Treatise on Action
A. THE NATURE OF ACTION
Question 6: The voluntary and the
involuntary
Question 7: The circumstances of human
acts
Question 8: The objects of the will in
general
(what we will in general)
Question 9: What moves the will (final
and efficient
causes of acts of will)
Question 10: The ways in which the will
is moved
Structure of a complete human act
(outline of
elicited acts)
B. THE GOODNESS AND BADNESS OF ACTIONS
Question 18: On the goodness and
badness of
human acts in general
Question 19: On the goodness and
badness of
interior acts of will
Question 20: On the goodness and
badness of exterior
acts of will
Question 21: On what follows upon human
acts because
of their goodness and badness
- Question 6: The voluntary and the involuntary
- 6,1-2: St. Thomas distinguishes four orders of principles
of acts or
motions
by their relation to the thing moved:
- 1. Principles of motion that are extrinsic to the
things moved.
In such cases the things are moved from without and do not have an
intrinsic
inclination to or desire for the end. These are violent
motions. (These
may include various bodily changes in animals.) Note: While such
motions
may be violent with respect to the individual as such, they may be
natural
or at least non-violent in the wider scheme of things. In such a case
the
individual is said to have an "obediential potentiality" for the motion
in
question. For example, in Aristotelian science water is naturally
cold
and yet has an obediential potency for being heated.
- 2. Principles of motion that are intrinsic to the
things moved.
Here the things moved have an intrinsic inclination--either natural or
acquired (i.e., following upon apprehensions)--toward the end of the
act
or motion. Within this category we can make the following distinctions:
- a. Motions in which the thing moved does not move
itself. Here
there
is no cognition of the end and hence the thing moved does not act in
view
of the end. In this sense it is moved imperfectly for the sake
of
the end. (Example: the motions of corporeal substances qua corporeal;
the
vegetative activities of plants and animals.)
- b. Motions in which the thing moved moves itself
to the end but not
to it as an end. This is the imperfect voluntariness
characteristic
of the proper acts of non-rational animals, which have only sentient cognition
of the end and act immediately (barring impediments) upon sentient desire or aversion triggered by this
sentient
cognition. Their acts are voluntary in that they have a sentient desire
to act in the way they do. But although they apprehend the thing which
is an end and desire it, they do not apprehend it as an end and
are unable to proportion means to end. These are instead
characteristic
only of rational beings. Non-rational animals, by contrast, act by instinct
and
without choice.
- c. Motions in which the thing moved moves itself
to the end as an end.
This is the perfect voluntariness characteristic of properly
human
acts. It involves rational cognition of the end as an end and rational
desire
for that end, the ability to deliberate about means to the end and to
proportion
those means to the end, the ability to choose or reject proposed means
to the end, and the ability to will to refrain from the acting.
- 6,3: Here St. Thomas makes an important addendum about
omissions for
which
rational agents are responsible. In such cases the omissions are
voluntary
human acts in a broad sense, even though they do not always involve the
exercise of a power. Sometimes omissions involve a direct interior act
of willing not to act; sometimes they involve simply a not
willing
to act (W~p vs. ~Wp).
- 6,4-8: Here St. Thomas denies that there can be a violent
or coreced elicited
act of will, since by definition an act of will is nothing other than
"an
inclination that proceeds from an interior cognitive principle,"
whereas
what is coerced proceeds from an exterior principle. So just as a
natural
inclination cannot be violent, so neither can an acquired rational
inclination
(i.e., an elicited act of will) be coerced. However, acts commanded by
the will can be coerced in various ways. (Note ad 3 of art. 4.)
In arts. 5-8 St. Thomas names violence, fear
(in a
certain way), and inculpable ignorance as causes of coerced
commanded
acts, i.e., acts that occur against one's will (contra voluntatem).
On the other hand, he denies that sense desire (concupiscence)
and culpable
ignorance make for coercion. In the case of fear, even though an
act
done out of fear is involuntary in the sense that it would otherwise be
repugnant to the will, it is nevertheless voluntary simpliciter,
since one directly wills the object in order to avoid the feared evil.
As for ignorance, if what I am doing is something that I intended to do
but now do unknowingly, then the act is to this extent non-voluntary
rather than involuntary. (Suppose that I am out hunting and
intend
to kill the deer now and also intend to kill my uncle for his money at
some future time; I shoot the 'deer' and it turns out to be my uncle.
