Index [<<� | >>]
Second Part of the Second Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 58 [ << | >> ]
| Deinde considerandum est de iustitia. Circa quam quaeruntur duodecim. | We must now consider justice. Under this head there are twelve points of inquiry: |
| Primo, quid sit iustitia. | (1) What is justice? |
| Secundo, utrum iustitia semper sit ad alterum. | (2) Whether justice is always towards another? |
| Tertio, utrum sit virtus. | (3) Whether it is a virtue? |
| Quarto, utrum sit in voluntate sicut in subiecto. | (4) Whether it is in the will as its subject? |
| Quinto, utrum sit virtus generalis. | (5) Whether it is a general virtue? |
| Sexto, utrum secundum quod est generalis, sit idem in essentia cum omni virtute. |
(6) Whether, as a general virtue, it is essentially the same as every virtue? |
| Septimo, utrum sit aliqua iustitia particularis. | (7) Whether there is a particular justice? |
| Octavo, utrum iustitia particularis habeat propriam materiam. | (8) Whether particular justice has a matter of its own? |
| Nono, utrum sit circa passiones, vel circa operationes tantum. | (9) Whether it is about passions, or about operations only? |
| Decimo, utrum medium iustitiae sit medium rei. | (10) Whether the mean of justice is the real mean? |
| Undecimo, utrum actus iustitiae sit reddere unicuique quod suum est. | (11) Whether the act of justice is to render to everyone his own? |
| Duodecimo, utrum iustitia sit praecipua inter alias virtutes morales. | (12) Whether justice is the chief of the moral virtues? |
Index [<<� | >>]
Second Part of the Second Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 58 [ << | >> ]
Article: 1 [ << | >> ]
| Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod inconvenienter definiatur a iurisperitis quod iustitia est constans et perpetua voluntas ius suum unicuique tribuens. Iustitia enim, secundum philosophum, in V Ethic., est habitus a quo sunt aliqui operativi iustorum, et a quo operantur et volunt iusta. Sed voluntas nominat potentiam, vel etiam actum. Ergo inconvenienter iustitia dicitur esse voluntas. | Objection 1: It would seem that lawyers have unfittingly defined justice as being "the perpetual and constant will to render to each one his right" [*Digest. i, 1; De Just. et Jure 10]. For, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. v, 1), justice is a habit which makes a man "capable of doing what is just, and of being just in action and in intention." Now "will" denotes a power, or also an act. Therefore justice is unfittingly defined as being a will. |
| Praeterea, rectitudo voluntatis non est voluntas, alioquin, si voluntas esset sua rectitudo, sequeretur quod nulla voluntas esset perversa. Sed secundum Anselmum, in libro de veritate, iustitia est rectitudo. Ergo iustitia non est voluntas. | Objection 2: Further, rectitude of the will is not the will; else if the will were its own rectitude, it would follow that no will is unrighteous. Yet, according to Anselm (De Veritate xii), justice is rectitude. Therefore justice is not the will. |
| Praeterea, sola Dei voluntas est perpetua. Si ergo iustitia est perpetua voluntas, in solo Deo erit iustitia. | Objection 3: Further, no will is perpetual save God's. If therefore justice is a perpetual will, in God alone will there be justice. |
| Praeterea, omne perpetuum est constans, quia est immutabile. Superflue ergo utrumque ponitur in definitione iustitiae, et perpetuum et constans. | Objection 4: Further, whatever is perpetual is constant, since it is unchangeable. Therefore it is needless in defining justice, to say that it is both "perpetual" and "constant." |
| Praeterea, reddere ius unicuique pertinet ad principem. Si igitur iustitia sit ius suum unicuique tribuens, sequetur quod iustitia non sit nisi in principe. Quod est inconveniens. | Objection 5: Further, it belongs to the sovereign to give each one his right. Therefore, if justice gives each one his right, it follows that it is in none but the sovereign: which is absurd. |
| Praeterea, Augustinus dicit, in libro de moribus Eccles., quod iustitia est amor Deo tantum serviens. Non ergo reddit unicuique quod suum est. | Objection 6: Further, Augustine says (De Moribus Eccl. xv) that "justice is love serving God alone." Therefore it does not render to each one his right. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod praedicta iustitiae definitio conveniens est, si recte intelligatur. Cum enim omnis virtus sit habitus qui est principium boni actus, necesse est quod virtus definiatur per actum bonum circa propriam materiam virtutis. Est autem iustitia circa ea quae ad alterum sunt sicut circa propriam materiam, ut infra patebit. Et ideo actus iustitiae per comparationem ad propriam materiam et obiectum tangitur cum dicitur, ius suum unicuique tribuens, quia, ut Isidorus dicit, in libro Etymol., iustus dicitur quia ius custodit. |
I answer that, The aforesaid definition of justice is fitting if understood aright. For since every virtue is a habit that is the principle of a good act, a virtue must needs be defined by means of the good act bearing on the matter proper to that virtue. Now the proper matter of justice consists of those things that belong to our intercourse with other men, as shall be shown further on (Article [2]). Hence the act of justice in relation to its proper matter and object is indicated in the words, "Rendering to each one his right," since, as Isidore says (Etym. x), "a man is said to be just because he respects the rights [jus] of others." |
| Ad hoc autem quod aliquis actus circa quamcumque materiam sit virtuosus, requiritur quod sit voluntarius, et quod sit stabilis et firmus, quia philosophus dicit, in II Ethic., quod ad virtutis actum requiritur primo quidem quod operetur sciens, secundo autem quod eligens et propter debitum finem, tertio quod immobiliter operetur. Primum autem horum includitur in secundo, quia quod per ignorantiam agitur est involuntarium, ut dicitur in III Ethic. et ideo in definitione iustitiae primo ponitur voluntas, ad ostendendum quod actus iustitiae debet esse voluntarius. Additur autem de constantia et perpetuitate, ad designandum actus firmitatem. | Now in order that an act bearing upon any matter whatever be virtuous, it requires to be voluntary, stable, and firm, because the Philosopher says (Ethic. ii, 4) that in order for an act to be virtuous it needs first of all to be done "knowingly," secondly to be done "by choice," and "for a due end," thirdly to be done "immovably." Now the first of these is included in the second, since "what is done through ignorance is involuntary" (Ethic. iii, 1). Hence the definition of justice mentions first the "will," in order to show that the act of justice must be voluntary; and mention is made afterwards of its "constancy" and "perpetuity" in order to indicate the firmness of the act. |
| Et ideo praedicta definitio est completa definitio iustitiae, nisi quod actus ponitur pro habitu, qui per actum specificatur, habitus enim ad actum dicitur. Et si quis vellet in debitam formam definitionis reducere, posset sic dicere, quod iustitia est habitus secundum quem aliquis constanti et perpetua voluntate ius suum unicuique tribuit. Et quasi est eadem definitio cum ea quam philosophus ponit, in V Ethic., dicens quod iustitia est habitus secundum quem aliquis dicitur operativus secundum electionem iusti. | Accordingly, this is a complete definition of justice; save that the act is mentioned instead of the habit, which takes its species from that act, because habit implies relation to act. And if anyone would reduce it to the proper form of a definition, he might say that "justice is a habit whereby a man renders to each one his due by a constant and perpetual will": and this is about the same definition as that given by the Philosopher (Ethic. v, 5) who says that "justice is a habit whereby a man is said to be capable of doing just actions in accordance with his choice." |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod voluntas hic nominat actum, non potentiam. Est autem consuetum quod apud auctores habitus per actus definiantur, sicut Augustinus dicit, super Ioan., quod fides est credere quod non vides. | Reply to Objection 1: Will here denotes the act, not the power: and it is customary among writers to define habits by their acts: thus Augustine says (Tract. in Joan. xl) that "faith is to believe what one sees not." |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod neque etiam iustitia est essentialiter rectitudo, sed causaliter tantum, est enim habitus secundum quem aliquis recte operatur et vult. | Reply to Objection 2: Justice is the same as rectitude, not essentially but causally; for it is a habit which rectifies the deed and the will. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod voluntas potest dici perpetua dupliciter. Uno modo, ex parte ipsius actus, qui perpetuo durat. Et sic solius Dei voluntas est perpetua. Alio modo, ex parte obiecti, quia scilicet aliquis vult perpetuo facere aliquid. Et hoc requiritur ad rationem iustitiae. Non enim sufficit ad rationem iustitiae quod aliquis velit ad horam in aliquo negotio servare iustitiam, quia vix invenitur aliquis qui velit in omnibus iniuste agere, sed requiritur quod homo habeat voluntatem perpetuo et in omnibus iustitiam conservandi. | Reply to Objection 3: The will may be called perpetual in two ways. First on the part of the will's act which endures for ever, and thus God's will alone is perpetual. Secondly on the part of the subject, because, to wit, a man wills to do a certain thing always. and this is a necessary condition of justice. For it does not satisfy the conditions of justice that one wish to observe justice in some particular matter for the time being, because one could scarcely find a man willing to act unjustly in every case; and it is requisite that one should have the will to observe justice at all times and in all cases. |
| Ad quartum dicendum quod quia perpetuum non accipitur secundum durationem perpetuam actus voluntatis, non superflue additur constans, ut sicut per hoc quod dicitur perpetua voluntas designatur quod aliquis gerat in proposito perpetuo iustitiam conservandi, ita etiam per hoc quod dicitur constans designatur quod in hoc proposito firmiter perseveret. | Reply to Objection 4: Since "perpetual" does not imply perpetuity of the act of the will, it is not superfluous to add "constant": for while the "perpetual will" denotes the purpose of observing justice always, "constant" signifies a firm perseverance in this purpose. |
| Ad quintum dicendum quod iudex reddit quod suum est per modum imperantis et dirigentis, quia iudex est iustum animatum, et princeps est custos iusti, ut dicitur in V Ethic. Sed subditi reddunt quod suum est unicuique per modum executionis. | Reply to Objection 5: A judge renders to each one what belongs to him, by way of command and direction, because a judge is the "personification of justice," and "the sovereign is its guardian" (Ethic. v, 4). On the other hand, the subjects render to each one what belongs to him, by way of execution. |
