Prima Secundae
Lecture 244: Human Law: Generality, Virtue, and Conscience

Transcript
================================================================================

Then we ought to consider about the power of the, what, human law, right? And about the six things are asked. First, whether the human law ought to be laid down in, what, general, I guess, huh? Community? Secondly, whether the human law ought to, what? Yeah, that's interesting. It's easy to ask that. Whether it should order the acts of all the virtues, huh? You complain now, Nebraska's complaining about the Colorado and the people going over there, buying their drugs and coming across the border, you know, causing trouble. Fourth, whether it lays upon man necessity in the form of, what, conscience, huh? Did you drive over the speed of the man? I could go around the corner there, you see, in the way to Mass in the morning, and there's, there's, you get the Floral Street school there, you know. And it says, on a school day, you're supposed to go 20 miles an hour. How do I go 25 instead of 20? Yeah, is that, is that, is that? Fifth, whether all men are subject to human law. No one is above the law, I thought. I hear that saying, no one is above the law. For, sixth, whether to those who are under the law is licit to act, right, outside the words of the law. My wife and I have eaten in London there a couple of times at this little restaurant, right, which is a famous one that Samuel Johnson used to go to and so on. But it's right there where the legal thing is, right? And so you go in there, you know, and they've got a picture, they've got, they're one of, under glass, they're one of Samuel Johnson's dictionaries, you know. It's open to the page, law. So you know, these laws are just coming in from the, you know, the schools that were. To the first, then, one proceeds thus. It seems that the human law ought not to be laid down in common, but more in particular, right? For the philosopher says in the fifth book of the ethics that legal things or whatever are laid down, right, by law, singular matters, I guess. And even what? Yeah, which are also singulars. Well, that takes place in the Supreme Court, right? They take a precedent, you know, something singular, right, isn't it? Precident, right? Because about singular acts, sentences are what? Laid down, yeah. Therefore, law ought not only to be laid down in common, but also in the singular. Moreover, law is directive of human acts. But human acts consist in singular. Therefore, human laws ought not to be brought in in common, but more in the singular. Moreover, law is a rule and a measure of human acts, as is said above. But the measure ought to be most certain, as is said in the tenth book of the metaphysics. You never bind it to measure, right? It changes its length, you know. Since, therefore, human acts, there cannot be, what, something universal that is certain, but that it's going to fail in some, what, particulars. It seems that it would be necessary for the laws to be, what, laid down, not universal, but in the, what, singular. Against this is what jurisparitus, huh? The legal expert. Yeah. Yeah. Curitus means experienced, right? Man experienced in the law. That laws are constituted in those things which, what, happen most of the time, right? For those things which, perhaps, are able to happen in just one case, right? Laws are not, what, constituted, right? One of the big debates in the law today with the European Union versus the United States and any sort of future communication of legal systems, our constitution is very short in general, as per St. Thomas. Yeah. But the European approach is much more specific. It's the Napoleonic Code builds upon the Justinian Code, which is more general, but the Napoleonic Code became more specific. Now the Europeans are using statutory law to codify almost everything. So the proposed EU constitution was about 400 pages. It's not longer because it was so detailed. And this gives rise to a hyper-regulatory mentality. I think I mentioned before, they even regulated the curvature of bananas in interstate commerce. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So these are two different schools of thought that... In Washington, all these agencies that can make their own rules, you know, so there's... Yeah. They give the figures sometimes, you know, I forget them always, but how many, you know... The Jews had an easy, it was only 600. And the administrative state, which is on the executive branch, skews the balance of powers of government, even more. You know, the Supreme Courts, you serve a lot of power, so that third part of government now is much more powerful than it ever was intended to be. And the executive branch also has all these administrative agencies, which further distort that balance of power that checks and balances the system. Well, it's author of the biography of John Quincy Adams, you know, he's got one on Washington, too, and one on John Marshall, who was the big shot, big guy in the Supreme Court there. The kind of things they invented, you know, to some extent, you know. But the things were not specified, you know. Did Jefferson have a right to Louisiana Purchase, you know? I think it was a good thing to do, but... You know, I think they did start. I mean, they're not that clear, you know. I think it should be said that each thing is an account, that is an account of it in, it is necessary that it be, what? Proportioned to that end, right? Now, the end of the law is the common good, because as Isidore says in the Book of Etymologies, for no private, right? Commodious. But for the common usefulness of the citizens, the law ought to be, what? Written, huh? You can try to make the word conscripted, huh? Get in the army written down. Whence is necessary that the human laws be proportioned