Notes on Vitoria

Article written after the incident in which the conqueror Pizarro unjustly lynched the Incan leader Atahualpa in the viceroyalty (kingdom) of Peru, even though eyewitnesses reveal that there was no just cause for the killing.

Introduction:

Vitoria does NOT understand the justice of the war. He talked to witnesses of the murder of Atahualpa and concluded that Indians were not to blame for it (AND they had committed no violence/crime against the Spanish).

Vitoria: If the Crown considers these Amerindians as vassals of the Empire, then it would follow that they are engaging in an unjust war against "their own vassals." In addition, Indians are truly oblivious as to the "just causes" of the war, so they remain innocent.

Vitoria finds NO justification for the robbing and plundering of "unfortunate victims." There is no moral explanation for the loss of material and live possessions in the hand of the cruel conquistadors.

He also labels Spanish actions as "alien to Christian feeling" and goes on to say that there will be no one (not even Dominican priests) able to cleanse the Spaniard souls from the charges of conscience, especially after all the butchery and pillage has been committed.

"ON THE AMERICAN INDIANS"

Vitoria tries to answer the following questions:

1. by what right were the barbarians submitted to Spanish rule?

2. what power has the monarchy over Indians in civil and temporal matters?

3. what powers do the church or monarchy have over the spiritual matters?

The question of dominion:

Vitoria mentions that according to Aristotle's definition of a natural slave, men that are insufficiently rational to govern themselves deserve to be under the dominion of superior others. BUT he also mentions that it is impossible for a slave to keep on being a slave if he doesn't have a master. So, if the Amerindians were in fact slaves, then the Spanish would have all the right to govern themÐ'....

BUT! The Amerindians were in undisputed possession of their property before

The Spanish took over: the were their own masters.

Vitoria goes on to say that there were only four conditions under the Amerindians could have been considered incapable of being their own masters: (1) if they were sinners, (2)unbelievers, (3)madmen, or (4)insensateÐ'.... But he argues against all these four:

(1) sinners: he goes on to explain that according to Christian teachings, God granted power to great kings who committed many many petty AND mortal sins. He gave temporal (worldly) goods to both good and bad people.

(2) Unbelievers: he uses Aquinas's teachings to say that it is not permissible to take away dominion from anyone who owns natural law (god-given). Spaniards did not take land away from Christian unbelievers (like Jews, Saracens, etc.),