ownership is that it is aconcept only brought about by human societies as a means of settling disputes or staking out private areas as was not always necessary. For example, the American Indians had little to no concept of ownership in the sense of the Europeans. They considered all land and property (such as housing, clothing, etc.) to belong to Mother Earth and they were the People who lived in that area. The closest they came to considering property as something that belonged to them was in their defense of particular boundaries for hunting. In Europe, however, the idea of ownership was much more developed, with various plots of land belonging to particular individuals who would then permit others to live on it and cultivate it for the benefit of the lord or state. There was a great deal of discussion and philosophy regarding what exactly comprised ownership and what ownership rights might be, particularly when disputes arose between the church and the people, particularly when the Catholic Church began breaking apart with the introduction of Protestantism. To understanding the basis of the concept of ownership, it is helpful to have an idea of what some of the philosophies are behind it. Several thinkers have given us well-considered treatises on the subject, including Augustine, Thomas Aquinas and John Locke, all of whom will be considered in attempting to determine the true nature of ownership. According to Augustine, ownership is a divine right given only by God or by the powers of the state. “No earthly thing is able to be possessed rightly by anyone except by divine right, by which all things belong to the just, or by human right, which is in the power of the kings of the earth” (Augustine 244). Thus, according to Augustine, God’s will regarding ownership is rightly conveyed only through the medium of earthly kings and the powers of the church. While it shouldn’t be used as a means of punishing others out of hatred for them, it is justly used when ownership is removed as a means of correction for wrong thinking. “Therefore you falsely call ‘yours’ what you do not justly possess and what, according to the laws of the kings of the earth, you have been commanded to give up” (Augustine 244). To Augustine, it doesn’t matter if you have labored long and hard to construct a grand house on property that has been held by your family for generations, filled that house with items that you purchased with money you earned by cultivating that land and in which you have placed all your worldly goods. If you have been identified as impious, your belongings, all of them, are due back to the church for disbursement among the just, as is indicated in Proverbs 13:22 (Augustine 244). Augustine justifies his position regarding property rightfully being governed by the temporal powers of kings and church by illustrating the equality of all creatures in God’s eyes. “God made the poor and the rich from one clay, and the one earth supports both the poor and the rich. Nevertheless, by human right one says, ‘This villa is mine; this house is mine; this slave is mine.’ Thus, by human right, by the right of emperors” (Augustine 248-249). Because it is only through the power of emperors and kings that property can be bestowed, when a just emperor, standing up for the divine tenets of the church, demands that all who call themselves Christian but do not adhere to the dictates of the Catholic Church should forfeit their property, Augustine says this is a just and right action in accordance with the law and with God, who has placed his trust in the rulers he has established. Thomas Aquinas differs somewhat in his definition of property by focusing on smaller items of ownership than houses and lands and thus begins to explore in greater detail just what is meant by the concept of ownership. For example, he says that ownership is not a natural aspect of human life because they did not create these things and the nature of things cannot be changed by humans into something else. From this reasoning, he determines that external things can be considered in two ways and the way that they are considered determines the aspect of ownership. “We can consider them in one way regarding their nature, which is subject only to God’s power, which all things obey at his will, not to the power of human beings. We can consider external things in a second way regarding their use. And then human beings have dominion over external things from nature, since human beings can by their powers of reason and will make use of external things for their benefit” (Aquinas 131). These external goods produced, then, can be considered the property of the maker, or perhaps the better term would be alterer, to use for their benefit through sales or directly as they are made. In terms of property in general, then, Aquinas also indicates that nothing can belong to humans because it has all been placed for the common good, but that it is actually beneficial to allow ownership as a result of the natural tendencies of humans to take better care of things that they see as theirs. In the end, Aquinas determines that ownership is just and proper when the owner realizes that he is only the steward of what he possesses and opts to share with others what is necessary for the benefit of all. “I answer that prescriptions of human law cannot derogate from natural or divine law. But the natural order established by divine providence has ordered inferior things to alleviate the necessity of human beings. And so the division and appropriation of material things, which proceeds from human law, does not preclude that such things should alleviate the necessity of human beings. And so the natural law requires that superfluous things in one’s possession be used for the sustenance of the poor” (Aquinas 140). Unlike Augustine who says that property belongs to the individual through the dictates of the state, Aquinas says it is under the custody of the individual through the dictates of the state but that there is a higher law that insists the property must be managed for the welfare of the common good. John Locke also holds that all of creation has been given to mankind in common, that no one was naturally endowed with special rights of ownership by God. He defines property as being “The labour of his [man’s] body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own and thereby makes it his property” (Lock 19). More simply stated, if someone puts effort into something, that something belongs to him. While he applies this law to the boundary of property as well, “As much land as a man tills, plants, improves, cultivates, and can use the product of so much is his property” (Locke 21), Locke makes the distinction that it is not within man’s ‘natural’ property rights to destroy or spoil whatever he claims is his without allowing it to provide for the common good. He also distinguishes the necessity that enough be left within the realm of the common for other men to also take and appropriate as his own. “Nor was this appropriation of any parcel of land, by improving it, any prejudice to any other man, since there was still enough, and as good left; and more than the yet unprovided could use. So that, in effect, there was never the less left for others because of his inclosure for himself” (Locke 21). By Locke’s reasoning, then, any attempt to remove property from the hands of the individual whose work had improved it, cultivated it and thus made it his own through his own labour, was an act of theft of God-given property, even if the one taking it was the ruler of the land. Through this investigation, it seems Augustine felt property was bestowed upon man through God-appointed rulers and structures that had the right, at any time, to remove such property as a means of correcting poor behavior and bring the individual into line with established or prevalent thought. Aquinas felt such property was indeed provided by the laws of the land, but also stipulated that a natural law superceded such assignations to the extent that no man should be allowed to go hungry or thirsty as the result of the covetousness of another. He believed this to such an extent that theft from a well-fed man in order to feed a starving man could not be justly considered theft. Finally, John Locke felt that property was almost entirely awarded by God through the designation of labour, in that he who put effort into improving upon what nature has provided – either by cultivating the land to produce more or through the simple expedient of shooting the arrow that killed the deer in the common forest – was the possessor of that property. His only concession to the common good was that it was not within the rights of man to destroy or spoil what should otherwise be left for others. Based on these writings, it seems my legitimate ownership of something depends on my willingness to work for it as well as governmental sanction of my claim to it. While I may claim to own something because of the work that I’ve put into its creation, it is still necessary for the laws of the land to recognize that I have put work in it and to award it to me before I can actually consider it mine. Given this essential quality of ownership, I certainly cannot claim to own another human being because, even if I have put work into his creation, it remains clear that he has put even more work into his continued existence. If I own what I have made, then he must own what he has made. This suggests that the person with the greatest amount of labor involved should be the one with the greatest degree of ownership. While I feel John Locke has a very valid point regarding property, that he who put in effort deserves to reap the rewards, I cannot ignore the thoughts of Aquinas in that no man should be permitted to suffer because of the greed of another. That would be the case if one man were permitted to own another. Property should not be considered a permanent divine right to do with as one pleases but should always be considered in light of Aquinas’ view that it was first provided by God and can be taken back at any time if it is not used in keeping with an eye toward the common good. Works Cited Aquinas, Thomas. On Law, Morality, and Politics. Richard J. Regan (Trans.). Augustine. Political Writings. Michael W. Tkacz and Douglas Kries (Trans.). Locke, John. Second Treatise of Government. C.B. Macpherson (Ed.). Read More