| Ad sextum dicendum quod sicut in dilectione Dei includitur dilectio proximi, ut supra dictum est; ita etiam in hoc quod homo servit Deo includitur quod unicuique reddat quod debet. |
Reply to Objection 6: Just as love of God includes love of our neighbor, as stated above (Question [25], Article [1]), so too the service of God includes rendering to each one his due. |
Index [<<� | >>]
Second Part of the Second Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 58 [ << | >> ]
Article: 2 [ << | >> ]
| Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod iustitia non semper sit ad alterum. Dicit enim apostolus, ad Rom. III, quod iustitia Dei est per fidem Iesu Christi. Sed fides non dicitur per comparationem unius hominis ad alterum. Ergo neque iustitia. |
Objection 1: It would seem that justice is not always towards another. For the Apostle says (Rm. 3:22) that "the justice of God is by faith of Jesus Christ." Now faith does not concern the dealings of one man with another. Neither therefore does justice. |
| Praeterea, secundum Augustinum, in libro de moribus Eccles., ad iustitiam pertinet, ob hoc quod servit Deo, bene imperare ceteris, quae homini sunt subiecta. Sed appetitus sensitivus est homini subiectus, ut patet Gen. IV, ubi dicitur, subter te erit appetitus eius, scilicet peccati, et tu dominaberis illius. Ergo ad iustitiam pertinet dominari proprio appetitui. Et sic erit iustitia ad seipsum. | Objection 2: Further, according to Augustine (De Moribus Eccl. xv), "it belongs to justice that man should direct to the service of God his authority over the things that are subject to him." Now the sensitive appetite is subject to man, according to Gn. 4:7, where it is written: "The lust thereof," viz. of sin, "shall be under thee, and thou shalt have dominion over it." Therefore it belongs to justice to have dominion over one's own appetite: so that justice is towards oneself. |
| Praeterea, iustitia Dei est aeterna. Sed nihil aliud fuit Deo coaeternum. Ergo de ratione iustitiae non est quod sit ad alterum. | Objection 3: Further, the justice of God is eternal. But nothing else is co-eternal with God. Therefore justice is not essentially towards another. |
| Praeterea, sicut operationes quae sunt ad alterum indigent rectificari, ita etiam operationes quae sunt ad seipsum. Sed per iustitiam rectificantur operationes, secundum illud Prov. XI, iustitia simplicis dirigit viam eius. Ergo iustitia non solum est circa ea quae sunt ad alterum, sed etiam circa ea quae sunt ad seipsum. | Objection 4: Further, man's dealings with himself need to be rectified no less than his dealings with another. Now man's dealings are rectified by justice, according to Prov. 11:5, "The justice of the upright shall make his way prosperous." Therefore justice is about our dealings not only with others, but also with ourselves. |
| Sed contra est quod Tullius dicit, in I de Offic., quod iustitiae ea ratio est qua societas hominum inter ipsos, et vitae communitas continetur. Sed hoc importat respectum ad alterum. Ergo iustitia est solum circa ea quae sunt ad alterum. | On the contrary, Tully says (De Officiis i, 7) that "the object of justice is to keep men together in society and mutual intercourse." Now this implies relationship of one man to another. Therefore justice is concerned only about our dealings with others. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, cum nomen iustitiae aequalitatem importet, ex sua ratione iustitia habet quod sit ad alterum, nihil enim est sibi aequale, sed alteri. Et quia ad iustitiam pertinet actus humanos rectificare, ut dictum est, necesse est quod alietas ista quam requirit iustitia, sit diversorum agere potentium. Actiones autem sunt suppositorum et totorum, non autem, proprie loquendo, partium et formarum, seu potentiarum, non enim proprie dicitur quod manus percutiat, sed homo per manum; neque proprie dicitur quod calor calefaciat, sed ignis per calorem. Secundum tamen similitudinem quandam haec dicuntur. Iustitia ergo proprie dicta requirit diversitatem suppositorum, et ideo non est nisi unius hominis ad alium. Sed secundum similitudinem accipiuntur in uno et eodem homine diversa principia actionum quasi diversa agentia, sicut ratio et irascibilis et concupiscibilis. Et ideo metaphorice in uno et eodem homine dicitur esse iustitia, secundum quod ratio imperat irascibili et concupiscibili, et secundum quod hae obediunt rationi, et universaliter secundum quod unicuique parti hominis attribuitur quod ei convenit. Unde philosophus, in V Ethic., hanc iustitiam appellat secundum metaphoram dictam. |
I answer that, As stated above (Question [57], Article [1]) since justice by its name implies equality, it denotes essentially relation to another, for a thing is equal, not to itself, but to another. And forasmuch as it belongs to justice to rectify human acts, as stated above (Question [57], Article [1]; FS, Question [113], Article [1]) this otherness which justice demands must needs be between beings capable of action. Now actions belong to supposits [*Cf. FP, Question [29], Article [2]] and wholes and, properly speaking, not to parts and forms or powers, for we do not say properly that the hand strikes, but a man with his hand, nor that heat makes a thing hot, but fire by heat, although such expressions may be employed metaphorically. Hence, justice properly speaking demands a distinction of supposits, and consequently is only in one man towards another. Nevertheless in one and the same man we may speak metaphorically of his various principles of action such as the reason, the irascible, and the concupiscible, as though they were so many agents: so that metaphorically in one and the same man there is said to be justice in so far as the reason commands the irascible and concupiscible, and these obey reason; and in general in so far as to each part of man is ascribed what is becoming to it. Hence the Philosopher (Ethic. v, 11) calls this "metaphorical justice." |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod iustitia quae fit per fidem in nobis, est per quam iustificatur impius, quae quidem in ipsa debita ordinatione partium animae consistit, sicut supra dictum est, cum de iustificatione impii ageretur. Hoc autem pertinet ad iustitiam metaphorice dictam, quae potest inveniri etiam in aliquo solitariam vitam agente. |
Reply to Objection 1: The justice which faith works in us, is that whereby the ungodly is justified it consists in the due coordination of the parts of the soul, as stated above (FS, Question [113], Article [1]) where we were treating of the justification of the ungodly. Now this belongs to metaphorical justice, which may be found even in a man who lives all by himself. |
| Et per hoc patet responsio ad secundum. | This suffices for the Reply to the Second Objection. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod iustitia Dei est ab aeterno secundum voluntatem et propositum aeternum, et in hoc praecipue iustitia consistit. Quamvis secundum effectum non sit ab aeterno, quia nihil est Deo coaeternum. | Reply to Objection 3: God's justice is from eternity in respect of the eternal will and purpose (and it is chiefly in this that justice consists); although it is not eternal as regards its effect, since nothing is co-eternal with God. |
| Ad quartum dicendum quod actiones quae sunt hominis ad seipsum sufficienter rectificantur rectificatis passionibus per alias virtutes morales. Sed actiones quae sunt ad alterum indigent speciali rectificatione, non solum per comparationem ad agentem, sed etiam per comparationem ad eum ad quem sunt. Et ideo circa eas est specialis virtus, quae est iustitia. | Reply to Objection 4: Man's dealings with himself are sufficiently rectified by the rectification of the passions by the other moral virtues. But his dealings with others need a special rectification, not only in relation to the agent, but also in relation to the person to whom they are directed. Hence about such dealings there is a special virtue, and this is justice. |
Index [<<� | >>]
Second Part of the Second Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 58 [ << | >> ]
Article: 3 [ << | >> ]
| Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod iustitia non sit virtus. Dicitur enim Luc. XVII, cum feceritis omnia quae praecepta sunt vobis, dicite, servi inutiles sumus, quod debuimus facere fecimus. Sed non est inutile facere opus virtutis, dicit enim Ambrosius, in II de Offic., utilitatem non pecuniarii lucri aestimationem dicimus, sed acquisitionem pietatis. Ergo facere quod quis debet facere non est opus virtutis. Est autem opus iustitiae. Ergo iustitia non est virtus. |
Objection 1: It would seem that justice is not a virtue. For it is written (Lk. 17:10): "When you shall have done all these things that are commanded you, say: We are unprofitable servants; we have done that which we ought to do." Now it is not unprofitable to do a virtuous deed: for Ambrose says (De Officiis ii, 6): "We look to a profit that is estimated not by pecuniary gain but by the acquisition of godliness." Therefore to do what one ought to do, is not a virtuous deed. And yet it is an act of justice. Therefore justice is not a virtue. |
| Praeterea, quod fit ex necessitate non est meritorium. Sed reddere alicui quod suum est, quod pertinet ad iustitiam, est necessitatis. Ergo non est meritorium. Actibus autem virtutum meremur. Ergo iustitia non est virtus. | Objection 2: Further, that which is done of necessity, is not meritorious. But to render to a man what belongs to him, as justice requires, is of necessity. Therefore it is not meritorious. Yet it is by virtuous actions that we gain merit. Therefore justice is not a virtue. |
| Praeterea, omnis virtus moralis est circa agibilia. Ea autem quae exterius constituuntur non sunt agibilia, sed factibilia, ut patet per philosophum, in IX Metaphys. Cum igitur ad iustitiam pertineat exterius facere aliquod opus secundum se iustum, videtur quod iustitia non sit virtus moralis. | Objection 3: Further, every moral virtue is about matters of action. Now those things which are wrought externally are not things concerning behavior but concerning handicraft, according to the Philosopher (Metaph. ix) [*Didot ed., viii, 8]. Therefore since it belongs to justice to produce externally a deed that is just in itself, it seems that justice is not a moral virtue. |
| Sed contra est quod Gregorius dicit, in II Moral., quod in quatuor virtutibus, scilicet temperantia, prudentia, fortitudine et iustitia, tota boni operis structura consurgit. | On the contrary, Gregory says (Moral. ii, 49) that "the entire structure of good works is built on four virtues," viz. temperance, prudence, fortitude and justice |
