Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae

Objection 1: It would seem that justice, as a general virtue, is essentially the same as all virtue. For the Philosopher says (Ethic. v, 1) that "virtue and legal justice are the same as all virtue, but differ in their mode of being." Now things that differ merely in their mode of being or logically do not differ essentially. Therefore justice is essentially the same as every virtue.

Objection 2: Further, every virtue that is not essentially the same as all virtue is a part of virtue. Now the aforesaid justice, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. v. 1) "is not a part but the whole of virtue." Therefore the aforesaid justice is essentially the same as all virtue.

Objection 3: Further, the essence of a virtue does not change through that virtue directing its act to some higher end even as the habit of temperance remains essentially the same even though its act be directed to a Divine good. Now it belongs to legal justice that the acts of all the virtues are directed to a higher end, namely the common good of the multitude, which transcends the good of one single individual. Therefore it seems that legal justice is essentially all virtue.

Objection 4: Further, every good of a part can be directed to the good of the whole, so that if it be not thus directed it would seem without use or purpose. But that which is in accordance with virtue cannot be so. Therefore it seems that there can be no act of any virtue, that does not belong to general justice, which directs to the common good; and so it seems that general justice is essentially the same as all virtue.

On the contrary, The Philosopher says (Ethic. v, 1) that "many are able to be virtuous in matters affecting themselves, but are unable to be virtuous in matters relating to others," and (Polit. iii, 2) that "the virtue of the good man is not strictly the same as the virtue of the good citizen." Now the virtue of a good citizen is general justice, whereby a man Is directed to the common good. Therefore general justice is not the same as virtue in general, and it is possible to have one without the other.

I answer that, A thing is said to be "general" in two ways. First, by "predication": thus "animal" is general in relation to man and horse and the like: and in this sense that which is general must needs be essentially the same as the things in relation to which it is general, for the reason that the genus belongs to the essence of the species, and forms part of its definition. Secondly a thing is said to be general "virtually"; thus a universal cause is general in relation to all its effects, the sun, for instance, in relation to all bodies that are illumined, or transmuted by its power; and in this sense there is no need for that which is "general" to be essentially the same as those things in relation to which it is general, since cause and effect are not essentially the same. Now it is in the latter sense that, according to what has been said (Article 5), legal justice is said to be a general virtue, in as much, to wit, as it directs the acts of the other virtues to its own end, and this is to move all the other virtues by its command; for just as charity may be called a general virtue in so far as it directs the acts of all the virtues to the Divine good, so too is legal justice, in so far as it directs the acts of all the virtues to the common good. Accordingly, just as charity which regards the Divine good as its proper object, is a special virtue in respect of its essence, so too legal justice is a special virtue in respect of its essence, in so far as it regards the common good as its proper object. And thus it is in the sovereign principally and by way of a mastercraft, while it is secondarily and administratively in his subjects.

However the name of legal justice can be given to every virtue, in so far as every virtue is directed to the common good by the aforesaid legal justice, which though special essentially is nevertheless virtually general. Speaking in this way, legal justice is essentially the same as all virtue, but differs therefrom logically: and it is in this sense that the Philosopher speaks.

Wherefore the Replies to the First and Second Objections are manifest.

Reply to Objection 3: This argument again takes legal justice for the virtue commanded by legal justice.

Reply to Objection 4: Every virtue strictly speaking directs its act to that virtue's proper end: that it should happen to be directed to a further end either always or sometimes, does not belong to that virtue considered strictly, for it needs some higher virtue to direct it to that end. Consequently there must be one supreme virtue essentially distinct from every other virtue, which directs all the virtues to the common good; and this virtue is legal justice.

Articulus 6

Argumentum 1

Ad sextum sic proceditur. Videtur quod iustitia, secundum quod est generalis, sit idem per essentiam cum omni virtute.

Dicit enim philosophus, in V ethic., quod virtus et iustitia legalis est eadem omni virtuti, esse autem non est idem.

Sed illa quae differunt solum secundum esse, vel secundum rationem, non differunt secundum essentiam.

Ergo iustitia est idem per essentiam cum omni virtute.

Argumentum 2

Praeterea, omnis virtus quae non est idem per essentiam cum omni virtute, est pars virtutis.