In
such a case I directly or per se choose to kill this animal,
mistakenly
but non-culpably thinking it to be a deer, whereas the act of killing
my
uncle describes only per accidens what I actually do. However,
since
I do indeed intend to kill my uncle, my killing him at this time and in
these circumstances is non-voluntary rather than involuntary.) This is concomitant
ignorance. Ignorance is consequent to the extent that the
ignorance
itself is voluntary. This can happen either deliberately or
non-deliberately,
but in either case one should have known what one in fact did
not
know. Such ignorance does not make the act involuntary except in the
weak
sense that I would (or might) not have done the act knowingly; however, since the
ignorance is culpable, I'm morally responsible for the act. Antecedent
ignorance is not culpable and hence makes for involuntariness simpliciter.
(Note that in all cases we must carefully specify the act (or
act-description),
since an act can be voluntary in a certain respect and involuntary in
another--or,
perhaps better, the same performance can be part of several acts, some
voluntary and some involuntary.)
- Question 7: The circumstances of human acts
- 7,1-4: The circumstances of a human act include
characteristics like
its
time and place, the agent's mode of acting, the agent's motive (final
end
intended, or finis operantis), the means employed, etc. St.
Thomas
treats human acts by analogy with substances. A human act can be
thought
of as a "substance" that has a nature or essence determined by its
object--which
includes its proximate end (finis operis) and whatever
"specifying
circumstances" (ala specific differences) go into determining its
species.
The substance of the act is the object, that which is willed (more
specifically,
that which is chosen or consented to). All other circumstances of the
action
are, as it were, its accidents. Among these St. Thomas singles
out
the end or motive as the most important.
Note for future reference: Our sense of which
'circumstances'
of a given act are part of its substance, thus determining its species,
and which are merely accidents depends to a great extent on our ability
to make moral discriminations. For example, an act's being an act of
sexual
intercourse does not by itself determine its substance or nature,
morally
speaking. Its being an act of sexual intercourse with one's spouse
makes
it a kind of act which by its nature it is good to will in many (but
not
all) accidental circumstances. But its being an act of sexual
intercourse
with another's spouse makes it a kind of act which it is bad to will in
any
accidental circumstances. In this last case, the fact that the other
person
is married to someone else is not an accidental circumstance but
instead
changes, as it were, the substance of the act. We will see more of this
difficult topic below in questions 20 and 21. (It seems in general that
if a circumstance transforms a genus into a species of action that it
is
bad to will no matter what, then it is a specifying circumstance. But,
you will ask, how do we know when an act is bad to will no matter what?
This is the nub of moral disagreement, and presumably both faith and
reason
are guides here.)
- Question 8: The objects of the will in general (what
we
will in general)
- 8,1-3: In this question St. Thomas is concerned with what
we will. He
argues
that whatever we will voluntarily is willed as something that is
apprehended
as good, even if it is in fact morally evil. For such an object
will always have something good about it. The medievals generally
divided
goods into the pleasant or pleasurable or enjoyable (bonum
delectabile),
the useful or advantageous (bonum utile), and the moral or
virtuous
or noble (bonum honestum). (The latter is roughly what someone
who is acting
from a virtue wills for its own sake as well as for the ultimate
end.)
So something can be willed as pleasant or useful even if it is morally
evil. When the opposite of something evil is willed, then that opposite
is itself willed as a good. Also, in a given situation to will the good
might involve refraining from any further action. In art. 2 St. Thomas
points out that there are acts of will with respect to both the end and
the means to the end, but the means are willed as ordered toward the
end,
which is the principal object of the will. Later on he notes that there
can be three types of acts of will with respect to an end: (a) simple
willing
of a good (velleitas); (b) willing the good + delighting in the
thought of possessing it (fruitio); (c) simple willing of a good
+ delighting in the thought of possessing it + intending it (intentio).
A good is intended just in case one has an inclination to deliberate
about
means to the end.
- Question 9: What moves the will (final and efficient
causes of acts
of will)
- 9,1: In this question we are concerned with the causal
factors, both
efficient
and final, that contribute to acts of will. The fact that such acts
have
causal antecedents helps explain why they are not random even though
they
are voluntary and hence do not occur by a necessity of nature. (This
helps
to undermine one common, though not very deep, objection to the claim
that
we are free in a sense that rules out the necessitation of our acts of
will and total actions. The claim is that non-necessitated acts are thereby
random.) St. Thomas begins by distinguishing two ways in
which a faculty is in potentiality to be moved by something: (i) with
respect
to the exercise of its act (that is, with respect to whether
or not it acts: W or ~W); and (ii) with respect to the specification
of its act (that is, with respect to what it does when it does act:
Wp or Wq or Wr ...). The will itself moves the
powers
of the soul, including the intellect and indeed itself, with respect to
exercise -- as
when I will to investigate something or will to deliberate about how to
get to Boston or will to instigate a passion such as daring or will to
raise my hand. The practical intellect, on the other hand, moves the
will
with respect to the specification of the will's act, since it
presents
objects qua goods to the will. And such objects determine the
nature
of the will's subsequent act (if there is a subsequent act) in much the
same way that the form heat is determined by its nature to acts
of making things hot (rather than, say, making them purple).
