|
Objection 1: It would seem that a man is bound to restore what he
has not taken. For he that has inflicted a loss on a man is bound to
remove that loss. Now it happens sometimes that the loss sustained is
greater than the thing taken: for instance, if you dig up a man's
seeds, you inflict on the sower a loss equal to the coming harvest,
and thus you would seem to be bound to make restitution accordingly.
Therefore a man is bound to restore what he has not taken.
Objection 2: Further, he who retains his creditor's money beyond
the stated time, would seem to occasion his loss of all his possible
profits from that money, and yet he does not really take them.
Therefore it seems that a man is bound to restore what he did not
take.
Objection 3: Further, human justice is derived from Divine
justice. Now a man is bound to restore to God more than he has
received from Him, according to Mt. 25:26, "Thou knewest
that I reap where I sow not, and gather where I have not strewed."
Therefore it is just that one should restore to a man also, something
that one has not taken.
On the contrary, Restitution belongs to justice, because it
re-establishes equality. But if one were to restore what one did not
take, there would not be equality. Therefore it is not just to make
such a restitution.
I answer that, Whoever brings a loss upon another person,
seemingly, takes from him the amount of the loss, since, according to
the Philosopher (Ethic. v, 4) loss is so called from a man having
"less" than his due. Therefore a man is bound to make restitution
according to the loss he has brought upon another.
Now a man suffers a loss in two ways. First, by being deprived of
what he actually has; and a loss of this kind is always to be made good
by repayment in equivalent: for instance if a man damnifies another by
destroying his house he is bound to pay him the value of the house.
Secondly, a man may damnify another by preventing him from obtaining
what he was on the way to obtain. A loss of this kind need not be made
good in equivalent; because to have a thing virtually is less than to
have it actually, and to be on the way to obtain a thing is to have it
merely virtually or potentially, and so were he to be indemnified by
receiving the thing actually, he would be paid, not the exact value
taken from him, but more, and this is not necessary for salvation, as
stated above. However he is bound to make some compensation,
according to the condition of persons and things.
From this we see how to answer the First and Second Objections:
because the sower of the seed in the field, has the harvest, not
actually but only virtually. In like manner he that has money has the
profit not yet actually but only virtually: and both may be hindered in
many ways.
Reply to Objection 3: God requires nothing from us but what He
Himself has sown in us. Hence this saying is to be understood as
expressing either the shameful thought of the lazy servant, who deemed
that he had received nothing from the other, or the fact that God
expects from us the fruit of His gifts, which fruit is from Him and
from us, although the gifts themselves are from God without us.
|
|