FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 92, Art. 1]

Whether an Effect of Law Is to Make Men Good?

Objection 1: It seems that it is not an effect of law to make men

good. For men are good through virtue, since virtue, as stated in

_Ethic._ ii, 6 is "that which makes its subject good." But virtue is

in man from God alone, because He it is Who "works it in us without

us," as we stated above (Q. 55, A. 4) in giving the definition of

virtue. Therefore the law does not make men good.

Obj. 2: Further, Law does not profit a man unless he obeys it. But

the very fact that a man obeys a law is due to his being good.

Therefore in man goodness is presupposed to the law. Therefore the

law does not make men good.

Obj. 3: Further, Law is ordained to the common good, as stated above

(Q. 90, A. 2). But some behave well in things regarding the

community, who behave ill in things regarding themselves. Therefore

it is not the business of the law to make men good.

Obj. 4: Further, some laws are tyrannical, as the Philosopher says

(Polit. iii, 6). But a tyrant does not intend the good of his

subjects, but considers only his own profit. Therefore law does not

make men good.

_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher says (Ethic. ii, 1) that the

"intention of every lawgiver is to make good citizens."

_I answer that,_ as stated above (Q. 90, A. 1, ad 2; AA. 3, 4), a law

is nothing else than a dictate of reason in the ruler by whom his

subjects are governed. Now the virtue of any subordinate thing

consists in its being well subordinated to that by which it is

regulated: thus we see that the virtue of the irascible and

concupiscible faculties consists in their being obedient to reason;

and accordingly "the virtue of every subject consists in his being

well subjected to his ruler," as the Philosopher says (Polit. i). But

every law aims at being obeyed by those who are subject to it.

Consequently it is evident that the proper effect of law is to lead

its subjects to their proper virtue: and since virtue is "that which

makes its subject good," it follows that the proper effect of law is

to make those to whom it is given, good, either simply or in some

particular respect. For if the intention of the lawgiver is fixed on

true good, which is the common good regulated according to Divine

justice, it follows that the effect of the law is to make men good

simply. If, however, the intention of the lawgiver is fixed on that

which is not simply good, but useful or pleasurable to himself, or in

opposition to Divine justice; then the law does not make men good

simply, but in respect to that particular government. In this way

good is found even in things that are bad of themselves: thus a man

is called a good robber, because he works in a way that is adapted to

his end.

Reply Obj. 1: Virtue is twofold, as explained above (Q. 63, A. 2),

viz. acquired and infused. Now the fact of being accustomed to an

action contributes to both, but in different ways; for it causes the

acquired virtue; while it disposes to infused virtue, and preserves

and fosters it when it already exists. And since law is given for the

purpose of directing human acts; as far as human acts conduce to

virtue, so far does law make men good. Wherefore the Philosopher says

in the second book of the Politics (Ethic. ii) that "lawgivers make

men good by habituating them to good works."

Reply Obj. 2: It is not always through perfect goodness of virtue

that one obeys the law, but sometimes it is through fear of

punishment, and sometimes from the mere dictates of reason, which is

a beginning of virtue, as stated above (Q. 63, A. 1).

Reply Obj. 3: The goodness of any part is considered in comparison

with the whole; hence Augustine says (Confess. iii) that "unseemly is

the part that harmonizes not with the whole." Since then every man is

a part of the state, it is impossible that a man be good, unless he

be well proportionate to the common good: nor can the whole be well

consistent unless its parts be proportionate to it. Consequently the

common good of the state cannot flourish, unless the citizens be

virtuous, at least those whose business it is to govern. But it is

enough for the good of the community, that the other citizens be so

far virtuous that they obey the commands of their rulers. Hence the

Philosopher says (Polit. ii, 2) that "the virtue of a sovereign is

the same as that of a good man, but the virtue of any common citizen

is not the same as that of a good man."

Reply Obj. 4: A tyrannical law, through not being according to

reason, is not a law, absolutely speaking, but rather a perversion of

law; and yet in so far as it is something in the nature of a law, it

aims at the citizens' being good. For all it has in the nature of a

law consists in its being an ordinance made by a superior to his

subjects, and aims at being obeyed by them, which is to make them

good, not simply, but with respect to that particular government.

________________________

Summa Theologica, Part I-II (Pars Prima Secundae) From the Complete American Edition · 第 595 / 746 题