9,2: This is an important first statement of the relation between the
will and the passions, which are acts of the sentient appetite. The
will,
as we saw above, is moved by an apprehended good as by a final cause.
St.
Thomas points out that whether or not an object is apprehended as a
good
depends on two things: the nature of the object itself and the
condition of the one to whom the object is cognitionally presented.
(For instance, a drink of water, but not a drink of gasoline, will
normally
be perceived as good here and now by someone who is thirsty.) The
passions
affect the condition of the one to whom an object is presented. (For
instance,
revenge here and now will often be seen as a good by someone who is
angry
but not by someone who is able to control his anger.) So the passions
affect
whether or not objects presented to us by cognition are apprehended by
us as goods. This is an important aspect of virtue-centered moral
theories, since it is not the case that every agent is equally situated
with respect to discerning (both habitually and at the time of action)
the moral principles that apply to this or that situation. In
this
sense the virtues are not "blind," to use Frankena's
characterization.
(See David Solomon, "Keeping Virtue in Its Place: A Critique of
Subordinating
Strategies," pp. 83-104 in John P. O'Callaghan and Thomas
S.
Hibbs, eds., Recovering Nature: Essays in Natural Philosophy,
Ethics, and Metaphysics in Honor of Ralph McInerny (Notre Dame,
IN:
University of Notre Dame Press, 1999.) )
- 9,3-6: The will, given that it wills an end, moves itself
to the exercise
of an act of will with respect to the means to that end -- just as it
moves
the other faculties of the soul to exercise with respect to their own
ends.
Notice that this movement in the order of efficient causes
presupposes
that the will is primevally moved by another with respect to its
ultimate
end (art. 4). For the ultimate end is the only end that cannot also be
a means to an end and thus the only end that cannot be willed after
deliberation.
But what is this external efficient principle of the will's "logically
first" motion? It can only be that which gives the will its nature and
concurs with it in willing ultimate fulfillment for the one whose will
it is. This efficient principle cannot be the celestial bodies, since
they
can move the will only indirectly, viz., only insofar as they causally
contribute to bodily changes and hence to the stirring of the passions.
Instead, this mover is God, who alone is the efficient cause of the
rational
soul and who alone is a universal good with no admixture of evil.
Hence,
the will's first motion or inclination toward ultimate human
flourishing
is bestowed by God, just as a body's gravitational behavior is bestowed
by whatever generates it--though in both cases the resulting motion is
congruent with the thing's nature and hence not a violent motion. (Note
that in the case of the will God acts as a general efficient
and
final cause; he can also act as a particular cause as in the movements
of grace, but this is another matter.)
- Question 10: The ways in which the will is moved
- 10,1: Here St. Thomas asks whether the will is naturally
moved with
respect
to any object, and he begins by spelling out the different senses of
the
term nature: (1) intrinsic principle of motion in movable
things,
either matter or form or both together; (2) whatever accords with
the
substance of a thing, i.e., whatever is traced back to what is in
the
substance per se, in the way that self-evident truths are said
to
be known 'naturally'. In this second sense, just as the intellect knows
self-evident truths naturally, so the will wills the good in general
(the
ultimate end) naturally, along with the good of each particular human
faculty
and indeed the good of the whole human being himself. Thus, the will of
a human being 'naturally' wills the good in general, knowledge of the
truth,
life, society with others, and other goods which were catalogued above
as goods of the body, goods of the soul, and external goods. But there
are no particular or wholly determinate goods that we will naturally.
- 10,2: The will is never moved by necessity with respect
to the exercise
of its act, but there is one object, viz., the universal good--or
ultimate
human fulfillment in the vision of God--which is such that the will
wills
it (and whatever it presupposes) necessarily if it wills anything at
all.
By contrast, every 'particular' good is such that one can see some evil
(unpleasantness, disutility, moral evil) in willing it here and now,
and
so no good of this sort is such that the will wills it
necessarily.
(This holds true even of God seen not in his essence but in the more
obscure
way we know him in this life.)
- 10,3: Here St. Thomas points out that sometimes the will
is "totally
bound"
by the passions in such a way that the person no longer has the use of
reason. In such cases the person, like a non-rational animal, necessarily acts
in accord with the relevant passion. (You can still be responsible for
having gotten yourself into such a state, however.) There is no act of
reason in such a case and hence no act of will, either. In any case
which
falls short of this total binding, free choice remains and so one does
not necessarily will in accord with the movement of the passions. Look
carefully at the replies to each of the three objections, since they
all
contain interesting comments about the relation between the sentitent
and
intellective appetites.