Sed iustitia praedicta, ut ibidem philosophus dicit, non est pars virtutis, sed tota virtus.

Ergo praedicta iustitia est idem essentialiter cum omni virtute.

Argumentum 3

Praeterea, per hoc quod aliqua virtus ordinat actum suum ad altiorem finem, non diversificatur secundum essentiam habitus, sicut idem est essentialiter habitus temperantiae, etiam si actus eius ordinetur ad bonum divinum. Sed ad iustitiam legalem pertinet quod actus omnium virtutum ordinentur ad altiorem finem, idest ad bonum commune multitudinis, quod praeeminet bono unius singularis personae. Ergo videtur quod iustitia legalis essentialiter sit omnis virtus.

Argumentum 4

Praeterea, omne bonum partis ordinabile est ad bonum totius, unde si non ordinetur in illud, videtur esse vanum et frustra.

Sed illud quod est secundum virtutem non potest esse huiusmodi. Ergo videtur quod nullus actus possit esse alicuius virtutis qui non pertineat ad iustitiam generalem, quae ordinat in bonum commune. Et sic videtur quod iustitia generalis sit idem in essentia cum omni virtute.

Sed Contra

Sed contra est quod philosophus dicit, in V ethic., quod multi in propriis quidem possunt virtute uti, in his autem quae ad alterum non possunt.

Et in III polit. Dicit quod non est simpliciter eadem virtus boni viri et boni civis.

Sed virtus boni civis est iustitia generalis, per quam aliquis ordinatur ad bonum commune. Ergo non est eadem iustitia generalis cum virtute communi, sed una potest sine alia haberi.

Corpus

Respondeo dicendum quod generale dicitur aliquid dupliciter.

Uno modo, per praedicationem, sicut animal est generale ad hominem et equum et ad alia huiusmodi. Et hoc modo generale oportet quod sit idem essentialiter cum his ad quae est generale, quia genus pertinet ad essentiam speciei et cadit in definitione eius. Alio modo dicitur aliquid generale secundum virtutem, sicut causa universalis est generalis ad omnes effectus, ut sol ad omnia corpora, quae illuminantur vel immutantur per virtutem ipsius. Et hoc modo generale non oportet quod sit idem in essentia cum his ad quae est generale, quia non est eadem essentia causae et effectus.

Hoc autem modo, secundum praedicta, iustitia legalis dicitur esse virtus generalis, inquantum scilicet ordinat actus aliarum virtutum ad suum finem, quod est movere per imperium omnes alias virtutes. Sicut enim caritas potest dici virtus generalis inquantum ordinat actus omnium virtutum ad bonum divinum, ita etiam iustitia legalis inquantum ordinat actus omnium virtutum ad bonum commune. Sicut ergo caritas, quae respicit bonum divinum ut proprium obiectum, est quaedam specialis virtus secundum suam essentiam; ita etiam iustitia legalis est specialis virtus secundum suam essentiam, secundum quod respicit commune bonum ut proprium obiectum. Et sic est in principe principaliter, et quasi architectonice; in subditis autem secundario et quasi ministrative. Potest tamen quaelibet virtus, secundum quod a praedicta virtute, speciali quidem in essentia, generali autem secundum virtutem, ordinatur ad bonum commune, dici iustitia legalis. Et hoc modo loquendi iustitia legalis est idem in essentia cum omni virtute, differt autem ratione.

Et hoc modo loquitur philosophus.

Ad 1

Unde patet responsio ad primum et secundum.

Ad 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod etiam illa ratio secundum hunc modum procedit de iustitia legali, secundum quod virtus imperata a iustitia legali iustitia legalis dicitur.

Ad 4

Ad quartum dicendum quod quaelibet virtus secundum propriam rationem ordinat actum suum ad proprium finem illius virtutis.

Quod autem ordinetur ad ulteriorem finem, sive semper sive aliquando, hoc non habet ex propria ratione, sed oportet esse aliam superiorem virtutem a qua in illum finem ordinetur.

Et sic oportet esse unam virtutem superiorem quae ordinet omnes virtutes in bonum commune, quae est iustitia legalis, et est alia per essentiam ab omni virtute.