In medieval times, philosophers developed political views. They weren’t the first to do this though; ancient Greek thinkers like Aristotle were already busying themselves with ideas on how to improve their current society. Medieval philosophers were however different in a methodical way. They read the Bible and investigated the teachings of the Fathers of the church, to interpret what God’s criteria for the best and virtuous society would be and what political ideas that involved. They formed Christian political opinions on pacifism, slavery, property and so on. However, when we try to apply those political perspectives on our current society and try to reconcile them with the morals we nowadays live by, we can bump into some difficulties.
The Bible, for example, states on slavery that the relation between slaves and masters needs to be an equal one, where slaves can attain virtue and happiness in the same way as the masters can, while still acting obedient. Although this seems like a progressive and slightly more optimistic view towards slavery than was actually the case when practically applied at the time, slaves can still be considered property, whether their relation between them and their master is a good and equal one or not.
Then, the Bible tells us that we have a right to private property. Christian philosophers wanted to add the term voluntary property, according to which you live as scarcely as possible and leave everything to others that you don’t necessarily need to survive. This way there would be no more poverty according to this radical communist perspective.
Now, imagine you have a handicap. If you had a handicap during the middle ages, you would be a liability most of the time, harshly said. Nowadays, there are way more institutional forms of care. From having all sorts of glasses and lenses to caring organisations where people are nurtured for the rest of their lives. Thus, if you had a handicap in the middle ages, you or your family needed to be wealthy to spare time earning money to take care of you. Not everyone had that option of course.
But do the same rules of voluntary property apply to those with less physical abilities? Well then, lets say you have a handicap, but you’re very wealthy. According to Augustine, we shouldn’t be materialistic citizens only occupied with acquiring the most wealthy life for ourselves, but pious people in the pursuit of knowledge. Then I’m afraid we would have to tell you to give up most of your wealth and live only with what is necessary. But what if you necessarily need your money to survive, because you need other people to take care of you, or you need a slave at you every command? Would slavery then still be a necessary product to you, and therefore not part of the irrelevant property you would voluntarily have to give away? Would your inability to self provide enlarge the necessary property you have a right to?
We can see that the medieval political theories can lead to lots of inconsistencies. After all, interpretations will always remain interpretations; incredibly sensitive and weak in the ability to defend itself because of its subjective nature.
From Knights to computers 