to the, what? Common good, right? Now, the common good stands, what? Is constituted for many things, huh? And therefore, it's necessary that the law look towards many things, both according to, what? Persons and according to activities, yeah? And according to, what? Time, huh? The community is constituted, the community of the city is constituted from, what? Many persons, huh? And his good is, what? Procured through many actions, and it's good. Nor is his own instituted. that might endure for some little time but that it what perseverer for all time through the succession of what citizens as augustine says in the 22nd book of the city of god does that mean he's coming down the side of the common to the first therefore it should be said that the philosopher in the fifth book of the ethics which is the book on justice right he lays down three parts of what legal justice which is the positive law for some are what laid down simply in general right and these are the common laws and as regards these things it is said that the legal is that which from its beginning doesn't differ whether it be thus or otherwise right when however it is laid down it does differ right now that captives be redeemed by a certain what yeah some however which are there are which are common as regards what and signals regards something and these are said to be privileges as it were private laws which regard singular persons and nevertheless their power extends to many what yeah and as regards this he adds still some things are laid down what by law in singular matters huh i don't touch referring to it he's talking about the rules of the guy the president or the speaker of the house or somebody some are called lawful not because there are laws but account of the what application of the common laws to some particular facts and these are called what their sentences yeah which are had for what yeah and as regards this he adds and sentences huh so what he's taking them coming down on one side or are you coming making distinctions as you say right interesting you use the word sentence there in the courtroom don't we yeah and it's an individual being sentenced right you're applying some common law right yeah yeah you're saying guilty you're not guilty you're judged this it does different things in different kinds of cases yeah it's kind of restricted the word of the name because they're hearing today news about is it 240 people something like that who are overcharging you know in the health business you know there's a lot of that going on you know surprise now the second one wasn't more directed argument right human acts are in the singular right to the second should be said that that which is directive right ought to be directive of what many once in the tenth book of metaphysics the philosopher says that all things which are one kind right are measured by something one which is first in that what genus if then there were as many rules or measures as there is things measured or ruled there would seize the utility or usefulness of the rule or the measure which is that from one many are able to be what no and that's not there would be no usefulness of the law if it did not extend except to one singular act two singular acts directing them are given what singular precepts of those who are what prudent but law is a what common precept has been said that makes sense doesn't you guys are driving under the speed limit i tell you about the uh that they're reading about the guy who arrested coming out with the drugs you know from from uh colorado there but these guys from minnesota right they drive down once a week to colorado and somehow they get three thousand dollars worth of drugs go back to minnesota and sell them for six thousand it's a good profit as as the uh of course what happened was they were going you know 85 miles an hour instead of 70 where it was and they got stopped and that was into their game for a while anyway but he said the cops said you know that's the word i make you know especially good though huh yeah you know you know i'm from minnesota you know and i like to see this uh in this uh yeah yeah yeah it's this uh royal spirit forbade this country where it is today it seems kind of simple you just drive down there and yeah they might be passing it here in massachusetts before too long you know now to the third huh to third it should be said that there is not the same certitude to be sought in all things whence in contingent things as are in actual human things it suffices such should it too that something be true within pluribus right although it sometimes fails now this is what i want to know about this article too which advice is i can practice here. That's what I'm interested in. To the second one precedes us, it seems that it pertains to the human law to what? Restrain all vices, huh? Oh good, I was going to take you to the other side, I think. Frisador says in the book of etymologies that laws are made, huh? That people, what, audacity might be forced by, what, the fear of them, huh? But this is not sufficiently, what, forced, yeah? Unless any evils, right? Are, therefore, human law ought to be, what? Yeah, yeah. Moreover, it's the intention of the legislature to make the citizens virtuous, huh? I don't know if they ever seen anybody say that in Congress. Have you heard that? Yeah. One cannot be virtuous unless he is, what, compass got there, huh? On all vices. Is that a word for restraining or checking? Yeah. Therefore, it pertains to human law to prevent all vices, huh? Moreover, the human law is derived from the natural law. But all vices are repugnant to the natural law. Therefore, the human law ought to... Yeah. What? The teetotaler would love it. Yeah. Prohibitions. Yeah. I was reading in this biography of John Quincy Adams, you know, the Baptist minister, you know, thought