| Respondeo dicendum quod virtus humana est quae bonum reddit actum humanum, et ipsum hominem bonum facit. Quod quidem convenit iustitiae. Actus enim hominis bonus redditur ex hoc quod attingit regulam rationis, secundum quam humani actus rectificantur. Unde cum iustitia operationes humanas rectificet, manifestum est quod opus hominis bonum reddit. Et ut Tullius dicit, in I de Offic., ex iustitia praecipue viri boni nominantur. Unde, sicut ibidem dicit, in ea virtutis splendor est maximus. | I answer that, A human virtue is one "which renders a human act and man himself good" [*Ethic. ii, 6], and this can be applied to justice. For a man's act is made good through attaining the rule of reason, which is the rule whereby human acts are regulated. Hence, since justice regulates human operations, it is evident that it renders man's operations good, and, as Tully declares (De Officiis i, 7), good men are so called chiefly from their justice, wherefore, as he says again (De Officiis i, 7) "the luster of virtue appears above all in justice." |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod cum aliquis facit quod debet, non affert utilitatem lucri ei cui facit quod debet, sed solum abstinet a damno eius. Sibi tamen facit utilitatem, inquantum spontanea et prompta voluntate facit illud quod debet, quod est virtuose agere. Unde dicitur Sap. VIII quod sapientia Dei sobrietatem et iustitiam docet, prudentiam et virtutem; quibus in vita nihil est utilius hominibus, scilicet virtuosis. | Reply to Objection 1: When a man does what he ought, he brings no gain to the person to whom he does what he ought, but only abstains from doing him a harm. He does however profit himself, in so far as he does what he ought, spontaneously and readily, and this is to act virtuously. Hence it is written (Wis. 8:7) that Divine wisdom "teacheth temperance, and prudence, and justice, and fortitude, which are such things as men (i.e. virtuous men) can have nothing more profitable in life." |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod duplex est necessitas. Una coactionis, et haec, quia repugnat voluntati, tollit rationem meriti. Alia autem est necessitas ex obligatione praecepti, sive ex necessitate finis, quando scilicet aliquis non potest consequi finem virtutis nisi hoc faciat. Et talis necessitas non excludit rationem meriti, inquantum aliquis hoc quod sic est necessarium voluntarie agit. Excludit tamen gloriam supererogationis, secundum illud I ad Cor. IX, si evangelizavero, non est mihi gloria, necessitas enim mihi incumbit. | Reply to Objection 2: Necessity is twofold. One arises from "constraint," and this removes merit, since it runs counter to the will. The other arises from the obligation of a "command," or from the necessity of obtaining an end, when, to wit, a man is unable to achieve the end of virtue without doing some particular thing. The latter necessity does not remove merit, when a man does voluntarily that which is necessary in this way. It does however exclude the credit of supererogation, according to 1 Cor. 9:16, "If I preach the Gospel, it is no glory to me, for a necessity lieth upon me." |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod iustitia non consistit circa exteriores res quantum ad facere, quod pertinet ad artem, sed quantum ad hoc quod utitur eis ad alterum. | Reply to Objection 3: Justice is concerned about external things, not by making them, which pertains to art, but by using them in our dealings with other men. |
Index [<<� | >>]
Second Part of the Second Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 58 [ << | >> ]
Article: 4 [ << | >> ]
| Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod iustitia non sit in voluntate sicut in subiecto. Iustitia enim quandoque veritas dicitur. Sed veritas non est voluntatis, sed intellectus. Ergo iustitia non est in voluntate sicut in subiecto. | Objection 1: It would seem that justice is not in the will as its subject. For justice is sometimes called truth. But truth is not in the will, but in the intellect. Therefore justice is not in the will as its subject. |
| Praeterea, iustitia est circa ea quae sunt ad alterum. Sed ordinare aliquid ad alterum est rationis. Iustitia ergo non est in voluntate sicut in subiecto, sed magis in ratione. | Objection 2: Further, justice is about our dealings with others. Now it belongs to the reason to direct one thing in relation to another. Therefore justice is not in the will as its subject but in the reason. |
| Praeterea, iustitia non est virtus intellectualis, cum non ordinetur ad cognitionem. Unde relinquitur quod sit virtus moralis. Sed subiectum virtutis moralis est rationale per participationem, quod est irascibilis et concupiscibilis, ut patet per philosophum, in I Ethic. Ergo iustitia non est in voluntate sicut in subiecto, sed magis in irascibili et concupiscibili. | Objection 3: Further, justice is not an intellectual virtue, since it is not directed to knowledge; wherefore it follows that it is a moral virtue. Now the subject of moral virtue is the faculty which is "rational by participation," viz. the irascible and the concupiscible, as the Philosopher declares (Ethic. i, 13). Therefore justice is not in the will as its subject, but in the irascible and concupiscible. |
| Sed contra est quod Anselmus dicit, quod iustitia est rectitudo voluntatis propter se servata. | On the contrary, Anselm says (De Verit. xii) that "justice is rectitude of the will observed for its own sake." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod illa potentia est subiectum virtutis ad cuius potentiae actum rectificandum virtus ordinatur. Iustitia autem non ordinatur ad dirigendum aliquem actum cognoscitivum, non enim dicimur iusti ex hoc quod recte aliquid cognoscimus. Et ideo subiectum iustitiae non est intellectus vel ratio, quae est potentia cognoscitiva. Sed quia iusti dicimur in hoc quod aliquid recte agimus; proximum autem principium actus est vis appetitiva; necesse est quod iustitia sit in aliqua vi appetitiva sicut in subiecto. | I answer that, The subject of a virtue is the power whose act that virtue aims at rectifying. Now justice does not aim at directing an act of the cognitive power, for we are not said to be just through knowing something aright. Hence the subject of justice is not the intellect or reason which is a cognitive power. But since we are said to be just through doing something aright, and because the proximate principle of action is the appetitive power, justice must needs be in some appetitive power as its subject. |
| Est autem duplex appetitus, scilicet voluntas, quae est in ratione; et appetitus sensitivus consequens apprehensionem sensus, qui dividitur per irascibilem et concupiscibilem, ut in primo habitum est. Reddere autem unicuique quod suum est non potest procedere ex appetitu sensitivo, quia apprehensio sensitiva non se extendit ad hoc quod considerare possit proportionem unius ad alterum, sed hoc est proprium rationis. Unde iustitia non potest esse sicut in subiecto in irascibili vel concupiscibili, sed solum in voluntate. Et ideo philosophus definit iustitiam per actum voluntatis, ut ex supradictis patet. |
Now the appetite is twofold; namely, the will which is in the reason and the sensitive appetite which follows on sensitive apprehension, and is divided into the irascible and the concupiscible, as stated in the FP, Question [81], Article [2]. Again the act of rendering his due to each man cannot proceed from the sensitive appetite, because sensitive apprehension does not go so far as to be able to consider the relation of one thing to another; but this is proper to the reason. Therefore justice cannot be in the irascible or concupiscible as its subject, but only in the will: hence the Philosopher (Ethic. v, 1) defines justice by an act of the will, as may be seen above (Article [1]). |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod quia voluntas est appetitus rationalis, ideo rectitudo rationis, quae veritas dicitur, voluntati impressa, propter propinquitatem ad rationem, nomen retinet veritatis. Et inde est quod quandoque iustitia veritas vocatur. | Reply to Objection 1: Since the will is the rational appetite, when the rectitude of the reason which is called truth is imprinted on the will on account of its nighness to the reason, this imprint retains the name of truth; and hence it is that justice sometimes goes by the name of truth. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod voluntas fertur in suum obiectum consequenter ad apprehensionem rationis. Et ideo, quia ratio ordinat in alterum, voluntas potest velle aliquid in ordine ad alterum, quod pertinet ad iustitiam. | Reply to Objection 2: The will is borne towards its object consequently on the apprehension of reason: wherefore, since the reason directs one thing in relation to another, the will can will one thing in relation to another, and this belongs to justice. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod rationale per participationem non solum est irascibilis et concupiscibilis, sed omnino appetitivum, ut dicitur in I Ethic., quia omnis appetitus obedit rationi. Sub appetitivo autem comprehenditur voluntas. Et ideo voluntas potest esse subiectum virtutis moralis. | Reply to Objection 3: Not only the irascible and concupiscible parts are "rational by participation," but the entire "appetitive" faculty, as stated in Ethic. i, 13, because all appetite is subject to reason. Now the will is contained in the appetitive faculty, wherefore it can be the subject of moral virtue. |
Index [<<� | >>]
Second Part of the Second Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 58 [ << | >> ]
Article: 5 [ << | >> ]
| Ad quintum sic proceditur. Videtur quod iustitia non sit virtus generalis. Iustitia enim condividitur aliis virtutibus, ut patet Sap. VIII, sobrietatem et iustitiam docet, prudentiam et virtutem. Sed generale non condividitur seu connumeratur speciebus sub illo generali contentis. Ergo iustitia non est virtus generalis. | Objection 1: It would seem that justice is not a general virtue. For justice is specified with the other virtues, according to Wis. 8:7, "She teacheth temperance and prudence, and justice, and fortitude." Now the "general" is not specified or reckoned together with the species contained under the same "general." Therefore justice is not a general virtue. |
| Praeterea, sicut iustitia ponitur virtus cardinalis, ita etiam temperantia et fortitudo. Sed temperantia vel fortitudo non ponitur virtus generalis. Ergo neque iustitia debet aliquo modo poni virtus generalis. | Objection 2: Further, as justice is accounted a cardinal virtue, so are temperance and fortitude. Now neither temperance nor fortitude is reckoned to be a general virtue. Therefore neither should justice in any way be reckoned a general virtue. |
