THIRD ARTICLE [II-II, Q. 58, Art. 3]

Whether Justice Is a Virtue?

Objection 1: It would seem that justice is not a virtue. For it is

written (Luke 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.

Obj. 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.

Obj. 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.

_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.

_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."

Reply Obj. 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."

Reply Obj. 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."

Reply Obj. 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.

_______________________

Summa Theologica, Part II-II (Secunda Secundae) Translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province · 第 394 / 1128 题