that all dancing was wrong, you know. Used to be no dancing. Chris, he couldn't see that today. He thought that was kind of an innocent... I was reading in this biography of John Quincy Adams. I was reading in this biography of John Quincy Adams. I was reading in this biography of John Quincy Adams. He was reading in this biography of John Quincy Adams. He was reading in this biography of John Quincy Adams. He was reading in this biography of John Quincy Adams. He was reading in this biography of John Quincy Adams. He was reading in this biography of John Quincy Adams. He was reading in this biography of John Quincy Adams. He was reading in this biography of John Quincy Adams. He was reading in this biography of John Quincy Adams. He was reading in this biography of John Quincy Adams. He was reading in this biography of John Quincy Adams. He was reading in this biography of John Quincy Adams. He was reading in this biography of John Quincy Adams. He was reading in this biography of John Quincy Adams. He was reading in this biography of John Quincy Adams. He was reading in this biography of John Quincy Adams. He was reading in this biography of John Quincy Adams. He was reading in this biography of John Quincy Adams. He was reading in this biography of John Quincy Adams. He was reading in this biography of John Quincy Adams. He was reading in this biography of John Quincy Adams. He was reading in this biography of John Quincy Adams. He was reading in this biography of John Quincy Adams. He was reading in this biography of John Quincy Adams. He was reading in this biography of John Quincy Adams. He was reading in this biography of John Quincy Adams. He was reading in this biography of John Quincy Adams. He was reading in this biography of John Quincy Adams. He was reading in this biography of John Quincy Adams. He was reading in this biography of John Quincy Adams. He was reading in this biography of John Quincy Adams. He was reading in this biography of John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, And if new wine, that is the precepts of the perfect life, are placed in the old skins, that is in perfect men. These skins are what? That is the precepts are what? And men from contempt break forth to what? Worse evil. It's kind of interesting, huh? State in the popular condition is, huh? The concept of the common good has been divorced from the concept of virtue and the understanding of our type of political system, our type of culture, we need a virtuous citizenry. But virtue has been thrown out the window and replaced by something more of a sort of values. And in addition to that, the notion of the common good has morphed into something very different and something that St. Thomas is talking about, reading the framers of the Constitution, there's Senator Moynihan's famous essay, Defining Deviancy Down, where he was looking at the rise in crime and vice in society and how certain politicians, namely of his own party especially, were instead of trying to deal with the problem, or the way that they dealt with the problem was to just redefine what's unacceptable behavior so that what used to be unacceptable is now acceptable, and hey, look, the crime's disappeared because we've redefined it. So this has a corrosive effect because it, as Thomas is pointing out here, it just, I think, leads people, he implies it anyway, or could imply it here, that it brings people, it drags them down even further and allows them to sort of wallow in greater and greater view. And you can see that today with the social sort of chaos in the West, which is greasing in all sorts of strange and small ways as well as big. And people will say you can do anything if you don't harm others, right? Yeah. I never want to hurt anybody. That's not what we've done in heaven. So they talk about homosexual marriage, they say, well, you're not harming other people, you know, they can, you know, have the kind of marriage they want. It's equality. The interesting thing is it's not common, the common good is traditionally understood. The idea is we have to get away from this general notion of common good and look at individual interest groups and individuals themselves for their own personal or group good. And you can see this with, well, as white males, we have a certain perspective on history and philosophy and stuff like that. But there are other perspectives. A black male has a very different perspective. A white woman, a black woman has a very different perspective as well. And then looking at the realm of theology, you have, well, there's the theology of the white man. Like at Union Theological Seminary in New York. But then there's black theology. And that's totally different. And so it's just kind of this strange tale of babble and other stuff. Well, then they extend the idea of harming others, though, you see, to having opinions that other people are bad, right? Then you're prejudiced, right? Or you're homophobia or some other. You're speaking. Yeah, yeah. Hater. Yeah, yeah. Hate speech. And then you're harming somebody else, right? Because they don't feel good about it, you know? But this is just an excuse for harming the people who disagree with you. Yeah. Yeah. Or practice, as it's called, you know? I mean, they see you're harming people. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. one proceeds, it seems that the human law does not command the acts of what? All the virtues. For the acts of the virtues are opposed to what? Vicious acts are opposed to the acts of the virtues. But as you see in the previous article, the human law does not prohibit all vases. Like eating what? Yeah. Therefore also does not command the acts of all the virtues. That's a mistake. Moreover, the acts of virtue proceed from virtue. But virtue is the end of the law. And therefore what is from virtue is not able to come under the what? Precepts of the law. Therefore the human law does not command the acts of all the virtues. Moreover the law is ordered to the common good. But some acts of the virtues are not ordered to the common good, but to the private good. Therefore the law does not command the acts of all the virtues. So is it my eating ordered to the common good or not? Am I drinking? So why could he tell me I shouldn't eat too much or get drunk or whatever it is? But again, this is what the philosopher says in the fifth book of the ethics. That the, what? Commands, right? One to do what? You know, brave works, yeah. And temperate acts, right, huh? And mild ones. Likewise, according to the other virtues and their malices or evil ones. Commanding the former and prohibiting the latter, right, huh? Answer, it should be said that the species of the virtues are distinguished according to their objects. As is clear from the things foresaid, huh? Now all the objects of the virtues can be referred to either the private good of some person, right? Or to the common good of the multitude. Just as those things which are of, what, fortitude or courage someone can carry out either on account of the conserving of the, what? Preserving of the city or reserving the, what? Right. Yeah. And similarly in others. But the law, as has been said, is ordered to the, what? Common good. And therefore, there is no virtue about whose acts the law is not able to, what? Command. But nevertheless, human law does not, what? Command about all the acts of all the virtues. But only about those which are able to be ordered to the common good, either those that, what? Yeah. come about for the sake of the common good, or in a, what, immediate way, when these are ordered by the legislature as pertaining to, what? The common discipline, right? Through which citizens are formed that they consider the common good of justice and, what? Peace. The first effort should be said that the human law does not prohibit all vicious acts, right? According to the obligation to precept. Just as it does not command all, what? Virtuous acts. It prohibits or prevents, prohibits some acts of, what? Just as it commands some acts of singular virtues, so the guy goes behind you like this and you guys go forward, you know. He's commanding you to be brave, right? Well, you must get shot. The enemy is shot by your commanding officer, right? Go forward, right? In English common law, at least, if you see somebody who's drowning in a pond, you have no legal duty to go and rescue them, which is something that shocked a lot of people first to your law. I thought, well, you know, it's not the right thing to do, but there's sort of policies behind not prescribing that particular type of virtue. And supposedly, it, for whatever reason, they thought that that would make people less prone to want to rescue people. There's some strange sort of negative psychology behind the policy of that, but it's an example of one act of virtue that you would think might be enforced by law, but it's not. No duty to rescue. The second should be said that some act is said to be a virtue in two ways. In one way, from this, that a man does virtuous things, just as the act of justice is to make something right, and the act of fortitude to do something? Brave, yeah. And thus, the law commands some acts of the virtues. In other ways, something is said to be an act of virtue, which someone does virtuous things in that way in which the virtuous man does it. And such an act always precedes a virtue, nor does it fall under the precepts of the law, but is the end to which the legislature intends to what? Yeah. Yeah. But then, one does it out of what? He likes the act, right? So, he'll be like paying your taxes. It's a book written for adults to try to learn what is it and why should we direct justice. And she was interviewed by some guy in Belfast recently. He's trying to figure out what this justice thing is like. Well, I mean, because she suffered sexual abuse as a child. Yeah. And then, so she acted out as an adult before her conversion. She acted out like typical. They told chaos and she said that was partly due to her bad choices based on her warped psychology and everything because of her sexual abuse. And so the guy says, oh, so this chastity thing is just another form of your warped behavior because of your sexual abuse and you just want to rule it out in your life. And she says, no, no, no, no. She started to explain herself. And then, so he tries to come around to understand it. So you really just want to be a nun. Do you understand, she says, either because you're warped or you want to be a nun, or both. He can't figure out if it's a virtue. It's never occurred to the guy. To third, it should be said that there's not any virtue, right, whose acts are not able to be ordered to the common good, either immediately or immediately. Okay. Thank you. here now to the fourth one goes forward thus it seems that the human law does not place upon man necessity in the form of conscience right for a lower power cannot place a what a law in the judgment of superior power but the power of man which makes the human law is below the what divine power therefore the human law cannot impose the laws regards the what which is the judgment of conscience moreover the judgment of conscience most of all depends upon or divine man commands but whenever the divine commands are made what void human laws according to that of matthew 15 6 eritum fecistis mandatum dee you've made what none in existence so to speak the command of god an account of your traditions as he says in the pharisees and so on therefore the human law does not impose necessity on man's regards his what conscience moreover human laws frequently bring about calumny and injury to men according to that of