| Praeterea, iustitia est semper ad alterum, ut supra dictum est. Sed peccatum quod est in proximum non est peccatum generale, sed dividitur contra peccatum quo peccat homo contra seipsum. Ergo etiam neque iustitia est virtus generalis. |
Objection 3: Further, justice is always towards others, as stated above (Article [2]). But a sin committed against one's neighbor cannot be a general sin, because it is condivided with sin committed against oneself. Therefore neither is justice a general virtue. |
| Sed contra est quod philosophus dicit, in V Ethic., quod iustitia est omnis virtus. | On the contrary, The Philosopher says (Ethic. v, 1) that "justice is every virtue." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod iustitia, sicut dictum est, ordinat hominem in comparatione ad alium. Quod quidem potest esse dupliciter. Uno modo, ad alium singulariter consideratum. Alio modo, ad alium in communi, secundum scilicet quod ille qui servit alicui communitati servit omnibus hominibus qui sub communitate illa continentur. Ad utrumque igitur se potest habere iustitia secundum propriam rationem. Manifestum est autem quod omnes qui sub communitate aliqua continentur comparantur ad communitatem sicut partes ad totum. Pars autem id quod est totius est, unde et quodlibet bonum partis est ordinabile in bonum totius. Secundum hoc igitur bonum cuiuslibet virtutis, sive ordinantis aliquem hominem ad seipsum sive ordinantis ipsum ad aliquas alias personas singulares, est referibile ad bonum commune, ad quod ordinat iustitia. Et secundum hoc actus omnium virtutum possunt ad iustitiam pertinere, secundum quod ordinat hominem ad bonum commune. Et quantum ad hoc iustitia dicitur virtus generalis. Et quia ad legem pertinet ordinare in bonum commune, ut supra habitum est, inde est quod talis iustitia, praedicto modo generalis, dicitur iustitia legalis, quia scilicet per eam homo concordat legi ordinanti actus omnium virtutum in bonum commune. |
I answer that, Justice, as stated above (Article [2]) directs man in his relations with other men. Now this may happen in two ways: first as regards his relation with individuals, secondly as regards his relations with others in general, in so far as a man who serves a community, serves all those who are included in that community. Accordingly justice in its proper acceptation can be directed to another in both these senses. Now it is evident that all who are included in a community, stand in relation to that community as parts to a whole; while a part, as such, belongs to a whole, so that whatever is the good of a part can be directed to the good of the whole. It follows therefore that the good of any virtue, whether such virtue direct man in relation to himself, or in relation to certain other individual persons, is referable to the common good, to which justice directs: so that all acts of virtue can pertain to justice, in so far as it directs man to the common good. It is in this sense that justice is called a general virtue. And since it belongs to the law to direct to the common good, as stated above (FS, Question [90], Article [2]), it follows that the justice which is in this way styled general, is called "legal justice," because thereby man is in harmony with the law which directs the acts of all the virtues to the common good. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod iustitia condividitur seu connumeratur aliis virtutibus non inquantum est generalis, sed inquantum est specialis virtus, ut infra dicetur. |
Reply to Objection 1: Justice is specified or enumerated with the other virtues, not as a general but as a special virtue, as we shall state further on (Articles [7],12). |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod temperantia et fortitudo sunt in appetitu sensitivo, idest in concupiscibili et irascibili. Huiusmodi autem vires sunt appetitivae quorundam bonorum particularium, sicut et sensus est particularium cognoscitivus. Sed iustitia est sicut in subiecto in appetitu intellectivo, qui potest esse universalis boni, cuius intellectus est apprehensivus. Et ideo iustitia magis potest esse virtus generalis quam temperantia vel fortitudo. | Reply to Objection 2: Temperance and fortitude are in the sensitive appetite, viz. in the concupiscible and irascible. Now these powers are appetitive of certain particular goods, even as the senses are cognitive of particulars. On the other hand justice is in the intellective appetite as its subject, which can have the universal good as its object, knowledge whereof belongs to the intellect. Hence justice can be a general virtue rather than temperance or fortitude. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod illa quae sunt ad seipsum sunt ordinabilia ad alterum, praecipue quantum ad bonum commune. Unde et iustitia legalis, secundum quod ordinat ad bonum commune, potest dici virtus generalis; et eadem ratione iniustitia potest dici peccatum commune, unde dicitur I Ioan. III quod omne peccatum est iniquitas. |
Reply to Objection 3: Things referable to oneself are referable to another, especially in regard to the common good. Wherefore legal justice, in so far as it directs to the common good, may be called a general virtue: and in like manner injustice may be called a general sin; hence it is written (1 Jn. 3:4) that all "sin is iniquity." |
Index [<<� | >>]
Second Part of the Second Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 58 [ << | >> ]
Article: 6 [ << | >> ]
| Ad sextum sic proceditur. Videtur quod iustitia, secundum quod est generalis, sit idem per essentiam cum omni virtute. Dicit enim philosophus, in V Ethic., quod virtus et iustitia legalis est eadem omni virtuti, esse autem non est idem. Sed illa quae differunt solum secundum esse, vel secundum rationem, non differunt secundum essentiam. Ergo iustitia est idem per essentiam cum omni virtute. | Objection 1: It would seem that justice, as a general virtue, is essentially the same as all virtue. For the Philosopher says (Ethic. v, 1) that "virtue and legal justice are the same as all virtue, but differ in their mode of being." Now things that differ merely in their mode of being or logically do not differ essentially. Therefore justice is essentially the same as every virtue. |
| Praeterea, omnis virtus quae non est idem per essentiam cum omni virtute, est pars virtutis. Sed iustitia praedicta, ut ibidem philosophus dicit, non est pars virtutis, sed tota virtus. Ergo praedicta iustitia est idem essentialiter cum omni virtute. | Objection 2: Further, every virtue that is not essentially the same as all virtue is a part of virtue. Now the aforesaid justice, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. v. 1) "is not a part but the whole of virtue." Therefore the aforesaid justice is essentially the same as all virtue. |
| Praeterea, per hoc quod aliqua virtus ordinat actum suum ad altiorem finem, non diversificatur secundum essentiam habitus, sicut idem est essentialiter habitus temperantiae, etiam si actus eius ordinetur ad bonum divinum. Sed ad iustitiam legalem pertinet quod actus omnium virtutum ordinentur ad altiorem finem, idest ad bonum commune multitudinis, quod praeeminet bono unius singularis personae. Ergo videtur quod iustitia legalis essentialiter sit omnis virtus. | Objection 3: Further, the essence of a virtue does not change through that virtue directing its act to some higher end even as the habit of temperance remains essentially the same even though its act be directed to a Divine good. Now it belongs to legal justice that the acts of all the virtues are directed to a higher end, namely the common good of the multitude, which transcends the good of one single individual. Therefore it seems that legal justice is essentially all virtue. |
| Praeterea, omne bonum partis ordinabile est ad bonum totius, unde si non ordinetur in illud, videtur esse vanum et frustra. Sed illud quod est secundum virtutem non potest esse huiusmodi. Ergo videtur quod nullus actus possit esse alicuius virtutis qui non pertineat ad iustitiam generalem, quae ordinat in bonum commune. Et sic videtur quod iustitia generalis sit idem in essentia cum omni virtute. | Objection 4: Further, every good of a part can be directed to the good of the whole, so that if it be not thus directed it would seem without use or purpose. But that which is in accordance with virtue cannot be so. Therefore it seems that there can be no act of any virtue, that does not belong to general justice, which directs to the common good; and so it seems that general justice is essentially the same as all virtue. |
| Sed contra est quod philosophus dicit, in V Ethic., quod multi in propriis quidem possunt virtute uti, in his autem quae ad alterum non possunt. Et in III Polit. dicit quod non est simpliciter eadem virtus boni viri et boni civis. Sed virtus boni civis est iustitia generalis, per quam aliquis ordinatur ad bonum commune. Ergo non est eadem iustitia generalis cum virtute communi, sed una potest sine alia haberi. | On the contrary, The Philosopher says (Ethic. v, 1) that "many are able to be virtuous in matters affecting themselves, but are unable to be virtuous in matters relating to others," and (Polit. iii, 2) that "the virtue of the good man is not strictly the same as the virtue of the good citizen." Now the virtue of a good citizen is general justice, whereby a man Is directed to the common good. Therefore general justice is not the same as virtue in general, and it is possible to have one without the other. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod generale dicitur aliquid dupliciter. Uno modo, per praedicationem, sicut animal est generale ad hominem et equum et ad alia huiusmodi. Et hoc modo generale oportet quod sit idem essentialiter cum his ad quae est generale, quia genus pertinet ad essentiam speciei et cadit in definitione eius. Alio modo dicitur aliquid generale secundum virtutem, sicut causa universalis est generalis ad omnes effectus, ut sol ad omnia corpora, quae illuminantur vel immutantur per virtutem ipsius. Et hoc modo generale non oportet quod sit idem in essentia cum his ad quae est generale, quia non est eadem essentia causae et effectus. Hoc autem modo, secundum praedicta, iustitia legalis dicitur esse virtus generalis, inquantum scilicet ordinat actus aliarum virtutum ad suum finem, quod est movere per imperium omnes alias virtutes. Sicut enim caritas potest dici virtus generalis inquantum ordinat actus omnium virtutum ad bonum divinum, ita etiam iustitia legalis inquantum ordinat actus omnium virtutum ad bonum commune. Sicut ergo caritas, quae respicit bonum divinum ut proprium obiectum, est quaedam specialis virtus secundum suam essentiam; ita etiam iustitia legalis est specialis virtus secundum suam essentiam, secundum quod respicit commune bonum ut proprium obiectum. Et sic est in principe principaliter, et quasi architectonice; in subditis autem secundario et quasi ministrative. |
