Francisco De Vitoria, Political Writings
This last point is proved by Aristotle, who says with elegant precision: “the lower sort are by nature slaves, and it is better for them as inferiors that they should be under the rule of a master’ (Politics 1254’20).”
On the Right to Debate Colonial Justice
“When we hear subsequently of bloody massacres and of innocent individuals pillaged of their possessions and dominions, there are grounds for doubting the justice of what has been done.”
(Intro., §17)
—A rare acknowledgment, in 1539, that Spanish conquest might not be self-justifying.
On Indigenous Sovereignty
“The barbarians undoubtedly possessed as true dominion, both public and private, as any Christians.”
(1.6, Conclusion)
—This single sentence dismantles the core theological argument for conquest, asserting political equality of non-Christians.
On the Misuse of Aristotle
“Aristotle certainly did not mean that such men thereby belong by nature to others and have no rights of ownership… Such slavery is a civil and legal condition, to which no man can belong by nature.”
(1.6, Conclusion)
—Vitoria rereads Politics to deny natural slavery, recasting Aristotle through Christian humanism.
On Human Rationality
“They have properly organized cities, proper marriages, magistrates and overlords, laws, industries, and commerce… all of which require the use of reason.”
(1.6, §4)
—A proto-anthropological observation: reason inferred from social order rather than faith.
On the Law of Nations
“The Spaniards have the right to travel and dwell in those countries, so long as they do no harm to the barbarians, and cannot be prevented by them from doing so.”
(3.1, First Title)
—Foundational for ius gentium and later international law: the right of peaceful intercourse among peoples.
On Evangelization and Force
“If the barbarians… obstruct the Spaniards in their free propagation of the Gospel… they may take up arms… insofar as this provides the safety and opportunity needed to preach.”
(3.2, Fourth Conclusion)
—An uneasy rationalization: the birth of “humanitarian intervention” in theological dress.
On Moral Limits of Conquest
“They must always be prepared to forego some part of their rights rather than risk trespassing on some unlawful thing, and always direct all their plans to the benefit of the barbarians rather than their own profit.”
(3.2, Final paragraph)
—Vitoria’s ethical hedge: war may be lawful, but justice demands restraint and altruism.
On Tyranny and Human Sacrifice
“In lawful defence of the innocent from unjust death… the Spaniards may prohibit the barbarians from practising any nefarious custom or rite.”
(3.5)
—The earliest theoretical justification for intervention “to protect the innocent.”
On the Limits of Governance
“I say all this merely for the sake of argument; and even then, only if everything is done for the benefit and good of the barbarians, and not merely for the profit of the Spaniards.”
(3.8)
—A revealing caution: Vitoria sees the moral danger in paternalistic empire.
On the Moral Priority of Conscience
“For an action to be good in cases where a person has no other means of certainty, it is a necessary condition that he act in accordance with the ruling and verdict of wise men.”
(Intro., §10)
—His guiding principle: moral legitimacy depends on rational deliberation, not mere power.