Liber II, Pars III — Quomodo est utendum exterioribus rebus: et quis modus vivendi sit licitus. Cap. VII.

Liber II, Pars III — Quomodo est utendum exterioribus rebus: et quis modus vivendi sit licitus. Cap. VII.

The philosopher first shows in the Politics that from different uses of external things, different ways of life arise, or different modes of living. For just as we see in animals and beasts that not all use the same things, nor do all have the same way of life, so it is with humans. Some animals live on herbs, some on houses or fruits, while others live by plunder. There are also different ways of living among animals: some live scattered, while others live in groups, that is, in society. For each lives in a way that is suitable for the sufficiency of life; so that they can better seek food and nourishment for themselves. Humans also use external things in various ways, and they do not live in the same manner. The philosopher distinguishes four simple ways of life in the Politics, or four modes of living, from which combined result other ways of living or other lives. For there is a fourfold life, namely pastoral, hunting, fishing, and thieving. Living a pastoral life comes from farming or from domestic animals; a hunting life comes from wild animals; a fishing life comes from fish; but a life of theft comes from robbery and stealing. It happens that these ways of living can be combined: some live in a pastoral and hunting manner; some in a pastoral and fishing manner; some in a hunting and stealing manner; while others combine all of these, seeking life from pastures, fish, hunting, and theft. However, the way of life that is based on theft is entirely unlawful, while other ways may be lawful. Living from pastures, such as from fields and domestic animals like sheep and cattle, is lawful because nature has produced such things, arranging them for human use; for the imperfect is always ordered toward the perfect, just as water and earth, which are inanimate, are arranged for the nourishment of trees and plants, as imperfect things are directed toward perfect things. For this reason, it has been rightly said that it is written in I. Polit. Because nature has given us such things, for it has arranged them for our use and dominion. Therefore, it is lawful to take nourishment from fields and domestic animals, which is why pastoral life is lawful. Thus, both hunting and fishing are not inherently unlawful because a person should naturally have dominion not only over domestic animals but also over wild beasts and fish; he has just cause for war against such creatures. Politic. He says that hunting and fishing are legitimate ways of life. He states that it is just for humans to wage war against beasts and other animals. For in speaking generally, humans can justly do such things and arrange them for their own use. However, a life of theft is inherently unlawful because it is not just for one human to wage war against another. If some humans justly fight against others, this is almost accidental, in that they do so in some way against them. Therefore, a person sins by offending another human: however, in speaking generally, he does not sin by offending beasts. If there is a fault in harming animals, it is only incidental, inasmuch as such harm reflects back on the offense against a human, as in the offense against their rightful owner. However, it seems the Philosopher wants to assert that not only is it just war for humans against animals, but also for humans against barbarians; for wild barbarians, since they lack the use of reason, should naturally be subject to humans who possess subtlety and wisdom. For it seems to be the case that wise people should naturally dominate the foolish, and it is just for them to have war against those who refuse to be subject to them. According to this way of speaking, citizens who are more vigorous in wisdom and intellect have a just war against the rustic folk if they refuse to submit to them. Therefore, it seems permissible to wage war against such recalcitrant people, who deserve to be subjected, according to the opinion of the Philosopher. So that it would be lawful not only to plunder and take what is theirs, but also to take them as spoils, since they refuse to do what they are obligated to do. Indeed, since no one should commit an injustice against another, it follows that a life of theft or plunder should be judged unlawful, for one ought to live from their own, not from the usurpation of another's. Therefore, it is fitting for citizens, and even more so for kings and princes, to live a virtuous life; if they wish to govern their own households properly, they must know how many kinds of life there are, how many ways of living, which of those are lawful and which are unlawful, for no one can live virtuously if they use possessions or external things unlawfully.