In the middle ages 223

citizen who is for the good of the state. This state-

ment is susceptible of enlargement. Any group

whatever, — be it family, village, city, province,

kingdom, empire, abbey, parish church, bishopric,

or even the Catholic Church — justifies itself in the

good which it accomplishes for its members. In

other words, the members do not exist for the good

of the group. The question is the more interesting

because the professors of Roman law at Bologne

and the other jurists, who argued on behalf of the

sovereigns (the Hohenstaufen, and the kings of

England and France), and the canonists, follow-

ing the Decretum of Gratian, had touched upon

these delicate questions; but the philosophers at-

tained to a clearness and precision which had been

denied to experts in law on the same questions.

In very fact, this principle — that the state exists

only for the good of the citizen, or obversely, that

it is not the citizen who exists for the good of the

state — is closely connected with the whole scholastic

system. While it is a foundation for the doctrine of

the state, this principle itself rests upon an ethical

ground. In its turn, this ethical ground rests upon

the deeper lying basis of metaphysical doctrine.

Thus, social philosophy in reality rests upon a

twofold basis, the ethical and the metaphysical.

Let us consider briefly the part played by each of

these bases.

224 PHILOSOPHY AND CIVILIZATION

III

First, the ethical foundations of the principle.

Why should the group, in particular the state, be

subordinated to the good of the citizens? Is not

the citizen an instrument for the good of the state?

Scholastic ethics replies: because every human be-

ing has a certain sacred value, an inviolable indi-

viduality, and as such he has a personal destiny, a

happiness, which the state must aid him to realize.

Let us see more fully what this means.

Each man seeks in his life to attain some end.

Our activities would lack even ordinary meaning, if

they did not reach forward to a goal, if they did

not aim — consciously or unconsciously — to realize

the good, that is to say the perfection of the indi-

vidual who is the source of the activities involved.

This is true not only for man, but for all created

things. Human finality is simply an application of

universal finality; and therefore the scholastics re-

peat with Aristotle: "That is good which each

thing seeks" (Bonum est quod omnia appetunt),

Man's possession of his good means human happi-

ness.

As a matter of fact, men seek the good in the

most diverse objects, and they frequently deceive

themselves; but that is only a question of applica-

tion, which does not affect the main thesis. Eyen

the man who hangs himself is yielding to inclina-

tions which he believes will issue in his benefit. But