I answer that, A thing is said to be "general" in two ways. First, by "predication": thus "animal" is general in relation to man and horse and the like: and in this sense that which is general must needs be essentially the same as the things in relation to which it is general, for the reason that the genus belongs to the essence of the species, and forms part of its definition. Secondly a thing is said to be general "virtually"; thus a universal cause is general in relation to all its effects, the sun, for instance, in relation to all bodies that are illumined, or transmuted by its power; and in this sense there is no need for that which is "general" to be essentially the same as those things in relation to which it is general, since cause and effect are not essentially the same. Now it is in the latter sense that, according to what has been said (Article [5]), legal justice is said to be a general virtue, in as much, to wit, as it directs the acts of the other virtues to its own end, and this is to move all the other virtues by its command; for just as charity may be called a general virtue in so far as it directs the acts of all the virtues to the Divine good, so too is legal justice, in so far as it directs the acts of all the virtues to the common good. Accordingly, just as charity which regards the Divine good as its proper object, is a special virtue in respect of its essence, so too legal justice is a special virtue in respect of its essence, in so far as it regards the common good as its proper object. And thus it is in the sovereign principally and by way of a mastercraft, while it is secondarily and administratively in his subjects. |
| Potest tamen quaelibet virtus, secundum quod a praedicta virtute, speciali quidem in essentia, generali autem secundum virtutem, ordinatur ad bonum commune, dici iustitia legalis. Et hoc modo loquendi iustitia legalis est idem in essentia cum omni virtute, differt autem ratione. Et hoc modo loquitur philosophus. | However the name of legal justice can be given to every virtue, in so far as every virtue is directed to the common good by the aforesaid legal justice, which though special essentially is nevertheless virtually general. Speaking in this way, legal justice is essentially the same as all virtue, but differs therefrom logically: and it is in this sense that the Philosopher speaks. |
| Unde patet responsio ad primum et secundum. | Wherefore the Replies to the First and Second Objections are manifest. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod etiam illa ratio secundum hunc modum procedit de iustitia legali, secundum quod virtus imperata a iustitia legali iustitia legalis dicitur. | Reply to Objection 3: This argument again takes legal justice for the virtue commanded by legal justice. |
| Ad quartum dicendum quod quaelibet virtus secundum propriam rationem ordinat actum suum ad proprium finem illius virtutis. Quod autem ordinetur ad ulteriorem finem, sive semper sive aliquando, hoc non habet ex propria ratione, sed oportet esse aliam superiorem virtutem a qua in illum finem ordinetur. Et sic oportet esse unam virtutem superiorem quae ordinet omnes virtutes in bonum commune, quae est iustitia legalis, et est alia per essentiam ab omni virtute. | Reply to Objection 4: Every virtue strictly speaking directs its act to that virtue's proper end: that it should happen to be directed to a further end either always or sometimes, does not belong to that virtue considered strictly, for it needs some higher virtue to direct it to that end. Consequently there must be one supreme virtue essentially distinct from every other virtue, which directs all the virtues to the common good; and this virtue is legal justice. |
Index [<<� | >>]
Second Part of the Second Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 58 [ << | >> ]
Article: 7 [ << | >> ]
| Ad septimum sic proceditur. Videtur quod non sit aliqua iustitia particularis praeter iustitiam generalem. In virtutibus enim nihil est superfluum, sicut nec in natura. Sed iustitia generalis sufficienter ordinat hominem circa omnia quae ad alterum sunt. Ergo non est necessaria aliqua iustitia particularis. | Objection 1: It would seem that there is not a particular besides a general justice. For there is nothing superfluous in the virtues, as neither is there in nature. Now general justice directs man sufficiently in all his relations with other men. Therefore there is no need for a particular justice. |
| Praeterea, unum et multa non diversificant speciem virtutis. Sed iustitia legalis ordinat hominem ad alium secundum ea quae ad multitudinem pertinent, ut ex praedictis patet. Ergo non est alia species iustitiae quae ordinet hominem ad alterum in his quae pertinent ad unam singularem personam. |
Objection 2: Further, the species of a virtue does not vary according to "one" and "many." But legal justice directs one man to another in matters relating to the multitude, as shown above (Articles [5],6). Therefore there is not another species of justice directing one man to another in matters relating to the individual. |
| Praeterea, inter unam singularem personam et multitudinem civitatis media est multitudo domestica. Si ergo est iustitia alia particularis per comparationem ad unam personam praeter iustitiam generalem, pari ratione debet esse alia iustitia oeconomica, quae ordinet hominem ad bonum commune unius familiae. Quod quidem non dicitur. Ergo nec aliqua particularis iustitia est praeter iustitiam legalem. | Objection 3: Further, between the individual and the general public stands the household community. Consequently, if in addition to general justice there is a particular justice corresponding to the individual, for the same reason there should be a domestic justice directing man to the common good of a household: and yet this is not the case. Therefore neither should there be a particular besides a legal justice. |
| Sed contra est quod Chrysostomus dicit, super illud Matth. V, beati qui esuriunt et sitiunt iustitiam, iustitiam autem dicit vel universalem virtutem, vel particularem avaritiae contrariam. | On the contrary, Chrysostom in his commentary on Mt. 5:6, "Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after justice," says (Hom. xv in Matth.): "By justice He signifies either the general virtue, or the particular virtue which is opposed to covetousness." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, iustitia legalis non est essentialiter omnis virtus, sed oportet praeter iustitiam legalem, quae ordinat hominem immediate ad bonum commune, esse alias virtutes quae immediate ordinant hominem circa particularia bona. Quae quidem possunt esse vel ad seipsum, vel ad alteram singularem personam. Sicut ergo praeter iustitiam legalem oportet esse aliquas virtutes particulares quae ordinant hominem in seipso, puta temperantiam et fortitudinem; ita etiam praeter iustitiam legalem oportet esse particularem quandam iustitiam, quae ordinet hominem circa ea quae sunt ad alteram singularem personam. |
I answer that, As stated above (Article [6]), legal justice is not essentially the same as every virtue, and besides legal justice which directs man immediately to the common good, there is a need for other virtues to direct him immediately in matters relating to particular goods: and these virtues may be relative to himself or to another individual person. Accordingly, just as in addition to legal justice there is a need for particular virtues to direct man in relation to himself, such as temperance and fortitude, so too besides legal justice there is need for particular justice to direct man in his relations to other individuals. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod iustitia legalis sufficienter quidem ordinat hominem in his quae sunt ad alterum, quantum ad commune quidem bonum, immediate; quantum autem ad bonum unius singularis personae, mediate. Et ideo oportet esse aliquam particularem iustitiam, quae immediate ordinet hominem ad bonum alterius singularis personae. | Reply to Objection 1: Legal justice does indeed direct man sufficiently in his relations towards others. As regards the common good it does so immediately, but as to the good of the individual, it does so mediately. Wherefore there is need for particular justice to direct a man immediately to the good of another individual. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod bonum commune civitatis et bonum singulare unius personae non differunt solum secundum multum et paucum, sed secundum formalem differentiam, alia enim est ratio boni communis et boni singularis, sicut et alia est ratio totius et partis. Et ideo philosophus, in I Polit., dicit quod non bene dicunt qui dicunt civitatem et domum et alia huiusmodi differre solum multitudine et paucitate, et non specie. | Reply to Objection 2: The common good of the realm and the particular good of the individual differ not only in respect of the "many" and the "few," but also under a formal aspect. For the aspect of the "common" good differs from the aspect of the "individual" good, even as the aspect of "whole" differs from that of "part." Wherefore the Philosopher says (Polit. i, 1) that "they are wrong who maintain that the State and the home and the like differ only as many and few and not specifically." |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod domestica multitudo, secundum philosophum, in I Polit., distinguitur secundum tres coniugationes, scilicet uxoris et viri, patris et filii, domini et servi, quarum personarum una est quasi aliquid alterius. Et ideo ad huiusmodi personam non est simpliciter iustitia, sed quaedam iustitiae species, scilicet oeconomica, ut dicitur in V Ethic. | Reply to Objection 3: The household community, according to the Philosopher (Polit. i, 2), differs in respect of a threefold fellowship; namely "of husband and wife, father and son, master and slave," in each of which one person is, as it were, part of the other. Wherefore between such persons there is not justice simply, but a species of justice, viz. "domestic" justice, as stated in Ethic. v, 6. |
Index [<<� | >>]
Second Part of the Second Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 58 [ << | >> ]
Article: 8 [ << | >> ]
| Ad octavum sic proceditur. Videtur quod iustitia particularis non habeat materiam specialem. Quia super illud Gen. II, fluvius quartus ipse est Euphrates, dicit Glossa, Euphrates frugifer interpretatur. Nec dicitur contra quod vadat, quia iustitia ad omnes animae partes pertinet. Hoc autem non esset si haberet materiam specialem, quia quaelibet materia specialis ad aliquam specialem potentiam pertinet. Ergo iustitia particularis non habet materiam specialem. | Objection 1: It would seem that particular justice has no special matter. Because a gloss on Gn. 2:14, "The fourth river is Euphrates," says: "Euphrates signifies 'fruitful'; nor is it stated through what country it flows, because justice pertains to all the parts of the soul." Now this would not be the case, if justice had a special matter, since every special matter belongs to a special power. Therefore particular justice has no special matter. |
