Ad secundum dicendum quod doctrina evangelica est doctrina perfectionis, et ideo oportuit quod in ipsa perfecte instrueretur homo de omnibus quae pertinent ad rectitudinem vitae, sive sint fines sive ea quae sunt ad finem. Et propter hoc oportuit in doctrina evangelica etiam de prudentia praecepta dari. Reply Obj. 2: The teaching of the Gospel is the doctrine of perfection. Therefore it needed to instruct man perfectly in all matters relating to right conduct, whether ends or means: wherefore it behooved the Gospel teaching to contain precepts also of prudence. Ad tertium dicendum quod sicut alia doctrina veteris testamenti ordinatur ad praecepta Decalogi ut ad finem, ita etiam conveniens fuit ut in subsequentibus documentis veteris testamenti homines instruerentur de actu prudentiae, qui est circa ea quae sunt ad finem. Reply Obj. 3: Just as the rest of the teaching of the Old Testament is directed to the precepts of the decalogue as its end, so it behooved man to be instructed by the subsequent lessons of the Old Testament about the act of prudence which is directed to the means. Articulus 2 Article 2 Utrum in veteri lege fuerint convenienter praecepta prohibitiva proposita de vitiis oppositis prudentiae Whether the prohibitive precepts relating to the vices opposed to prudence are fittingly propounded in the Old Law? Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod in veteri lege fuerint inconvenienter praecepta prohibitiva proposita de vitiis oppositis prudentiae. Opponuntur enim prudentiae non minus illa quae habent directam oppositionem ad ipsam, sicut imprudentia et partes eius, quam illa quae cum ipsa similitudinem habent, sicut astutia et quae ad ipsam pertinent. Sed haec vitia prohibentur in lege, dicitur enim Lev. XIX, non facies calumniam proximo tuo; et Deut. XXV, non habebis in sacculo tuo diversa pondera, maius et minus. Ergo et de illis vitiis quae directe opponuntur prudentiae aliqua praecepta prohibitiva dari debuerunt. Objection 1: It would seem that the prohibitive precepts relating to the vices opposed to prudence are unfittingly propounded in the Old Law. For such vices as imprudence and its parts which are directly opposed to prudence are not less opposed thereto, than those which bear a certain resemblance to prudence, such as craftiness and vices connected with it. Now the latter vices are forbidden in the Law: for it is written (Lev 19:13): Thou shalt not calumniate thy neighbor, and (Deut 25:13): Thou shalt not have diverse weights in thy bag, a greater and a less. Therefore there should have also been prohibitive precepts about the vices directly opposed to prudence. Praeterea, in multis aliis rebus potest fraus fieri quam in emptione et venditione. Inconvenienter igitur fraudem in sola emptione et venditione lex prohibuit. Obj. 2: Further, there is room for fraud in other things than in buying and selling. Therefore the Law unfittingly forbade fraud solely in buying and selling. Praeterea, eadem ratio est praecipiendi actum virtutis et prohibendi actum vitii oppositi. Sed actus prudentiae non inveniuntur in lege praecepti. Ergo nec aliqua opposita vitia debuerunt in lege prohiberi. Obj. 3: Further, there is the same reason for prescribing an act of virtue as for prohibiting the act of a contrary vice. But acts of prudence are not prescribed in the Law. Therefore neither should any contrary vices have been forbidden in the Law. Sed contrarium patet per praecepta legis inducta. The contrary, however, appears from the precepts of the Law which are quoted in the first objection. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, iustitia maxime respicit rationem debiti, quod requiritur ad praeceptum, quia iustitia est ad reddendum debitum alteri, ut infra dicetur. Astutia autem quantum ad executionem maxime committitur in his circa quae est iustitia, ut dictum est. Et ideo conveniens fuit ut praecepta prohibitiva darentur in lege de executione astutiae inquantum ad iniustitiam pertinet, sicut cum dolo vel fraude aliquis alicui calumniam ingerit, vel eius bona surripit. I answer that, As stated above (A. 1), justice, above all, regards the aspect of something due, which is a necessary condition for a precept, because justice tends to render that which is due to another, as we shall state further on (Q. 58, A. 2). Now craftiness, as to its execution, is committed chiefly in matters of justice, as stated above (Q. 55, A. 8): and so it was fitting that the Law should contain precepts forbidding the execution of craftiness, insofar as this pertains to injustice, as when a man uses guile and fraud in calumniating another or in stealing his goods. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod illa vitia quae directe opponuntur prudentiae manifesta contrarietate non ita pertinent ad iniustitiam sicut executio astutiae. Et ideo non ita prohibentur in lege sicut fraus et dolus, quae ad iniustitiam pertinent. Reply Obj. 1: Those vices that are manifestly opposed to prudence, do not pertain to injustice in the same way as the execution of craftiness, and so they are not forbidden in the Law, as fraud and guile are, which latter pertain to injustice. Ad secundum dicendum quod omnis fraus vel dolus commissa in his quae ad iustitiam pertinent potest intelligi esse prohibita, Lev. XIX, in prohibitione calumniae. Praecipue autem solet fraus exerceri et dolus in emptione et venditione, secundum illud Eccli. XXVI, non iustificabitur caupo a peccato labiorum. Propter hoc specialiter praeceptum prohibitivum datur in lege de fraude circa emptiones et venditiones commissa. Reply Obj. 2: All guile and fraud committed in matters of injustice, can be understood to be forbidden in the prohibition of calumny (Lev 19:13). Yet fraud and guile are wont to be practiced chiefly in buying and selling, according to Ecclus. 26:28, A huckster shall not be justified from the sins of the lips: and it is for this reason that the Law contained a special precept forbidding fraudulent buying and selling. Ad tertium dicendum quod omnia praecepta de actibus iustitiae in lege data pertinent ad executionem prudentiae, sicut et praecepta prohibitiva data de furto, calumnia et fraudulenta venditione pertinent ad executionem astutiae. Reply Obj. 3: All the precepts of the Law that relate to acts of justice pertain to the execution of prudence, even as the precepts prohibitive of stealing, calumny and fraudulent selling pertain to the execution of craftiness. De iustitia Justice Quaestio 57 Question 57 De iure Right Consequenter post prudentiam considerandum est de iustitia. Circa quam quadruplex consideratio occurrit, prima est de iustitia; secunda, de partibus eius; tertia, de dono ad hoc pertinente; quarta, de praeceptis ad iustitiam pertinentibus. After considering prudence we must in due sequence consider justice, the consideration of which will be fourfold: (1) Of justice; (2) Of its parts; (3) Of the corresponding gift; (4) Of the precepts relating to justice. Circa iustitiam vero consideranda sunt quatuor, primo quidem, de iure; secundo, de ipsa iustitia; tertio, de iniustitia; quarto, de iudicio. Four points will have to be considered about justice: (1) Right; (2) Justice itself; (3) Injustice; (4) Judgment. Circa primum quaeruntur quatuor. Under the first head there are four points of inquiry: Primo, utrum ius sit obiectum iustitiae. (1) Whether right is the object of justice? Secundo, utrum ius convenienter dividatur in ius naturale et positivum. (2) Whether right is fittingly divided into natural and positive right? Tertio, utrum ius gentium sit ius naturale. (3) Whether the right of nations is the same as natural right? Quarto, utrum ius dominativum et paternum debeat specialiter distingui. (4) Whether right of dominion and paternal right are distinct species? Articulus 1 Article 1 Utrum ius non sit obiectum iustitiae Whether right is the object of justice? Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod ius non sit obiectum iustitiae. Dicit enim celsus iurisconsultus quod ius est ars boni et aequi. Ars autem non est obiectum iustitiae, sed est per se virtus intellectualis. Ergo ius non est obiectum iustitiae. Objection 1: It would seem that right is not the object of justice. For the jurist Celsus says that right is the art of goodness and equality. Now art is not the object of justice, but is by itself an intellectual virtue. Therefore right is not the object of justice. Praeterea, lex, sicut Isidorus dicit, in libro Etymol., iuris est species. Lex autem non est obiectum iustitiae, sed magis prudentiae, unde et philosophus legispositivam partem prudentiae ponit. Ergo ius non est obiectum iustitiae. Obj. 2: Further, Law, according to Isidore (Etym. v, 3), is a kind of right. Now law is the object not of