- 10,4: As for God, St. Thomas claims that outside of the
goods which we
will naturally, God does not move us necessarily to will any particular
goods.
Structure of a complete human act
- Elicited acts of will with respect to an end (each
of
these acts
presupposes acts of the intellect by which goods are grasped and, in
the
wholly virtuous agent, ordered to one another and to the agent's
ultimate
end):
- voluntas: willing some intellectually cognized
good
as an end, i.e.,
as something desirable in itself; in other words, being attracted to an
end presented by intellective cognition. (This is mere wishing if
it does not move beyond this stage to intentio.)
- fruitio (pleasure or delight or enjoyment):
willing the end as something
possessed; antecedently, enjoying or taking pleasure in the end insofar
as the end is presented in thought as being possessed.
- intentio (intention): willing the end as something
to be acquired
through means that are ordered to the end, i.e., willing the end in
such
a way as to order someone, oneself or another, toward the end.
- Elicited acts of will with respect to the means to an
intended end:
- Each of these presupposes consilium (deliberation),
and choice presupposes iudicium
(judgment):
- consensus (consent): willing one or more means
as
acceptable.
- electio (choice): willing a particular means as
to be executed.
- The following presupposes imperium (command):
- usus (use): willing to apply the appropriate
faculties to exercising
their acts so as to attain the intended end.
- Question 18: On the goodness and badness of human acts
in
general
- 18,1-4: Acts have the fullness of their being in diverse
ways. For
instance,
every human act qua being is something good. However, it is
absolutely
good only if it has moral goodness as well. Since acts can fall short
of
absolute goodness, some of them are bad, absolutely speaking. The
problem,
then, is to articulate the standards with respect to which acts can be
defective as human acts. In 1, ad 3, St. Thomas identifies this
standard
tersely as "the order of reason," i.e., practical reason insofar as it
judges correctly what is and is not consonant with our ultimate end.
(This
is often called right reason, though it is important to note
that
right reason can include, in one who has the gift of faith, the further
illumination that faith provides with respect to our ultimate end and
the
means to attain it.) In arts. 2-4 St. Thomas explains that a human act
derives its goodness or badness from (a) its object or what is
directly
willed (wherein it gets its species as a "substance"), (b) its circumstances,
and (c) its end (motive), which is the most important of its
circumstances
and is thus singled out for special consideration. A general rule is
that
a human act must be good with respect to all three in order to
be
a good human act, absolutely speaking; otherwise, it is a bad act. We
will
examine each of these elements in articles 5-11.
- Object: (Arts. 5, 8, 10) The object
('exterior' or
commanded act)
that is willed gives a human act its moral species, i.e., its moral
goodness
or badness, insofar as willing that object is or is not in accord with
the order of reason. So, for instance, acts such as marital intercourse
with one's own spouse and marital intercourse with the spouse of
another,
though the same in species vis-a-vis the generative power,
differ
in species vis-a-vis right reason--the latter being bad in its
species
and hence bad to will and the former being good in its species and
hence
good to will. (When I say "bad to will," I mean bad to will simply or
to
delight in or to intend or to consent to or to choose or to will to execute (usus).)
In 5, ad 4 St. Thomas adds that certain circumstances (we can call them
specifying circumstances), far from being
accidental to the 'moral
substance' of an act, should instead be taken as specific differences
determining
the moral species of the act--this because "they add a special
note
for or against the order of reason ..... This is necessary whenever a
circumstance
changes an act from good to bad; for a circumstance
does
not make an act bad except because it is repugnant to reason." (See
also
q. 88, art. 5). Now some acts are morally bad in their species, as
determined
by their objects, whereas others are morally good in their species, and
still others (see art. 8) are morally indifferent in their species.
However,
a concrete human action is always either absolutely good or absolutely
bad when performed by a given agent in concrete circumstances (see art.
9), since a concrete human act includes not only its own moral species
as an exterior act, but also its accidental circumstances and the end
for
which it is willed.
- Circumstances: (Art. 11) There are some
circumstances that, instead
of making an action good or bad in its species, add to the goodness or
badness it has in its species. For instance, to take what belongs to
another
is bad in its species, but to take something of great value from a poor
man is worse than to take something of little value from a rich man. By
the same token, giving monetary support to one's church is a good act
when
done for a fitting end, but the widow who gives a small donation out of
her need does something better than the rich man who gives from his
excess.
- End: (Arts. 6, 7) Beyond the goodness or
badness
that a human act
has from its "substance" and "accidents", it derives goodness or
badness
from its final cause, which is the agent's end or motive in acting. We
have to be careful here about the metaphysics, since otherwise what St.
