Liber II, Pars III — Quod cives, et multo magis reges et principes non debent infinitas possessiones appetere. Cap. VIII.

Liber II, Pars III — Quod cives, et multo magis reges et principes non debent infinitas possessiones appetere. Cap. VIII.

People generally seem to sin in their desire for possessions and in their craving for wealth; for people are never satisfied with possessions and riches: indeed, they can never have enough without wanting more. The Philosopher assigns this in Book I. This is stated in the Political writings. There are two reasons why the craving for wealth is infinite. The first arises from the disorder of the will. The second comes from a false estimation of the end. The first way is clear. For, as he himself says, the craving for wealth is infinite, because people strive to live for pleasure rather than to live well. Anyone who desires wealth for the sake of living well seeks not infinite material possessions, but rather physical pleasures that are finite. For living well means living virtuously. People, therefore, because they do not care to live virtuously, focus entirely on living according to bodily pleasure, since wealth seems to provide the means for anyone to achieve what they desire, allowing them to better fulfill their wants; thus, they are never satisfied with wealth and possessions. The second way to investigate this same issue is derived from a false estimation of the end. For as the philosopher distinguishes in the first book of Politics, And as we have said more extensively in the first book, the end is sought in infinite terms, while the means to the end are sought in finite terms. For the end is sought infinitely, while the means to the end are sought according to the nature and measure of that end. For example, if the end of medicine is to heal, a doctor could not induce such a great healing without (if it were possible) wanting to achieve an even greater one: thus, a doctor seeks to induce an infinite healing, but desires to provide a remedy according to the nature and measure of health. People generally, because they have a false understanding of the end goal, think that the ultimate purpose lies in wealth, and they pursue it endlessly. But regarding the governance of a household, we can pursue not infinite possessions in two ways. The first is taken from the similarity that exists between economics and the art of governing a household. The second is taken from the similarity it has to other arts. The first way is thus evident. For we see that nature does not seek infinite nourishment, but only provides as much as is required for the animal to be nourished; for example, if from a white egg nature produces a bird, and from a red egg it nourishes it, nature does not provide infinite red in the egg, but only what is necessary for that bird's nourishment. Similarly, if nature creates an animal from menstrual fluid and nourishes it with milk, it does not provide infinite milk in the breasts, but only what is sufficient for the nourishment of the generated animal. Therefore, since wealth and possessions are ordered toward nourishment and the sufficiency of life, just as the red in the egg is for the nourishment of the bird, and the milk in the breasts is for the nourishment of the fetus: if the governor of the household does not want to act against nature but wishes to govern his house according to natural order and method, he should not seek infinite wealth and possessions; rather, he should be content with as much as is sufficient for the governance of his household according to the demands of his status. The second way to investigate this same point is drawn from the similarity between the art of managing a household and other arts. For possessions are certain tools of the art of household management, just as an anvil, a hammer, and other similar tools are instruments of the craft of a smith: no art, as the Philosopher says, has infinite tools. In the Politics. If it has infinite tools, then the one who governs should not seek infinite possessions. Therefore, it is fitting for all citizens, and much more for kings and princes, to be content with such possessions and wealth as their status requires. For not being satisfied with possessions and wealth (as is evident from experience) either arises from a false estimation of the end or from disordered pleasure. Thus, it is all the more detestable in kings and princes than in others, as it is fitting for them to have a more orderly pleasure and a better estimation of the end; for as was said in the first book, it is more detestable for a king not to have a true estimation of the end than for the people, because the people are directed by the king, just as it is more detestable for an archer not to recognize the target than for the arrow, because the arrow is directed by the archer.