Whether political prudence is fittingly accounted a part of prudence?

❌ Objection 1 : It would seem that political prudence is not fittingly accounted a part of prudence. For regnative is a part of political prudence, as stated above (Article [1]). But a part should not be reckoned a species with the whole. Therefore political prudence should not be reckoned a part of prudence.

❌ Objection 2 : Further, the species of habits are distinguished by their various objects. Now what the ruler has to command is the same as what the subject has to execute. Therefore political prudence as regards the subjects, should not be reckoned a species of prudence distinct from regnative prudence.

❌ Objection 3 : Further, each subject is an individual person. Now each individual person can direct himself sufficiently by prudence commonly so called. Therefore there is no need of a special kind of prudence called political.