Thomas says may seem hopelessly confused--or at least hopelessly
confusing.
First of all, a complete human act, though a unity, includes both an interior
act and an exterior act as integral parts. Note again
that
an 'exterior act' in the relevant sense can be an act of intellect or
will;
that is, it need not be exterior in the sense of involving, say, bodily
motions. It's exterior only in the sense that its object is the object
of acts of will with respect to the means, whereas the interior act
is such that its object (the end) is the object of acts of will
with
respect to the end and of acts of will with respect to the means insofar as they are elicited in the service of the end.
Second, a complete human act is a whole, and so the
division of a human
act into interior and exterior acts must not be thought of as a
division
into acts that are complete in their own right.
Third, an exterior act is not to be thought of as a mere natural motion
of atoms in the void, as it were; to the contrary, it is a motion that
is capable of being entertained, delighted in, consented to, chosen,
and
commanded--and, as we saw above, it has a moral species in its own
right, at least within the given concrete circumstances.
Given this, St. Thomas says that the end (or motive) is properly the
object
of the interior act. After all, the intending of the end is what
gets everything started in the intentional order, and those interior
acts
by which we will the means to the end (or exterior act) also have the
antecedently
intended end included in their object. In this respect, the willed
exterior
act is, as it were, the matter (e.g., taking this thing that belongs to
another, committing adultery with this person) informed by the end or
motive
(interior act). It is in this sense that one can say that the
interior
act takes its species from the end.
This seems complicated but is in fact consonant with the way we
speak:
"You claim that you were only taking back the toy that belongs to you,
but in fact what you were really doing was getting even for an
insult."
That is, in appropriate circumstances we point to the motive as the
most
important determinant of the moral species. In the case at hand,
it is true that what you did is something good or indifferent
in
its species as an act, but your motive vitiated the act.
In a similar vein, Aristotle says that one who steals
in order to commit
adultery is more an adulterer than a thief (though he is both), because
his basic defect is more a lack of temperance (as evidenced by his
ulterior motive or end) than a lack of justice. Likewise,
St. Thomas says
that an act of fortitude done out of love for God is materially
an act of fortitude and formally an act of charity. Since there
are some motives which vitiate any action of which they are the end,
they
can make what would have been a good action to be evil in species. For
instance, any action that is done with the direct purpose of committing
adultery is an evil action, even if the exterior act is good in its
species
(e.g., helping someone get her car fixed).
This is a different way of looking at the action from that given above
under "object", since there the moral species was said to be determined
by the object, i.e., the exterior or commanded act. Art. 7 tries
to relate
the two ways of looking at acts to one another. In the previous
discussion
we were looking at the exterior act and asking about its moral species.
The question is whether the species-derived-from-the-end and
the species-derived-from-the-exterior-act willed as an
object are subordinated
to one another. The answer is: sometimes no and sometimes yes. In one
of
the above examples, the complete act is both an act of helping someone
out (exterior act) and an act of adultery (interior act); the end is,
as
it were, external to the object of the exterior act and in this
sense accidental to it. You can, after all, help someone fix her car
without
intending to commit adultery with her. On the other hand, the interior
and exterior acts may be ordered to one another. The soldier fights
well
with the intention of achieving victory--here the end is, as it were, internal
to the object of the exterior act; in such a case the object of the
exterior
act is subordinated to the object of the interior act. Another example:
the adulterer may seduce the spouse of another simply in order to
satisfy
his or her desire for pleasure.
Later we will ask (i) whether a bad motive or intention can turn an
otherwise
good exterior act into a bad act (yes, as shown in some of the above
examples)
and (ii) whether a good motive can turn an exterior act that is evil in
its species into a good act (no).
- Question 19: On the goodness and badness of interior
acts
of will
- 19,1-3: The goodness or badness of an interior act
depends solely on
its
object--viz., the end in the case of simple willing, delight,
and
intention, and the means-as-ordered-to-the-end in the case of
consent,
choice, and use. Since this object is proposed to the will by the
intellect,
we can say that in this sense the goodness or badness of an interior
act
depends on the intellect or reason.
Note on 2, 3 and ad 3: Suppose I will an object in some circumstance
in which I should not will it. Doesn't the circumstance in question
render
the act of will evil, and doesn't it follow that the goodness and
badness
of the interior act depend on the circumstances and not just the
object?
Answer: Either (i) the circumstance in question is a specifying
circumstance,
in which case the object of the act is evil, or (ii) the reason why the
action is wrong in these circumstances is not that it itself is wrong per
se but rather that by willing this object I am neglecting to will
something
I should have willed. For example, willing to play basketball at 9:00
on
Saturday morning for the sake of exercise is not per se bad,
but
is bad per accidens if mom told me to clean my room at that
time.