isaiah's 10. woe to you who bring in laws that are what nicholas and write down and oppress in judgment the poor and make strength of cause against the humble of my people but is licit to each one to what avoid oppression and violence therefore human laws to not impose the system in men as he guards conscience but these laws are trying to stop there having these uh support of abortion you know in our insurance and so on but against this is what is said 1 peter 2 19 this is what a grace if what one sustains sadnesses suffering things justly answer it should be said and that the lay that the laws laid down humanly are either just or unjust right if they are what just they have the strength of obligating west in the form of conscience from the eternal law from which they are what derived according to that of proverbs 8 through me kings rule and the makers of laws discerned just things now laws they said to be what just both in the end when they are ordered to the common good and from their what author when the law given did not exceed the power of the one making it and for the form when it is according to the quality of proportion imposed upon yeah in order to the common good okay when when when weights you might say or burdens are imposed right upon those subject to it according to the quality of proportion right not paying your fair checks there are the taxes that's trouble right we're discussing with people in the night class and assumption you know you know should should the rich be taxed more than the poor right right and then later on if they say yes and should they be taxed proportionally more or in a larger amount right it's very hard to justify those things by reason right to have a progressive income tax right and i said do you know of course the only reason they give is that they can afford it right i said well should i charge the rich man twice as much or ten times as much for a loaf of bread than i charge you poor guys right that's just well they can afford they can afford to pay ten times as much for a loaf of bread that that you pay yeah yeah yeah see all right you know if you buy a car you know you pay ten times the same amount for the game the same car that i get one tenth of what you pay is that right you can scratch your heads it up you know what to say you know but it's just not clear sweden adopted the proportional taxation but one of the reasons why it never uh flew here at least uh before the massive illegal immigration which is giving why there's a lot of voting power now was because in this country there's so much mobility and you can start a war as a student yeah and even if you come from humble backgrounds you can end up being in the wealthiest of classes there's so much flexibility that it's not in the interest of most people to have that proportional taxation because they'll have the opportunity to be earning a lot and they can see the injustice but now with the massive immigration you have a dependency class which is forming in its tens of millions which um has a very different perspective on things and so that might come up since then one man is a part of the multitude right and each man this that he is and what he has is of the what multitude just as any part is what it is is of the whole once nature right infers some detriment to the part and it might say the what oh and according to this laws of this sort uh inferring brings proportionally are just and obligated in the what form of conscience and our legal laws now unjust laws are what to sort in one way through contrariety to the human good um contrary to the fourth thing said either from the end as when someone presiding imposes laws that are onerous to those subject to it not pertaining to the what good but more to his own what your glory or even from the author as in one uh brings forth a law beyond the one he has power committed to him like obama does or even from the form is when one unequally dispenses burdens upon multitude even if they're ordered to the what common good and these are more what violence than laws because as augustine says in the book on free judgment that does not seem to be a law which is not what just when such laws do not obligate in the form of conscience except perhaps on account of avoiding scandal or what why did christ you know why did christ pay pay the thing on account yeah on account of which also man um ought to what it was to the law right according to that of matthew 5 the one who forces you to go a thousand steps go with them another two and it takes away your tunic other laws are able to be what unjust by contrary to the divine good just as the laws of tyrants inducing one to idolatry or to anything else that is against the divine law and such laws in no way ought to be observed huh because as he said acts five we ought to obey god more than what men sing joyfully the lord oh your land serve the lord with gladness to the first effort should be said the apostle says in romans 13 every human power is from god and therefore who resists to power in those things which pertain to the order of power would seem to be what resisting the order of god and according to this something is what guilty in the form of conscience yeah it's the second should be said that that argument proceeds about human laws which order against the command of god this is the text of christ there right and to this order of power does not extend once in such things to human law will not not to be what yeah the third should be said that that argument proceeds about the law which it bestows a what unjust grave to the ones under it to which also the order of divine of power divinely conceded does not extend once neither in such things is man obligated to obey the law if without scandal and greater detriment he is able to what resist okay good maybe stop here because you you you