Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae

Objection 1: It would seem that prudence is in us by nature. The Philosopher says that things connected with prudence "seem to be natural," namely "synesis, gnome" and the like, but not those which are connected with speculative wisdom. Now things belonging to the same genus have the same kind of origin. Therefore prudence also is in us from nature.

Objection 2: Further, the changes of age are according to nature. Now prudence results from age, according to Job 12:12: "In the ancient is wisdom, and in length of days prudence." Therefore prudence is natural.

Objection 3: Further, prudence is more consistent with human nature than with that of dumb animals. Now there are instances of a certain natural prudence in dumb animals, according to the Philosopher (De Hist. Anim. viii, 1). Therefore prudence is natural.

On the contrary, The Philosopher says (Ethic. ii, 1) that "intellectual virtue is both originated and fostered by teaching; it therefore demands experience and time." Now prudence is an intellectual virtue, as stated above (Article 4). Therefore prudence is in us, not by nature, but by teaching and experience.

I answer that, As shown above (Article 3), prudence includes knowledge both of universals, and of the singular matters of action to which prudence applies the universal principles. Accordingly, as regards the knowledge of universals, the same is to be said of prudence as of speculative science, because the primary universal principles of either are known naturally, as shown above (Article 6): except that the common principles of prudence are more connatural to man; for as the Philosopher remarks (Ethic. x, 7) "the life which is according to the speculative reason is better than that which is according to man": whereas the secondary universal principles, whether of the speculative or of the practical reason, are not inherited from nature, but are acquired by discovery through experience, or through teaching.

On the other hand, as regards the knowledge of particulars which are the matter of action, we must make a further distinction, because this matter of action is either an end or the means to an end. Now the right ends of human life are fixed; wherefore there can be a natural inclination in respect of these ends; thus it has been stated above (1.2, Question 51, Article 1; 1.2, Question 63, Article 1) that some, from a natural inclination, have certain virtues whereby they are inclined to right ends; and consequently they also have naturally a right judgment about such like ends.

But the means to the end, in human concerns, far from being fixed, are of manifold variety according to the variety of persons and affairs. Wherefore since the inclination of nature is ever to something fixed, the knowledge of those means cannot be in man naturally, although, by reason of his natural disposition, one man has a greater aptitude than another in discerning them, just as it happens with regard to the conclusions of speculative sciences. Since then prudence is not about the ends, but about the means, as stated above (Article 6; 1.2, Question 57, Article 5), it follows that prudence is not from nature.

Reply to Objection 1: The Philosopher is speaking there of things relating to prudence, in so far as they are directed to ends. Wherefore he had said before (Ethic. vi, 5,11) that "they are the principles of the {ou heneka}" , namely, the end; and so he does not mention {euboulia} among them, because it takes counsel about the means.

Reply to Objection 2: Prudence is rather in the old, not only because their natural disposition calms the movement of the sensitive passions, but also because of their long experience.

Reply to Objection 3: Even in dumb animals there are fixed ways of obtaining an end, wherefore we observe that all the animals of a same species act in like manner. But this is impossible in man, on account of his reason, which takes cognizance of universals, and consequently extends to an infinity of singulars.

Articulus 15

Argumentum 1

Ad decimumquintum sic proceditur. Videtur quod prudentia insit nobis a natura.

Dicit enim philosophus, in VI ethic., quod ea quae pertinent ad prudentiam naturalia videntur esse, scilicet synesis, gnome et huiusmodi, non autem ea quae pertinent ad sapientiam speculativam.

Sed eorum quae sunt unius generis eadem est originis ratio.

Ergo etiam prudentia inest nobis a natura.

Argumentum 2

Praeterea, aetatum variatio est secundum naturam. Sed prudentia consequitur aetates, secundum illud iob XII, in antiquis est sapientia, et in multo tempore prudentia.

Ergo prudentia est naturalis.

Argumentum 3

Praeterea, prudentia magis convenit naturae humanae quam naturae brutorum animalium. Sed bruta animalia habent quasdam naturales prudentias; ut patet per philosophum, in VIII de historiis animal..

Sed Contra

Sed contra est quod philosophus dicit, in II ethic., quod virtus intellectualis plurimum ex doctrina habet et generationem et augmentum, ideo experimento indiget et tempore.

Sed prudentia est virtus intellectualis, ut supra habitum est.

Ergo prudentia non inest nobis a natura, sed ex doctrina et experimento.

Corpus

Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut ex praemissis patet, prudentia includit cognitionem et universalium et singularium operabilium, ad quae prudens universalia principia applicat.

Quantum igitur ad universalem cognitionem, eadem ratio est de prudentia et de scientia speculativa. Quia utriusque prima principia universalia sunt naturaliter nota, ut ex supradictis patet, nisi quod principia communia prudentiae sunt magis connaturalia homini; ut enim philosophus dicit, in X ethic., vita quae est secundum speculationem est melior quam quae est secundum hominem.

Sed alia principia universalia posteriora, sive sint rationis speculativae sive practicae, non habentur per naturam, sed per inventionem secundum viam experimenti, vel per disciplinam.

Quantum autem ad particularem cognitionem eorum circa quae operatio consistit est iterum distinguendum. Quia operatio consistit circa aliquid; vel sicut circa finem, vel sicut circa ea quae sunt ad finem. Fines autem recti humanae vitae sunt determinati. Et ideo potest esse naturalis inclinatio respectu horum finium, sicut supra dictum est quod quidam habent ex naturali dispositione quasdam virtutes quibus inclinantur ad rectos fines, et per consequens etiam habent naturaliter rectum iudicium de huiusmodi finibus. Sed ea quae sunt ad finem in rebus humanis non sunt determinata, sed multipliciter diversificantur secundum diversitatem personarum et negotiorum.

Unde quia inclinatio naturae semper est ad aliquid determinatum, talis cognitio non potest homini inesse naturaliter, licet ex naturali dispositione unus sit aptior ad huiusmodi discernenda quam alius; sicut etiam accidit circa conclusiones speculativarum scientiarum. Quia igitur prudentia non est circa fines, sed circa ea quae sunt ad finem, ut supra habitum est; ideo prudentia non est naturalis.

Ad 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod philosophus ibi loquitur de pertinentibus ad prudentiam secundum quod ordinantur ad fines, unde supra praemiserat quod principia sunt eius quod est cuius gratia, idest finis. Et propter hoc non facit mentionem de eubulia, quae est consiliativa eorum quae sunt ad finem.

Ad 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod prudentia magis est in senibus non solum propter naturalem dispositionem, quietatis motibus passionum sensibilium, sed etiam propter experientiam longi temporis.

Ad 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod in brutis animalibus sunt determinatae viae perveniendi ad finem, unde videmus quod omnia animalia eiusdem speciei similiter operantur. Sed hoc non potest esse in homine, propter rationem eius, quae, cum sit cognoscitiva universalium, ad infinita singularia se extendit.