Whether a Man Is Bound to Restore What He Has Not Taken?
Objection 1: It would seem that a man is bound to restore what he has
not taken. For he that has inflicted a loss on a man is bound to
remove that loss. Now it happens sometimes that the loss sustained is
greater than the thing taken: for instance, if you dig up a man's
seeds, you inflict on the sower a loss equal to the coming harvest,
and thus you would seem to be bound to make restitution accordingly.
Therefore a man is bound to restore what he has not taken.
Obj. 2: Further, he who retains his creditor's money beyond the
stated time, would seem to occasion his loss of all his possible
profits from that money, and yet he does not really take them.
Therefore it seems that a man is bound to restore what he did not
take.
Obj. 3: Further, human justice is derived from Divine justice. Now a
man is bound to restore to God more than he has received from Him,
according to Matt. 25:26, "Thou knewest that I reap where I sow not,
and gather where I have not strewed." Therefore it is just that one
should restore to a man also, something that one has not taken.
_On the contrary,_ Restitution belongs to justice, because it
re-establishes equality. But if one were to restore what one did not
take, there would not be equality. Therefore it is not just to make
such a restitution.
_I answer that,_ Whoever brings a loss upon another person,
seemingly, takes from him the amount of the loss, since, according to
the Philosopher (Ethic. v, 4) loss is so called from a man having
_less_* than his due. [*The derivation is more apparent in English
than in Latin, where _damnum_ stands for _loss,_ and _minus_ for
_less._ Aristotle merely says that to have more than your own is
called "gain," and to have less than you started with is called
"loss."] Therefore a man is bound to make restitution according to
the loss he has brought upon another.
Now a man suffers a loss in two ways. First, by being deprived of
what he actually has; and a loss of this kind is always to be made
good by repayment in equivalent: for instance if a man damnifies
another by destroying his house he is bound to pay him the value of
the house. Secondly, a man may damnify another by preventing him from
obtaining what he was on the way to obtain. A loss of this kind need
not be made good in equivalent; because to have a thing virtually is
less than to have it actually, and to be on the way to obtain a thing
is to have it merely virtually or potentially, and so were he to be
indemnified by receiving the thing actually, he would be paid, not
the exact value taken from him, but more, and this is not necessary
for salvation, as stated above. However he is bound to make some
compensation, according to the condition of persons and things.
From this we see how to answer the First and Second Objections:
because the sower of the seed in the field, has the harvest, not
actually but only virtually. In like manner he that has money has the
profit not yet actually but only virtually: and both may be hindered
in many ways.
Reply Obj. 3: God requires nothing from us but what He Himself has
sown in us. Hence this saying is to be understood as expressing
either the shameful thought of the lazy servant, who deemed that he
had received nothing from the other, or the fact that God expects
from us the fruit of His gifts, which fruit is from Him and from us,
although the gifts themselves are from God without us.
_______________________