- 19,4-6: Now the goodness or badness of an act of will is
a matter of its
conformity to the standard of right reason, i.e., practical reason
insofar
as it judges what is and is not in accord with our ultimate end. But
practical
reason is not itself the ultimate measure of goodness and
badness.
It is because of this that St. Thomas here introduces for the first
time
the notion of law, which imposes obligations and prohibitions. His
claim
is that the regulative role of right reason is derived from the eternal
law, "which is God's reason ... and so it is clear that the human
will's
goodness depends much more on eternal law than on human reason, and
where
human reason is defective, one must have recourse to eternal reason."
What
all this means will become clearer when we get to the treatise on law.
For present purposes, it is important to note that (i) practical reason
is "right reason" insofar as it judges correctly what is and is
not in conformity with our ultimate end, and that (ii) the judgments of
human reason regarding which acts are good and evil are themselves
subject
to error, where the true standard is the eternal law. (Note 4, ad 3:
"Even
though the eternal law is inaccessible to us insofar as it exists in
God's
mind, nonetheless it is in some way known to us either through natural
reason, which is derived from it as its proper image, or through
some revelation that is added over and above natural
reason.")
Because of the possible disparity between the eternal law and our
judgments on given occasions about what that law decrees, St. Thomas
now
adds two articles dealing with goodness and badness in cases where the
judgment of practical reason about the goodness or badness of an act is
mistaken. He first asks (art. 5) whether an act of will is good when it
goes against a mistaken judgment of practical reason. The answer,
perhaps
surprisingly, is no. That is, an erring conscience does indeed bind,
since
it is our own considered judgment about right and wrong, and so to
flout
it is to show contempt, at least indirectly, for God's eternal law. But
in art. 6 he cautions that following an erring conscience is also bad,
given that one's ignorance is culpable. So it is possible to be in a
situation
in which you go wrong whether you follow your mistaken conscience or
not.
However, you can get out of this "dilemma" by correcting your culpable
ignorance.
- 19,7-8: Here St. Thomas first makes it clear that to the
extent that an
interior act of will is directed toward the means to an antecedently
intended
end, that act has the end itself as part of its object, so that the
overall
goodness (or badness) of willing the means depends in part on the
goodness
(or badness) of intending the end. Things are a bit more complicated if
one refers an already willed means to a consequently intended end. Then
the original goodness or badness of willing the means does not depend
on
the consequently intended end except to the extent that one now
reiterates
the willing of the means with the context of the intending of the new
end.
In art. 8 St. Thomas asks whether the amount of goodness or badness
in the will's act varies directly with the amount of goodness or
badness
in the intention. He replies that there are two types of quantity of
goodness
and evil to be considered: (1) the amount of goodness or badness in the
object willed (i.e., the means [exterior act] as chosen or executed) as
compared with the object intended (the end); (2) the amount of goodness
or badness associated with various degrees of intensity in the very act
of willing such-and-such an object or in the very act of intending
such-and-such
an object.
- Case 1 (the objects): The amount of goodness
or
badness in the object
willed does not vary directly with the goodness or badness of the end
intended.
For you can will an object that is not fitting for the end intended, in
which case the object willed is not as good (or bad) as the object
intended;
this applies to both the interior and exterior acts. Also, in the case
of an exterior act, impediments might keep you from actualizing your
good
(or bad) intention, so that the resulting exterior act ends up not
being
as good (or bad) as the object intended.
- Case 2 (the intensity of the acts): The
intensity
of the act of
intending does of itself intensify the goodness or badness of both the
interior act and the exterior act. However, if intensity of willing or
doing is itself the object of intention (e.g., I want to will
intensely
to do whatever my wife asks me to do, I want to work intensely, etc.),
this does not necessarily entail a greater intensity of the act thus
willed
or done. (After all, I can rather languidly will to do something
intensely;
for instance, I rather un-intensely will to will intensely to quit
smoking,
or I will rather un-intensely to work intensely.)
- 19,9-10: The last two articles relate the goodness of
acts of will to
their
conformity to God's will. This is an important part of Christian
ethics,
since our goal of attaining happiness is extensionally equivalent to
conforming
our wills to God's will. Indeed, this question is important for the
practical
matter of what we may or should pray for in the present life. In art.
10
St. Thomas tries to make clear exactly what conformity to God's will
means
here and how it comes out in what we will. How, after all, can we will
what God wills when in many particular cases we do not know what God
wills
(obj. 1)? Again, does one who will in fact be condemned to hell by God
have to will that he himself be condemned to hell (obj. 2)? Again, if
God
wills the death of my father, must I, too, will the death of my father
(obj. 3)? So in what sense must we will what God wills?
