1. Contemporary analyses of the conceptions of equality proposed by Aristotle and Saint Thomas usually take into account their views concerning society (politics economy) in particular with regard to the theorizing of justice. (See A.K. Perrin Aristotle: On Equality http://www.academia.edu/2282443/Aristotle_On_Equality– date of access: 01.2017.) This reflects the fact that as van Leyden claims the notions of law equality and justice constitute a family of definitionally interdependent concepts. (See W. von Leyden Aristotle on Equality and Justice. His Political Argument(New York: Palgrave Macmillan 1985) p.1). Less often in this context their metaphysical and anthropological views are also taken into account including those pertaining to the problem of the ultimate goal of human activity. Van Leyden for instance seeks to deepen the understanding of equality by referring to Aristotle's definition of the equality of physics and metaphysics.
2. As we shall see comparing their conceptions of the ultimate aim of human action also allows one to assert that the Aristotelian account of social life may be considered an unsuccessful version of the concept of teleological equality.
3. An example of this type of critique can be found in McMahan's philosophy. The latter envisages two main obstacles to liberal egalitarianism: ‘One is the ≪separation problem ≫ which is the challenge to identify a morally significant intrinsic difference betweenallhuman beings andallnonhuman animals. The other is the ≪equality problem ≫ which is to explain how all human beings can be morally equal when there are some human beings whose psychological capacities (and in some cases their psychological potentials as well) are no higher than those of certain nonhuman animals.’ J. McMahan ‘Challenges to Human Equality’ Journal of Ethics12/1 pp. 81–104 p. 81.
4. This problem is clearly presented in M. Matiti et al ‘Promoting patient dignity in healthcare settings’ NursingStandard21/45 (2007) pp. 46–52.
5. This marks a difference in their conceptions of the genesis of human beings. For Aristotle coming into being is mostly the effect of natural causes whereas for Aquinas the human person issues into existence from natural (parents) and supernatural (God) causes. In both cases though there is only one way to come to exist as a human person so facts pertaining to our genesis cannot plausibly be called upon to provide a basis for establishing differences between persons.