|
Objection 1: It would seem that the prohibitive precepts relating to
the vices opposed to prudence are unfittingly propounded in the Old
Law. For such vices as imprudence and its parts which are directly
opposed to prudence are not less opposed thereto, than those which bear
a certain resemblance to prudence, such as craftiness and vices
connected with it. Now the latter vices are forbidden in the Law:
for it is written (Lev. 19:13): "Thou shalt not calumniate
thy neighbor," and (Dt. 25:13): "Thou shalt not have
divers weights in thy bag, a greater and a less." Therefore there
should have also been prohibitive precepts about the vices directly
opposed to prudence.
Objection 2: Further, there is room for fraud in other things than
in buying and selling. Therefore the Law unfittingly forbade fraud
solely in buying and selling.
Objection 3: Further, there is the same reason for prescribing an
act of virtue as for prohibiting the act of a contrary vice. But acts
of prudence are not prescribed in the Law. Therefore neither should
any contrary vices have been forbidden in the Law.
The contrary, however, appears from the precepts of the Law which
are quoted in the first objection.
I answer that, As stated above (Article 1), justice, above
all, regards the aspect of something due, which is a necessary
condition for a precept, because justice tends to render that which is
due to another, as we shall state further on (Question 58,
Article 2). Now craftiness, as to its execution, is committed
chiefly in matters of justice, as stated above (Question 55,
Article 8): and so it was fitting that the Law should contain
precepts forbidding the execution of craftiness, in so far as this
pertains to injustice, as when a man uses guile and fraud in
calumniating another or in stealing his goods.
Reply to Objection 1: Those vices that are manifestly opposed to
prudence, do not pertain to injustice in the same way as the execution
of craftiness, and so they are not forbidden in the Law, as fraud and
guile are, which latter pertain to injustice
Reply to Objection 2: All guile and fraud committed in matters of
injustice, can be understood to be forbidden in the prohibition of
calumny (Lev. 19:13). Yet fraud and guile are wont to be
practiced chiefly in buying and selling, according to Ecclus.
26:28, "A huckster shall not be justified from the sins of the
lips": and it is for this reason that the Law contained a special
precept forbidding fraudulent buying and selling.
Reply to Objection 3: All the precepts of the Law that relate to
acts of justice pertain to the execution of prudence, even as the
precepts prohibitive of stealing, calumny and fraudulent selling
pertain to the execution of craftiness.
|
|