St. Thomas's reply is long and complicated. Keep St. Thomas's example
in mind: The judge wills well in willing the execution of the murderer,
whereas the murderer's wife wills well in willing that he not be
executed.
God, like the judge, wills whatever he wills under the rubric common
good of the whole, and yet we, like the wife, can still correctly
will
the opposite under the rubric particular good when this
opposite
is indeed correctly thought of as a good proportioned to our nature or
situation. However, we must still formally will (i.e., will in
general)
the common good of the whole at the same time; that is, we may will
this
good, the opposite of which God has willed, but we must always at the
same
time will that "God's will be done." In this case, we are willing
what God wants us to will, as long as the particular good in question
is
one which it is appropriate for us to will. The highest form of
conforming
our wills to God is to will something out of charity. In reply to the
objections
we see, first, that we can at least know that God wills something and
that
he wills what he wills for the good of the whole--even if we do not
know
what this amounts to in the concrete. Again, God wills various things
like
damnation and death only under the rubric of justice. So it is
sufficient
for us to will formally that God's justice be served.
- Question 20: On the goodness and badness of exterior
human
acts
- 20,1-2: An exterior act can be called good or bad in two
ways: (1)
according
to its genus and circumstances considered apart from any end it might
serve;
(2) insofar as it is ordered to an end. As far as (2) is concerned, the
goodness or badness is found first in the act of will by which
the
exterior act is willed qua ordered to an end (choice, consent
and
use, all presupposing intention) and derivatively in the
exterior
(or commanded) act itself. As for (1), the goodness or badness of an
exterior
act is found not in the will, but by comparison to right reason as a
standard.
Acts that are good in their genus and circumstances are, so far forth,
good to will, whereas acts that are bad in their genus and
circumstances
are bad to will, no matter what the end. Now given that the execution
of
an act always involves an end for which it is chosen, the goodness or
badness
of the act always follows the goodness or badness of the act of will
which
is its principle. In art. 2 this is spelled out in more detail. A
concrete
exterior act is good only if (i) it is good to will that sort of act
and
(ii) it is ordered by the will toward a good end. On the other hand, a
concrete exterior act is bad if either (i) it is not a good sort of act
to will or (ii) it is ordered by the will toward a bad or unsuitable
end.
In other words, good intentions are not sufficient to make an act
good--vs.
consequentialism and proportionalism.
- 20,3-4: The next two articles delve into the relation
between the
goodness
or badness of the exterior act and the goodness or badness of the
interior
act that is its principle. In art. 3 St. Thomas points out that the
goodness
(badness) of the two acts is the same when all of the goodness is
derived
from the interior act, but not when the exterior act is good (bad) in
its
species. And in art. 4 he expands this last point as follows:
- (1) Even when the exterior act's goodness or
badness is derived
wholly
from the interior act, the very doing of the exterior act can per
accidens
serve to confirm the will at least a little more in either goodness or
badness:
- Case 1: Sometimes we put off the exterior act and
have to renew our
intention
when we finally get around to doing it. Thus the intention, good or
bad,
recurs and tends toward becoming habitual. (Number)
- Case 2: Sometimes it might be difficult to carry out
the exterior act,
and in such a case one who persists is a bit more confirmed in the
goodness
or badness of the intention than one who gives up and never carries out
the exterior act. (Extension)
- Case 3: Because certain exterior acts are more
pleasurable or more
painful,
the will often intends them more intensely than less pleasurable or
painful
exterior actions, and in this way the will becomes more confirmed in
goodness
or badness. (Intension)
- (2) Sometimes, as we have seen, the exterior act
has goodness or
badness
in its own species: In such a case the interior act is not complete
unless the exterior act is carried out when the opportunity presents
itself.
Of course, sometimes it becomes impossible to carry out the exterior
act
even though one wills it completely. In such a case the loss of
goodness
or badness is involuntary, with the result that none of the merit or
demerit
associated with performing the exterior act is lost.
- 20,5: The next article asks whether the effects or
consequences of an
exterior
act can add to its goodness or badness. St. Thomas replies that foreseen
(praecogitatus) consequences do indeed add to the goodness or
badness
of the act, at least to the extent that they reveal a will that has
more
or less rectitude. If, foreknowing that many evils will follow from
my
act, I do not desist or at least hesitate, then my will is more
disordered
than if I were to desist or at least hesitate. Suppose, though, that
the
effects in question are unforeseen. Then the consequences that
always
or for the most part follow from an action of the sort in question add
to its goodness or badness--these are the sorts of consequences that
any
normal person could foresee. By contrast, per accidens effects,
i.e., flukes or effects not normally or directly associated with this
sort
of exterior act, don't add to the goodness or badness of your exterior
act. (Note ad 2: teachers get some credit for the good works they
inspire
in their students; I suppose it works the other way, too. Of course, if
you rebel against me and live a dissolute life because you are angry
with
my denunciations of moral dissoluteness, then that's a per accidens
effect of my teaching and I'm not to blame.)
