FIRST ARTICLE [II-II, Q. 64, Art. 1]

Whether It Is Unlawful to Kill Any Living Thing?

Objection 1: It would seem unlawful to kill any living thing. For the

Apostle says (Rom. 13:2): "They that resist the ordinance of God

purchase to themselves damnation [*Vulg.: 'He that resisteth the

power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist, purchase

themselves damnation.']." Now Divine providence has ordained that all

living things should be preserved, according to Ps. 146:8, 9, "Who

maketh grass to grow on the mountains . . . Who giveth to beasts

their food." Therefore it seems unlawful to take the life of any

living thing.

Obj. 2: Further, murder is a sin because it deprives a man of life.

Now life is common to all animals and plants. Hence for the same

reason it is apparently a sin to slay dumb animals and plants.

Obj. 3: Further, in the Divine law a special punishment is not

appointed save for a sin. Now a special punishment had to be

inflicted, according to the Divine law, on one who killed another

man's ox or sheep (Ex. 22:1). Therefore the slaying of dumb animals

is a sin.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Civ. Dei i, 20): "When we hear

it said, 'Thou shalt not kill,' we do not take it as referring to

trees, for they have no sense, nor to irrational animals, because

they have no fellowship with us. Hence it follows that the words,

'Thou shalt not kill' refer to the killing of a man."

_I answer that,_ There is no sin in using a thing for the purpose for

which it is. Now the order of things is such that the imperfect are

for the perfect, even as in the process of generation nature proceeds

from imperfection to perfection. Hence it is that just as in the

generation of a man there is first a living thing, then an animal,

and lastly a man, so too things, like the plants, which merely have

life, are all alike for animals, and all animals are for man.

Wherefore it is not unlawful if man use plants for the good of

animals, and animals for the good of man, as the Philosopher states

(Polit. i, 3).

Now the most necessary use would seem to consist in the fact that

animals use plants, and men use animals, for food, and this cannot be

done unless these be deprived of life: wherefore it is lawful both to

take life from plants for the use of animals, and from animals for

the use of men. In fact this is in keeping with the commandment of

God Himself: for it is written (Gen. 1:29, 30): "Behold I have given

you every herb . . . and all trees . . . to be your meat, and to all

beasts of the earth": and again (Gen. 9:3): "Everything that moveth

and liveth shall be meat to you."

Reply Obj. 1: According to the Divine ordinance the life of animals

and plants is preserved not for themselves but for man. Hence, as

Augustine says (De Civ. Dei i, 20), "by a most just ordinance of the

Creator, both their life and their death are subject to our use."

Reply Obj. 2: Dumb animals and plants are devoid of the life of

reason whereby to set themselves in motion; they are moved, as it

were by another, by a kind of natural impulse, a sign of which is

that they are naturally enslaved and accommodated to the uses of

others.

Reply Obj. 3: He that kills another's ox, sins, not through killing

the ox, but through injuring another man in his property. Wherefore

this is not a species of the sin of murder but of the sin of theft or

robbery.

_______________________

Summa Theologica, Part II-II (Secunda Secundae) Translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province · 第 436 / 1128 题