| Praeterea, Augustinus, in libro octogintatrium quaest., dicit quod quatuor sunt animae virtutes, quibus in hac vita spiritualiter vivitur, scilicet prudentia, temperantia, fortitudo, iustitia, et dicit quod quarta est iustitia, quae per omnes diffunditur. Ergo iustitia particularis, quae est una de quatuor virtutibus cardinalibus, non habet specialem materiam. | Objection 2: Further, Augustine says (Questions. lxxxiii, qu. 61) that "the soul has four virtues whereby, in this life, it lives spiritually, viz. temperance, prudence, fortitude and justice;" and he says that "the fourth is justice, which pervades all the virtues." Therefore particular justice, which is one of the four cardinal virtues, has no special matter. |
| Praeterea, iustitia dirigit hominem sufficienter in his quae sunt ad alterum. Sed per omnia quae sunt huius vitae homo potest ordinari ad alterum. Ergo materia iustitiae est generalis, non specialis. | Objection 3: Further, justice directs man sufficiently in matters relating to others. Now a man can be directed to others in all matters relating to this life. Therefore the matter of justice is general and not special. |
| Sed contra est quod philosophus, in V Ethic., ponit iustitiam particularem circa ea specialiter quae pertinent ad communicationem vitae. | On the contrary, The Philosopher reckons (Ethic. v, 2) particular justice to be specially about those things which belong to social life. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod omnia quaecumque rectificari possunt per rationem sunt materia virtutis moralis, quae definitur per rationem rectam, ut patet per philosophum, in II Ethic. Possunt autem per rationem rectificari et interiores animae passiones, et exteriores actiones, et res exteriores quae in usum hominis veniunt, sed tamen per exteriores actiones et per exteriores res, quibus sibi invicem homines communicare possunt, attenditur ordinatio unius hominis ad alium; secundum autem interiores passiones consideratur rectificatio hominis in seipso. Et ideo, cum iustitia ordinetur ad alterum, non est circa totam materiam virtutis moralis, sed solum circa exteriores actiones et res secundum quandam rationem obiecti specialem, prout scilicet secundum eas unus homo alteri coordinatur. | I answer that, Whatever can be rectified by reason is the matter of moral virtue, for this is defined in reference to right reason, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. ii, 6). Now the reason can rectify not only the internal passions of the soul, but also external actions, and also those external things of which man can make use. And yet it is in respect of external actions and external things by means of which men can communicate with one another, that the relation of one man to another is to be considered; whereas it is in respect of internal passions that we consider man's rectitude in himself. Consequently, since justice is directed to others, it is not about the entire matter of moral virtue, but only about external actions and things, under a certain special aspect of the object, in so far as one man is related to another through them. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod iustitia pertinet quidem essentialiter ad unam partem animae, in qua est sicut in subiecto, scilicet ad voluntatem, quae quidem movet per suum imperium omnes alias animae partes. Et sic iustitia non directe, sed quasi per quandam redundantiam ad omnes animae partes pertinet. | Reply to Objection 1: It is true that justice belongs essentially to one part of the soul, where it resides as in its subject; and this is the will which moves by its command all the other parts of the soul; and accordingly justice belongs to all the parts of the soul, not directly but by a kind of diffusion. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, virtutes cardinales dupliciter accipiuntur. Uno modo, secundum quod sunt speciales virtutes habentes determinatas materias. Alio modo, secundum quod significant quosdam generales modos virtutis. Et hoc modo loquitur ibi Augustinus. Dicit enim quod prudentia est cognitio rerum appetendarum et fugiendarum; temperantia est refrenatio cupiditatis ab his quae temporaliter delectant; fortitudo est firmitas animi adversus ea quae temporaliter molesta sunt; iustitia est, quae per ceteras diffunditur, dilectio Dei et proximi, quae scilicet est communis radix totius ordinis ad alterum. |
Reply to Objection 2: As stated above (FS, Question [61], Articles [3],4), the cardinal virtues may be taken in two ways: first as special virtues, each having a determinate matter; secondly, as certain general modes of virtue. In this latter sense Augustine speaks in the passage quoted: for he says that "prudence is knowledge of what we should seek and avoid, temperance is the curb on the lust for fleeting pleasures, fortitude is strength of mind in bearing with passing trials, justice is the love of God and our neighbor which pervades the other virtues, that is to say, is the common principle of the entire order between one man and another." |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod passiones interiores, quae sunt pars materiae moralis, secundum se non ordinantur ad alterum, quod pertinet ad specialem rationem iustitiae, sed earum effectus sunt ad alterum ordinabiles, scilicet operationes exteriores. Unde non sequitur quod materia iustitiae sit generalis. | Reply to Objection 3: A man's internal passions which are a part of moral matter, are not in themselves directed to another man, which belongs to the specific nature of justice; yet their effects, i.e. external actions, are capable of being directed to another man. Consequently it does not follow that the matter of justice is general. |
Index [<<� | >>]
Second Part of the Second Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 58 [ << | >> ]
Article: 9 [ << | >> ]
| Ad nonum sic proceditur. Videtur quod iustitia sit circa passiones. Dicit enim philosophus, in II Ethic., quod circa voluptates et tristitias est moralis virtus. Voluptas autem, idest delectatio, et tristitia sunt passiones quaedam; ut supra habitum est, cum de passionibus ageretur. Ergo iustitia, cum sit virtus moralis, erit circa passiones. | Objection 1: It would seem that justice is about the passions. For the Philosopher says (Ethic. ii, 3) that "moral virtue is about pleasure and pain." Now pleasure or delight, and pain are passions, as stated above [*FS, Question [23], Article [4]; FS, Question [31], Article [1]; FS, Question [35], Article [1]] when we were treating of the passions. Therefore justice, being a moral virtue, is about the passions. |
| Praeterea, per iustitiam rectificantur operationes quae sunt ad alterum. Sed operationes huiusmodi rectificari non possunt nisi passiones sint rectificatae, quia ex inordinatione passionum provenit inordinatio in praedictis operationibus; propter concupiscentiam enim venereorum proceditur ad adulterium, et propter superfluum amorem pecuniae proceditur ad furtum. Ergo oportet quod iustitia sit circa passiones. | Objection 2: Further, justice is the means of rectifying a man's operations in relation to another man. Now such like operations cannot be rectified unless the passions be rectified, because it is owing to disorder of the passions that there is disorder in the aforesaid operations: thus sexual lust leads to adultery, and overmuch love of money leads to theft. Therefore justice must needs be about the passions. |
| Praeterea, sicut iustitia particularis est ad alterum, ita etiam et iustitia legalis. Sed iustitia legalis est circa passiones, alioquin non se extenderet ad omnes virtutes, quarum quaedam manifeste sunt circa passiones. Ergo iustitia est circa passiones. | Objection 3: Further, even as particular justice is towards another person so is legal justice. Now legal justice is about the passions, else it would not extend to all the virtues, some of which are evidently about the passions. Therefore justice is about the passions. |
| Sed contra est quod philosophus dicit, in V Ethic., quod est circa operationes. | On the contrary, The Philosopher says (Ethic. v, 1) that justice is about operations. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod huius quaestionis veritas ex duobus apparet. Primo quidem, ex ipso subiecto iustitiae, quod est voluntas cuius motus vel actus non sunt passiones, ut supra habitum est; sed solum motus appetitus sensitivi passiones dicuntur. Et ideo iustitia non est circa passiones, sicut temperantia et fortitudo, quae sunt irascibilis et concupiscibilis, sunt circa passiones. Alio modo, ex parte materiae. Quia iustitia est circa ea quae sunt ad alterum. Non autem per passiones interiores immediate ad alterum ordinamur. Et ideo iustitia circa passiones non est. |
I answer that, The true answer to this question may be gathered from a twofold source. First from the subject of justice, i.e. from the will, whose movements or acts are not passions, as stated above (FS, Question [22], Article [3]; FS, Question [59], Article [4]), for it is only the sensitive appetite whose movements are called passions. Hence justice is not about the passions, as are temperance and fortitude, which are in the irascible and concupiscible parts. Secondly, on he part of the matter, because justice is about man's relations with another, and we are not directed immediately to another by the internal passions. Therefore justice is not about the passions. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod non quaelibet virtus moralis est circa voluptates et tristitias sicut circa materiam, nam fortitudo est circa timores et audacias. Sed omnis virtus moralis ordinatur ad delectationem et tristitiam sicut ad quosdam fines consequentes, quia, ut philosophus dicit, in VII Ethic., delectatio et tristitia est finis principalis, ad quem respicientes unumquodque hoc quidem malum, hoc quidem bonum dicimus. Et hoc modo etiam pertinent ad iustitiam, quia non est iustus qui non gaudet iustis operationibus, ut dicitur in I Ethic. | Reply to Objection 1: Not every moral virtue is about pleasure and pain as its proper matter, since fortitude is about fear and daring: but every moral virtue is directed to pleasure and pain, as to ends to be acquired, for, as the Philosopher says (Ethic. vii, 11), "pleasure and pain are the principal end in respect of which we say that this is an evil, and that a good": and in this way too they belong to justice, since "a man is not just unless he rejoice in just actions" (Ethic. i, 8). |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod operationes exteriores mediae sunt quodammodo inter res exteriores, quae sunt earum materia, et inter passiones interiores, quae sunt earum principia. Contingit autem quandoque esse defectum in uno eorum sine hoc quod sit defectus in alio, sicut si aliquis surripiat rem alterius non cupiditate habendi, sed voluntate nocendi; vel e converso si aliquis alterius rem concupiscat, quam tamen surripere non velit. Rectificatio ergo operationum secundum quod ad exteriora terminantur, pertinet ad iustitiam, sed rectificatio earum secundum quod a passionibus oriuntur, pertinet ad alias virtutes morales, quae sunt circa passiones. Unde surreptionem alienae rei iustitia impedit inquantum est contra aequalitatem in exterioribus constituendam, liberalitas vero inquantum procedit ab immoderata concupiscentia divitiarum. Sed quia operationes exteriores non habent speciem ab interioribus passionibus, sed magis a rebus exterioribus, sicut ex obiectis; ideo, per se loquendo, operationes exteriores magis sunt materia iustitiae quam aliarum virtutum moralium. | Reply to Objection 2: External operations are as it were between external things, which are their matter, and internal passions, which are their origin. Now it happens sometimes that there is a defect in one of these, without there being a defect in the other. Thus a man may steal another's property, not through the desire to have the thing, but through the will to hurt the man; or vice versa, a man may covet another's property without wishing to steal it. Accordingly the directing of operations in so far as they tend towards external things, belongs to justice, but in so far as they arise from the passions, it belongs to the other moral virtues which are about the passions. Hence justice hinders theft of another's property, in so far as stealing is contrary to the, equality that should be maintained in external things, while liberality hinders it as resulting from an immoderate desire for wealth. Since, however, external operations take their species, not from the internal passions but from external things as being their objects, it follows that, external operations are essentially the matter of justice rather than of the other moral virtues. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod bonum commune est finis singularum personarum in communitate existentium, sicut bonum totius finis est cuiuslibet partium. Bonum autem unius personae singularis non est finis alterius. Et ideo iustitia legalis, quae ordinatur ad bonum commune, magis se potest extendere ad interiores passiones, quibus homo aliqualiter disponitur in seipso, quam iustitia particularis, quae ordinatur ad bonum alterius singularis personae. Quamvis iustitia legalis principalius se extendat ad alias virtutes quantum ad exteriores operationes earum, inquantum scilicet praecipit lex fortis opera facere, et quae temperati, et quae mansueti, ut dicitur in V Ethic. | Reply to Objection 3: The common good is the end of each individual member of a community, just as the good of the whole is the end of each part. On the other hand the good of one individual is not the end of another individual: wherefore legal justice which is directed to the common good, is more capable of extending to the internal passions whereby man is disposed in some way or other in himself, than particular justice which is directed to the good of another individual: although legal justice extends chiefly to other virtues in the point of their external operations, in so far, to wit, as "the law commands us to perform the actions of a courageous person... the actions of a temperate person... and the actions of a gentle person" (Ethic. v, 5). |
Index [<<� | >>]
Second Part of the Second Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 58 [ << | >> ]
Article: 10 [ << | >> ]
| Ad decimum sic proceditur. Videtur quod medium iustitiae non sit medium rei. Ratio enim generis salvatur in omnibus speciebus. Sed virtus moralis in II Ethic. definitur esse habitus electivus in medietate existens determinata ratione quoad nos. Ergo et in iustitia est medium rationis, et non rei. | Objection 1: It would seem that the mean of justice is not the real mean. For the generic nature remains entire in each species. Now moral virtue is defined (Ethic. ii, 6) to be "an elective habit which observes the mean fixed, in our regard, by reason." Therefore justice observes the rational and not the real mean. |
| Praeterea, in his quae simpliciter sunt bona non est accipere superfluum et diminutum, et per consequens nec medium, sicut patet de virtutibus, ut dicitur in II Ethic. Sed iustitia est circa simpliciter bona, ut dicitur in V Ethic. Ergo in iustitia non est medium rei. | Objection 2: Further, in things that are good simply, there is neither excess nor defect, and consequently neither is there a mean; as is clearly the case with the virtues, according to Ethic. ii, 6. Now justice is about things that are good simply, as stated in Ethic. v. Therefore justice does not observe the real mean. |
| Praeterea, in aliis virtutibus ideo dicitur esse medium rationis et non rei, quia diversimode accipitur per comparationem ad diversas personas, quia quod uni est multum, alteri est parum, ut dicitur in II Ethic. Sed hoc etiam observatur in iustitia, non enim eadem poena punitur qui percutit principem, et qui percutit privatam personam. Ergo etiam iustitia non habet medium rei, sed medium rationis. | Objection 3: Further, the reason why the other virtues are said to observe the rational and not the real mean, is because in their case the mean varies according to different persons, since what is too much for one is too little for another (Ethic. ii, 6). Now this is also the case in justice: for one who strikes a prince does not receive the same punishment as one who strikes a private individual. Therefore justice also observes, not the real, but the rational mean. |
| Sed contra est quod philosophus, in V Ethic., assignat medium iustitiae secundum proportionalitatem arithmeticam, quod est medium rei. | On the contrary, The Philosopher says (Ethic. ii, 6; v, 4) that the mean of justice is to be taken according to "arithmetical" proportion, so that it is the real mean. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, aliae virtutes morales consistunt principaliter circa passiones, quarum rectificatio non attenditur nisi secundum comparationem ad ipsum hominem cuius sunt passiones, secundum scilicet quod irascitur et concupiscit prout debet secundum diversas circumstantias. Et ideo medium talium virtutum non accipitur secundum proportionem unius rei ad alteram, sed solum secundum comparationem ad ipsum virtuosum. Et propter hoc in ipsis est medium solum secundum rationem quoad nos. |
I answer that, As stated above (Article [9]; FS, Question [59], Article [4]), the other moral virtues are chiefly concerned with the passions, the regulation of which is gauged entirely by a comparison with the very man who is the subject of those passions, in so far as his anger and desire are vested with their various due circumstances. Hence the mean in such like virtues is measured not by the proportion of one thing to another, but merely by comparison with the virtuous man himself, so that with them the mean is only that which is fixed by reason in our regard. |
| Sed materia iustitiae est exterior operatio secundum quod ipsa, vel res cuius est usus, debitam proportionem habet ad aliam personam. Et ideo medium iustitiae consistit in quadam proportionis aequalitate rei exterioris ad personam exteriorem. Aequale autem est realiter medium inter maius et minus, ut dicitur in X Metaphys. Unde iustitia habet medium rei. | On the other hand, the matter of justice is external operation, in so far as an operation or the thing used in that operation is duly proportionate to another person, wherefore the mean of justice consists in a certain proportion of equality between the external thing and the external person. Now equality is the real mean between greater and less, as stated in Metaph. x [*Didot ed., ix, 5; Cf. Ethic. v, 4]: wherefore justice observes the real mean. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod hoc medium rei est etiam medium rationis. Et ideo in iustitia salvatur ratio virtutis moralis. | Reply to Objection 1: This real mean is also the rational mean, wherefore justice satisfies the conditions of a moral virtue. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod bonum simpliciter dupliciter dicitur. Uno modo, quod est omnibus modis bonum, sicut virtutes sunt bonae. Et sic in his quae sunt bona simpliciter non est accipere medium et extrema. Alio modo dicitur aliquid simpliciter bonum quia est absolute bonum, scilicet secundum suam naturam consideratum, quamvis per abusum possit fieri malum, sicut patet de divitiis et honoribus. Et in talibus potest accipi superfluum, diminutum et medium quantum ad homines, qui possunt eis uti vel bene vel male. Ei sic circa simpliciter bona dicitur esse iustitia. | Reply to Objection 2: We may speak of a thing being good simply in two ways. First a thing may be good in every way: thus the virtues are good; and there is neither mean nor extremes in things that are good simply in this sense. Secondly a thing is said to be good simply through being good absolutely i.e. in its nature, although it may become evil through being abused. Such are riches and honors; and in the like it is possible to find excess, deficiency and mean, as regards men who can use them well or ill: and it is in this sense that justice is about things that are good simply. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod iniuria illata aliam proportionem habet ad principem, et aliam ad personam privatam. Et ideo oportet aliter adaequare utramque iniuriam per vindictam. Quod pertinet ad diversitatem rei, et non solum ad diversitatem rationis. | Reply to Objection 3: The injury inflicted bears a different proportion to a prince from that which it bears to a private person: wherefore each injury requires to be equalized by vengeance in a different way: and this implies a real and not merely a rational diversity. |
Index [<<� | >>]
Second Part of the Second Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 58 [ << | >> ]
Article: 11 [ << | >> ]
| Ad undecimum sic proceditur. Videtur quod actus iustitiae non sit reddere unicuique quod suum est. Augustinus enim, XIV de Trin., attribuit iustitiae subvenire miseris. Sed in subveniendo miseris non tribuimus eis quae sunt eorum, sed magis quae sunt nostra. Ergo iustitiae actus non est tribuere unicuique quod suum est. | Objection 1: It would seem that the act of justice is not to render to each one his own. For Augustine (De Trin. xiv, 9) ascribes to justice the act of succoring the needy. Now in succoring the needy we give them what is not theirs but ours. Therefore the act of justice does not consist in rendering to each one his own. |