- 20,6: Finally, St. Thomas asks whether a given concrete
exterior act
can
be both good and bad. Why might one think that the answer is yes?
- Case 1: You are walking to church. At first
you
are motivated by
a desire to honor God, but then you remember that Leslie, with whom you
would like to fornicate, will be there ...... It seems that the
exterior
act of walking to church starts off good and goes bad.
- Case 2: I command you to write a paper for your
own intellectual
good but this becomes an occasion of sin for you, given your perverse
desire
to annoy me with bad grammar. Then my act of commanding is informed
both
by my good intention and your bad one. So my act of commanding you to
write
the paper turns out to be a bad act of mine.
St. Thomas replies that it is impossible for the same human act to be
both
good and bad. In case 1 a new human action occurs when you adopt the
sinful
intention; so there are two human acts, one good and one bad. In case 2
my act is (luckily) distinct from your act once you adopt your perverse
intention.
- Question 21: On the things that follow upon human acts
by
reason of
their goodness and badness
- 21,1-4: Here St. Thomas introduces some technical
concepts for which it
is difficult to find precise English equivalents, and this can lead to
some confusion. On the side of evil, there are four relevant terms: malum,
peccatum, culpa,
and demeritum. On the side of good, there are four
corresponding
terms: bonum, rectum, laudabile, and meritum.
In each case the terms are ordered from the more general to the less
general,
with each term in order adding something to its predecessor. Let's look
at each series in order:
- 1a. malum = any privation of a good that ought
to be present.
- 1b. peccatum = any act that is malum,
i.e., lacks
due measure (e.g., limping, missing a free throw, committing adultery)
and is not well-ordered toward the end in question. So even though peccatum
is usually translated as sin, its root meaning is wider and
covers
any act that is in any way defective or that misses its mark
(corresponding
to the Greek harmatia). We might think of a peccatum,
then,
as an objectively disordered act, even though the term does not by
itself
imply any culpability on the part of any agent. The translation sin
implies, then, that the act is morally disordered (e.g.,
'adultery
is a sin'), but this translation can be misleading if peccatum
is
thought to imply by itself the moral culpability (or degree of moral
culpability)
of any agent who commits the act.
- 1c. culpa = a peccatum, i.e., an evil
act, which is imputed
to an agent as a fault and which incurs blame because it is
within
the agent's power. Indeed, fault and blame are the
usual
English translations, though sin would often be better. A culpa,
is an evil act or peccatum for which the agent is blameworthy.
- 1d. demeritum = a morally blameworthy act for
which the agent in
justice deserves punishment or retribution from some individual or
social
group. In the supernatural order, such an act is the contrary of
meritorious
act.
- 2a. bonum = the opposite of malum.
- 2b. rectum = the opposite of peccatum,
i.e., an act which
has due measure, is successful, well-ordered, etc.
-
2c. laudabile = the opposite of culpa, i.e., an action
that
is morally praiseworthy.
- 2d. meritum = the opposite of demeritum,
i.e., an action
that deserves a reward from some individual or from some community.
With these distinctions in mind, we can now understand the articles in
question. In art. 1 St. Thomas asserts that to the extent that it is
good
or bad, a human act falls under the notion rectum (correct,
successful,
well-ordered) or peccatum. This is because such an action
either
has or lacks the due measure dictated by right reason (and the eternal
law) and thus leads one either toward or away from our goal, i.e., our
ultimate end.
In art. 2 St. Thomas explains that human acts are
praiseworthy and blameworthy
because we have dominion over our acts. (Degree of culpability is a
different
matter and depends on various features of individual acts.)
In art. 3 St. Thomas ties reward and punishment to the
individual or
social unit which is affected by the act. For instance, our acts can be
meritorious or demeritorious with respect to an individual, a family, a
city, a nation, etc.
Finally, in art. 4 St. Thomas relates the previous
discussion of merit
and demerit to our relationship with God insofar as (i) God is the
ultimate
end to whom all our actions should be worthy of being referred, and
also
insofar as (ii) God is the ruler and governer who cares for the whole
universe.
Thus all our human acts are either meritorious with respect to
God
(viz., when they respect the order that God has instituted) or
demeritorious
with respect to God (viz., when they do not respect that order).
|