|
Objection 1: It would seem unlawful for parents to strike their
children, or masters their slaves. For the Apostle says (Eph.
6:4): "You, fathers, provoke not your children to anger"; and
further on (Eph. 9:6): "And you, masters, do the same thing
to your slaves forbearing threatenings." Now some are provoked to
anger by blows, and become more troublesome when threatened.
Therefore neither should parents strike their children, nor masters
their slaves.
Objection 2: Further, the Philosopher says (Ethic. x, 9)
that "a father's words are admonitory and not coercive." Now blows
are a kind of coercion. Therefore it is unlawful for parents to strike
their children.
Objection 3: Further, everyone is allowed to impart correction,
for this belongs to the spiritual almsdeeds, as stated above
(Question 32, Article 2). If, therefore, it is lawful for
parents to strike their children for the sake of correction, for the
same reason it will be lawful for any person to strike anyone, which is
clearly false. Therefore the same conclusion follows.
On the contrary, It is written (Prov. 13:24): "He that
spareth the rod hateth his son," and further on (Prov.
23:13): "Withhold not correction from a child, for if thou
strike him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with
the rod, and deliver his soul from hell." Again it is written
(Ecclus. 33:28): "Torture and fetters are for a malicious
slave."
I answer that, Harm is done a body by striking it, yet not so as
when it is maimed: since maiming destroys the body's integrity, while
a blow merely affects the sense with pain, wherefore it causes much
less harm than cutting off a member. Now it is unlawful to do a person
a harm, except by way of punishment in the cause of justice. Again,
no man justly punishes another, except one who is subject to his
jurisdiction. Therefore it is not lawful for a man to strike another,
unless he have some power over the one whom he strikes. And since the
child is subject to the power of the parent, and the slave to the power
of his master, a parent can lawfully strike his child, and a master
his slave that instruction may be enforced by correction.
Reply to Objection 1: Since anger is a desire for vengeance, it is
aroused chiefly when a man deems himself unjustly injured, as the
Philosopher states (Rhet. ii). Hence when parents are forbidden
to provoke their children to anger, they are not prohibited from
striking their children for the purpose of correction, but from
inflicting blows on them without moderation. The command that masters
should forbear from threatening their slaves may be understood in two
ways. First that they should be slow to threaten, and this pertains
to the moderation of correction; secondly, that they should not always
carry out their threats, that is that they should sometimes by a
merciful forgiveness temper the judgment whereby they threatened
punishment.
Reply to Objection 2: The greater power should exercise the greater
coercion. Now just as a city is a perfect community, so the governor
of a city has perfect coercive power: wherefore he can inflict
irreparable punishments such as death and mutilation. On the other
hand the father and the master who preside over the family household,
which is an imperfect community, have imperfect coercive power, which
is exercised by inflicting lesser punishments, for instance by blows,
which do not inflict irreparable harm.
Reply to Objection 3: It is lawful for anyone to impart correction
to a willing subject. But to impart it to an unwilling subject belongs
to those only who have charge over him. To this pertains chastisement
by blows.
|
|