| Praeterea, Tullius, in I de Offic., dicit quod beneficentia, quam benignitatem vel liberalitatem appellari licet, ad iustitiam pertinet. Sed liberalitatis est de proprio dare alicui, non de eo quod est eius. Ergo iustitiae actus non est reddere unicuique quod suum est. | Objection 2: Further, Tully says (De Offic. i, 7) that "beneficence which we may call kindness or liberality, belongs to justice." Now it pertains to liberality to give to another of one's own, not of what is his. Therefore the act of justice does not consist in rendering to each one his own. |
| Praeterea, ad iustitiam pertinet non solum res dispensare debito modo, sed etiam iniuriosas actiones cohibere, puta homicidia, adulteria et alia huiusmodi. Sed reddere quod suum est videtur solum ad dispensationem rerum pertinere. Ergo non sufficienter per hoc notificatur actus iustitiae quod dicitur actus eius esse reddere unicuique quod suum est. | Objection 3: Further, it belongs to justice not only to distribute things duly, but also to repress injurious actions, such as murder, adultery and so forth. But the rendering to each one of what is his seems to belong solely to the distribution of things. Therefore the act of justice is not sufficiently described by saying that it consists in rendering to each one his own. |
| Sed contra est quod Ambrosius dicit, in I de Offic., iustitia est quae unicuique quod suum est tribuit, alienum non vindicat, utilitatem propriam negligit ut communem aequitatem custodiat. | On the contrary, Ambrose says (De Offic. i, 24): "It is justice that renders to each one what is his, and claims not another's property; it disregards its own profit in order to preserve the common equity." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, materia iustitiae est operatio exterior secundum quod ipsa, vel res qua per eam utimur, proportionatur alteri personae, ad quam per iustitiam ordinamur. Hoc autem dicitur esse suum uniuscuiusque personae quod ei secundum proportionis aequalitatem debetur. Et ideo proprius actus iustitiae nihil est aliud quam reddere unicuique quod suum est. |
I answer that, As stated above (Articles [8],10), the matter of justice is an external operation in so far as either it or the thing we use by it is made proportionate to some other person to whom we are related by justice. Now each man's own is that which is due to him according to equality of proportion. Therefore the proper act of justice is nothing else than to render to each one his own. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod iustitiae, cum sit virtus cardinalis, quaedam aliae virtutes secundariae adiunguntur, sicut misericordia, liberalitas et aliae huiusmodi virtutes, ut infra patebit. Et ideo subvenire miseris, quod pertinet ad misericordiam sive pietatem, et liberaliter benefacere, quod pertinet ad liberalitatem, per quandam reductionem attribuitur iustitiae, sicut principali virtuti. |
Reply to Objection 1: Since justice is a cardinal virtue, other secondary virtues, such as mercy, liberality and the like are connected with it, as we shall state further on (Question [80], Article [1]). Wherefore to succor the needy, which belongs to mercy or pity, and to be liberally beneficent, which pertains to liberality, are by a kind of reduction ascribed to justice as to their principal virtue. |
| Et per hoc patet responsio ad secundum. | This suffices for the Reply to the Second Objection. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut philosophus dicit, in V Ethic., omne superfluum in his quae ad iustitiam pertinent lucrum, extenso nomine, vocatur, sicut et omne quod minus est vocatur damnum. Et hoc ideo, quia iustitia prius est exercita, et communius exercetur in voluntariis commutationibus rerum, puta emptione et venditione, in quibus proprie haec nomina dicuntur; et exinde derivantur haec nomina ad omnia circa quae potest esse iustitia. Et eadem ratio est de hoc quod est reddere unicuique quod suum est. | Reply to Objection 3: As the Philosopher states (Ethic. v, 4), in matters of justice, the name of "profit" is extended to whatever is excessive, and whatever is deficient is called "loss." The reason for this is that justice is first of all and more commonly exercised in voluntary interchanges of things, such as buying and selling, wherein those expressions are properly employed; and yet they are transferred to all other matters of justice. The same applies to the rendering to each one of what is his own. |
Index [<<� | >>]
Second Part of the Second Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 58 [ << | >> ]
Article: 12 [ << | >> ]
| Ad duodecimum sic proceditur. Videtur quod iustitia non praeemineat inter omnes virtutes morales. Ad iustitiam enim pertinet reddere alteri quod suum est. Ad liberalitatem autem pertinet de proprio dare, quod virtuosius est. Ergo liberalitas est maior virtus quam iustitia. | Objection 1: It would seem that justice does not stand foremost among all the moral virtues. Because it belongs to justice to render to each one what is his, whereas it belongs to liberality to give of one's own, and this is more virtuous. Therefore liberality is a greater virtue than justice. |
| Praeterea, nihil ornatur nisi per aliquid dignius se. Sed magnanimitas est ornamentum et iustitiae et omnium virtutum, ut dicitur in IV Ethic. Ergo magnanimitas est nobilior quam iustitia. | Objection 2: Further, nothing is adorned by a less excellent thing than itself. Now magnanimity is the ornament both of justice and of all the virtues, according to Ethic. iv, 3. Therefore magnanimity is more excellent than justice. |
| Praeterea, virtus est circa difficile et bonum, ut dicitur in II Ethic. Sed fortitudo est circa magis difficilia quam iustitia, idest circa pericula mortis, ut dicitur in III Ethic. Ergo fortitudo est nobilior iustitia. | Objection 3: Further, virtue is about that which is "difficult" and "good," as stated in Ethic. ii, 3. But fortitude is about more difficult things than justice is, since it is about dangers of death, according to Ethic. iii, 6. Therefore fortitude is more excellent than justice. |
| Sed contra est quod Tullius dicit, in I de Offic., in iustitia virtutis splendor est maximus, ex qua boni viri nominantur. | On the contrary, Tully says (De Offic. i, 7): "Justice is the most resplendent of the virtues, and gives its name to a good man." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod si loquamur de iustitia legali, manifestum est quod ipsa est praeclarior inter omnes virtutes morales, inquantum bonum commune praeeminet bono singulari unius personae. Et secundum hoc philosophus, in V Ethic., dicit quod praeclarissima virtutum videtur esse iustitia, et neque est Hesperus neque Lucifer ita admirabilis. Sed etiam si loquamur de iustitia particulari, praecellit inter alias virtutes morales, duplici ratione. Quarum prima potest sumi ex parte subiecti, quia scilicet est in nobiliori parte animae, idest in appetitu rationali, scilicet voluntate; aliis virtutibus moralibus existentibus in appetitu sensitivo, ad quem pertinent passiones, quae sunt materia aliarum virtutum moralium. Secunda ratio sumitur ex parte obiecti. Nam aliae virtutes laudantur solum secundum bonum ipsius virtuosi. Iustitia autem laudatur secundum quod virtuosus ad alium bene se habet, et sic iustitia quodammodo est bonum alterius, ut dicitur in V Ethic. Et propter hoc philosophus dicit, in I Rhet., necesse est maximas esse virtutes eas quae sunt aliis honestissimae, siquidem est virtus potentia benefactiva. Propter hoc fortes et iustos maxime honorant, quoniam fortitudo est utilis aliis in bello, iustitia autem et in bello et in pace. | I answer that, If we speak of legal justice, it is evident that it stands foremost among all the moral virtues, for as much as the common good transcends the individual good of one person. In this sense the Philosopher declares (Ethic. v, 1) that "the most excellent of the virtues would seem to be justice, and more glorious than either the evening or the morning star." But, even if we speak of particular justice, it excels the other moral virtues for two reasons. The first reason may be taken from the subject, because justice is in the more excellent part of the soul, viz. the rational appetite or will, whereas the other moral virtues are in the sensitive appetite, whereunto appertain the passions which are the matter of the other moral virtues. The second reason is taken from the object, because the other virtues are commendable in respect of the sole good of the virtuous person himself, whereas justice is praiseworthy in respect of the virtuous person being well disposed towards another, so that justice is somewhat the good of another person, as stated in Ethic. v, 1. Hence the Philosopher says (Rhet. i, 9): "The greatest virtues must needs be those which are most profitable to other persons, because virtue is a faculty of doing good to others. For this reason the greatest honors are accorded the brave and the just, since bravery is useful to others in warfare, and justice is useful to others both in warfare and in time of peace." |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod liberalitas, etsi de suo det, tamen hoc facit inquantum in hoc considerat propriae virtutis bonum. Iustitia autem dat alteri quod suum est quasi considerans bonum commune. Et Praeterea iustitia observatur ad omnes, liberalitas autem ad omnes se extendere non potest. Et iterum liberalitas, quae de suo dat, supra iustitiam fundatur, per quam conservatur unicuique quod suum est. | Reply to Objection 1: Although the liberal man gives of his own, yet he does so in so far as he takes into consideration the good of his own virtue, while the just man gives to another what is his, through consideration of the common good. Moreover justice is observed towards all, whereas liberality cannot extend to all. Again liberality which gives of a man's own is based on justice, whereby one renders to each man what is his. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod magnanimitas, inquantum supervenit iustitiae, auget eius bonitatem. Quae tamen sine iustitia nec virtutis rationem haberet. | Reply to Objection 2: When magnanimity is added to justice it increases the latter's goodness; and yet without justice it would not even be a virtue. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod fortitudo consistit circa difficiliora, non tamen est circa meliora, cum sit solum in bello utilis, iustitia autem et in pace et in bello, sicut dictum est. | Reply to Objection 3: Although fortitude is about the most difficult things, it is not about the best, for it is only useful in warfare, whereas justice is useful both in war and in peace, as stated above. |