justice but of prudence, wherefore the Philosopher reckons legislative as one of the parts of prudence. Therefore right is not the object of justice. Praeterea, iustitia principaliter subiicit hominem Deo, dicit enim Augustinus, libro de moribus Eccles., quod iustitia est amor Deo tantum serviens, et ob hoc bene imperans ceteris, quae homini subiecta sunt. Sed ius non pertinet ad divina, sed solum ad humana, dicit enim Isidorus, in libro Etymol., quod fas lex divina est, ius autem lex humana. Ergo ius non est obiectum iustitiae. Obj. 3: Further, justice, before all, subjects man to God: for Augustine says (De Moribus Eccl. xv) that justice is love serving God alone, and consequently governing aright all things subject to man. Now right (jus) does not pertain to Divine things, but only to human affairs, for Isidore says (Etym. v, 2) that fas is the Divine law, and jus, the human law. Therefore right is not the object of justice. Sed contra est quod Isidorus dicit, in eodem, quod ius dictum est quia est iustum. Sed iustum est obiectum iustitiae, dicit enim philosophus, in V Ethic., quod omnes talem habitum volunt dicere iustitiam a quo operativi iustorum sunt. Ergo ius est obiectum iustitiae. On the contrary, Isidore says (Etym. v, 2) that right (jus) is so called because it is just. Now the just is the object of justice, for the Philosopher declares (Ethic. v, 1) that all are agreed in giving the name of justice to the habit which makes men capable of doing just actions. Therefore, right (jus) is the object of justice. Respondeo dicendum quod iustitiae proprium est inter alias virtutes ut ordinet hominem in his quae sunt ad alterum. Importat enim aequalitatem quandam, ut ipsum nomen demonstrat, dicuntur enim vulgariter ea quae adaequantur iustari. Aequalitas autem ad alterum est. Aliae autem virtutes perficiunt hominem solum in his quae ei conveniunt secundum seipsum. Sic igitur illud quod est rectum in operibus aliarum virtutum, ad quod tendit intentio virtutis quasi in proprium obiectum, non accipitur nisi per comparationem ad agentem. Rectum vero quod est in opere iustitiae, etiam praeter comparationem ad agentem, constituitur per comparationem ad alium, illud enim in opere nostro dicitur esse iustum quod respondet secundum aliquam aequalitatem alteri, puta recompensatio mercedis debitae pro servitio impenso. Sic igitur iustum dicitur aliquid, quasi habens rectitudinem iustitiae, ad quod terminatur actio iustitiae, etiam non considerato qualiter ab agente fiat. Sed in aliis virtutibus non determinatur aliquid rectum nisi secundum quod aliqualiter fit ab agente. Et propter hoc specialiter iustitiae prae aliis virtutibus determinatur secundum se obiectum, quod vocatur iustum. Et hoc quidem est ius. Unde manifestum est quod ius est obiectum iustitiae. I answer that, It is proper to justice, as compared with the other virtues, to direct man in his relations with others: because it denotes a kind of equality, as its very name implies; indeed we are wont to say that things are adjusted when they are made equal, for equality is in reference of one thing to some other. On the other hand the other virtues perfect man in those matters only which befit him in relation to himself. Accordingly that which is right in the works of the other virtues, and to which the intention of the virtue tends as to its proper object, depends on its relation to the agent only, whereas the right in a work of justice, besides its relation to the agent, is set up by its relation to others. Because a man’s work is said to be just when it is related to some other by way of some kind of equality, for instance the payment of the wage due for a service rendered. And so a thing is said to be just, as having the rectitude of justice, when it is the term of an act of justice, without taking into account the way in which it is done by the agent: whereas in the other virtues nothing is declared to be right unless it is done in a certain way by the agent. For this reason justice has its own special proper object over and above the other virtues, and this object is called the just, which is the same as right. Hence it is evident that right is the object of justice. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod consuetum est quod nomina a sui prima impositione detorqueantur ad alia significanda, sicut nomen medicinae impositum est primo ad significandum remedium quod praestatur infirmo ad sanandum, deinde tractum est ad significandum artem qua hoc fit. Ita etiam hoc nomen ius primo impositum est ad significandum ipsam rem iustam; postmodum autem derivatum est ad artem qua cognoscitur quid sit iustum; et ulterius ad significandum locum in quo ius redditur, sicut dicitur aliquis comparere in iure; et ulterius dicitur etiam ius quod redditur ab eo ad cuius officium pertinet iustitiam facere, licet etiam id quod decernit sit iniquum. Reply Obj. 1: It is usual for words to be distorted from their original signification so as to mean something else: thus the word medicine was first employed to signify a remedy used for curing a sick person, and then it was drawn to signify the art by which this is done. In like manner the word right (jus) was first of all used to denote the just thing itself, but afterwards it was transferred to designate the art whereby it is known what is just, and further to denote the place where justice is administered, thus a man is said to appear in jure, and yet further, we say even that a man, who has the office of exercising justice, administers the jus even if his sentence be unjust. Ad secundum dicendum quod sicut eorum quae per artem exterius fiunt quaedam ratio in mente artificis praeexistit, quae dicitur regula artis; ita etiam illius operis iusti quod ratio determinat quaedam ratio praeexistit in mente, quasi quaedam prudentiae regula. Et hoc si in scriptum redigatur, vocatur lex, est enim lex, secundum Isidorum, constitutio scripta. Et ideo lex non est ipsum ius, proprie loquendo, sed aliqualis ratio iuris. Reply Obj. 2: Just as there pre-exists in the mind of the craftsman an expression of the things to be made externally by his craft, which expression is called the rule of his craft, so too there pre-exists in the mind an expression of the particular just work which the reason determines, and which is a kind of rule of prudence. If this rule be expressed in writing it is called a law, which according to Isidore (Etym. v, 1) is a written decree: and so law is not the same as right, but an expression of right. Ad tertium dicendum quod quia iustitia aequalitatem importat, Deo autem non possumus aequivalens recompensare, inde est quod iustum, secundum perfectam rationem, non possumus reddere Deo. Et propter hoc non dicitur proprie ius lex divina, sed fas, quia videlicet sufficit Deo ut impleamus quod possumus. Iustitia tamen ad hoc tendit ut homo, quantum potest, Deo recompenset, totaliter animam ei subiiciens. Reply Obj. 3: Since justice implies equality, and since we cannot offer God an equal return, it follows that we cannot make Him a perfectly just repayment. For this reason the Divine law is not properly called jus but fas, because, to wit, God is satisfied if we accomplish what we can. Nevertheless justice tends to make man repay God as much as he can, by subjecting his mind to Him entirely. Articulus 2 Article 2 Utrum ius convenienter dividatur in ius naturale et ius positivum Whether right is fittingly divided into natural right and positive right? Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod ius non convenienter dividatur in ius naturale et ius positivum. Illud enim quod est naturale est immutabile, et idem apud omnes. Non autem invenitur in rebus humanis aliquid tale, quia omnes regulae iuris humani in aliquibus casibus deficiunt, nec habent suam virtutem ubique. Ergo non est aliquod ius naturale. Objection 1: It would seem that right is not fittingly divided into natural right and positive right. For that which is natural is unchangeable, and is the same for all. Now nothing of the kind is to be found in human affairs, since all the rules of human right fail in certain cases, nor do they obtain force everywhere. Therefore there is no such thing as natural right. Praeterea, illud dicitur esse positivum quod ex voluntate humana procedit. Sed non ideo aliquid est iustum quia a voluntate humana procedit, alioquin voluntas hominis iniusta esse non posset. Ergo, cum iustum sit idem quod ius, videtur quod nullum sit ius positivum. Obj. 2: Further, a thing is called positive when it proceeds from the human will. But a thing is not just, simply because it proceeds from the human will, else a man’s will could not be unjust. Since then the just and the right are the same, it seems that there is no positive right.