The inequality that now is has been introduced by the laws civil.Iknow that Aristotle in the first book of his Politics,for a foundation of his doctrine,maketh men by nature,some more worthy to command,meaning the wiser sort,such as he thought himself to be for his philosophy;others to serve,meaning those that had strong bodies,but were not philosophers as he;as master and servant were not introduced by consent of men,but by difference of wit:which is not only against reason,but also against experience.For there are very few so foolish that had not rather govern themselves than be governed by others:nor when the wise,in their own conceit,contend by force with them who distrust their own wisdom,do they always,or often,or almost at any time,get the victory.If nature therefore have made men equal,that equality is to be acknowledged:or if nature have made men unequal,yet because men that think themselves equal will not enter into conditions of peace,but upon equal terms,such equality must be admitted.And therefore for the ninth law of nature,I put this:that every man acknowledge another for his equal by nature.The breach of this precept is pride.
On this law dependeth another:that at the entrance into conditions of peace,no man require to reserve to himself any right which he is not content should he reserved to every one of the rest.
As it is necessary for all men that seek peace to lay down certain rights of nature;that is to say,not to have liberty to do all they list,so is it necessary for man's life to retain some:as right to govern their own bodies;enjoy air,water,motion,ways to go from place to place;and all things else without which a man cannot live,or not live well.If in this case,at the ****** of peace,men require for themselves that which they would not have to be granted to others,they do contrary to the precedent law that commandeth the acknowledgement of natural equality,and therefore also against the law of nature.The observers of this law are those we call modest,and the breakers arrogant men.The Greeks call the violation of this law pleonexia;that is,a desire of more than their share.
Also,if a man he trusted to judge between man and man,it is a precept of the law of nature that he deal equally between them.For without that,the controversies of men cannot be determined but by war.He therefore that is partial in judgement,doth what in him lies to deter men from the use of judges and arbitrators,and consequently,against the fundamental law of nature,is the cause of war.
The observance of this law,from the equal distribution to each man of that which in reason belonged to him,is called equity,and (as I have said before)distributive justice:the violation,acception of persons,prosopolepsia.
And from this followeth another law:that such things as cannot he divided be enjoyed in common,if it can be;and if the quantity of the thing permit,without stint;otherwise proportionably to the number of them that have right.For otherwise the distribution is unequal,and contrary to equity.
But some things there be that can neither be divided nor enjoyed in common.Then,the law of nature which prescribeth equity requireth:
that the entire right,or else (****** the use alternate)the first possession,be determined by lot.For equal distribution is of the law of nature;and other means of equal distribution cannot be imagined.
Of lots there be two sorts,arbitrary and natural.Arbitrary is that which is agreed on by the competitors;natural is either primogeniture (which the Greek calls kleronomia,which signifies,given by lot),or first seizure.
And therefore those things which cannot be enjoyed in common,nor divided,ought to be adjudged to the first possessor;and in some cases to the first born,as acquired by lot.
It is also a law of nature:that all men that mediate peace he allowed safe conduct.For the law that commandeth peace,as the end,commandeth intercession,as the means;and to intercession the means is safe conduct.
And because,though men be never so willing to observe these laws,there may nevertheless arise questions concerning a man's action;first,whether it were done,or not done;secondly,if done,whether against the law,or not against the law;the former whereof is called a question of fact,the latter a question of right;therefore unless the parties to the question covenant mutually to stand to the sentence of another,they are as far from peace as ever.This other,to whose sentence they submit,is called an arbitrator.And therefore it is of the law of nature that they that are at controversy submit their right to the judgement of an arbitrator.
And seeing every man is presumed to do all things in order to his own benefit,no man is a fit arbitrator in his own cause:and if he were never so fit,yet equity allowing to each party equal benefit,if one be admitted to be judge,the other is to be admitted also;and so the controversy,that is,the cause of war,remains,against the law of nature.
