PROPOSITION CIV.

The usefully Good is essentially distinct from the other three.

The truth of this Thesis, likewise, is not free from difficulties. For, if the Useful be in any sense a real Good, it must have a perfection of its own, by virtue of which it becomes the object of legitimate desire. Nothing can be more plain than that an object could never be useful, unless it had some intrinsic efficacy, helping towards the attainment of that something else, relatively to which it is accounted useful. But that intrinsic efficacy constitutes its usefulness; and, therefore, as a natural Good, stimulates desire. If so, how can it be maintained, with any show of justice, that the Useful differs from the rest, in that it is not desirable on its own account, but for the sake of something else? It may be urged against this objection, that the Goodness of the Useful does not consist in its usefulness, but in its connatural proportion with human desire; and that such proportion does not belong to it in its own right, but by reason of the end, towards the attainment of which it is serviceable. Such an answer, however, does not meet the difficulty. For, although it must be allowed that the Useful presupposes the fitness or conveniency of the end whose attainment it promotes; yet, that presupposed, the Useful has consequently a fitness and proportion of its own, which causes it to be in itself good and desirable. Again: If the Useful borrows all its suitableness, proportion to human desire, and goodness, from the end whose attainment it subserves; then it would appear as though the Useful should be subdivided into three kinds, to wit, the morally Useful, the naturally Useful, and the pleasurably Useful, according to the nature of the end which it helps to secure. For, such as is the nature of the end, such will be the nature of the means for the attainment of that end; since, according to the doctrine by which the division contended for is established, the end gives the character of Goodness to the means. Here, again, common sense comes to our aid. For it has been universally recognized that, (let the explanation be what it will), there are certain things which we desire, not on their own account, but because they help to the attainment of some end. No one imagines that there is some intrinsic excellence in a saw; so that, if there were nothing to sever, it would nevertheless excite human desire to possess it. Similarly, there is nothing in a scaffolding to excite human desire; if there were any other means equally fitted for purposes of building. And the commonest intelligence perceives, that the Goodness of the Useful is altogether of a different kind from either natural, moral, or pleasurable Goodness.

Now, to look at it philosophically. That perfection which is recognized as the usefulness of the Useful, may be regarded under two aspects; viz, in its relation to the entity itself which is useful, and in its relation to the appetite of him who desires that entity as a means towards an end. Regarded in the first of these two ways, it cannot be doubted that such usefulness is a real intrinsic perfection, existing in the useful object; and that it is naturally consonant with, and proportioned to, this latter. Consequently, it is to the same a real natural Good. But, if it is considered in relation to the person who desires the useful object, it is equally plain that in itself it is neither naturally consonant, nor proportioned, nor good; and that it derives such consonancy and proportion, simply and entirely from the end towards the attainment of which it conduces. Take, for instance, a purgative medicine, such as castor-oil. Certainly, that cathartic virtue which it has is a perfection of the plant itself, connatural and proportioned to it; and is, therefore, to the plant a natural Good. But, in what possible way can it be considered as connatural with, or proportioned to, human nature, or to any one of its constituents, so as to excite the appetite of man? It is positively repugnant to more than one of the senses; and can add nothing to the perfection of our nature. But, if a man is ill, and it is necessary that corrupt humours should be expelled; the castor-oil becomes useful as a means for the recovery of health. Its consonancy, therefore, and proportion, in the given case, is purely derived from the end to which it is subservient, viz. the desired restoration of health; and a man would think twice before taking a dose of castor-oil, if he were in a sound condition of body. This declaration is confirmed by reflecting on the nature of a useful Good, which, as merely useful, does not move or attract the appetite to itself, but rather to the end which it subserves. It is the desire of the end, which moves the will to possess the means. If the means moved the will independently, then the means would be an end; which is false and repugnant. Not but that a useful object may be desired in and for itself, yet not as merely useful; and, in such case, it pro tanto ceases to be useful, and must be ranged under one of the other forms of Goodness. In fact, all other Goods, properly so called, in their relation to the Supreme Good, are useful, inasmuch as they conduce to Its attainment; but then, they are something more in themselves, which causes them to be independently objects of desire.

As to the second difficulty it must be said, that there is no sufficient reason for such a distinction or subdivision; because the usefulness is the same, whether the end desired be a moral, natural, or pleasurable Good. There must be the same adaptation of means to the end; and it is precisely in this adaptation that usefulness consists.

NOTE.

The question has been mooted, whether Goodness is predicated univocally, or only analogously, of these four divisions; and, as its solution serves to throw additional light on the subject of this Article, it would not be well to omit it. The Angelic Doctor resolves the doubt as follows: 'The Good is not divided into these members as a univocal, which is equally predicated of each; but, as an analogous, which is principally predicated of one and, secondarily, predicated of the rest.' And, retaining the old division into the Honestum, Pleasurable, and Useful, he goes on to say, that 'it is primarily predicated of the Honestum, secondarily, of the Pleasurable, thirdly, of the Useful.'^{1} According to the quadripartite division which has been here adopted, the order would be this; first the moral, then the natural, after that the pleasurable, lastly, the useful Good. But it may be further asked, What is the nature of the analogy subsisting between the different kinds of Goodness? Is there one and the same analogy throughout? Now, as regards the Useful, the answer is plain enough. For the Useful borrows all its Goodness from the end which it subserves. As St. Thomas justly remarks, 'since the Good is the Desirable, that which is in itself desirable, is in itself good. Now, this is the end. But, because we desire the end, it follows that we desire those things which conspire towards the attainment of the end. Consequently, those things which conspire towards the attainment of the end, for the sole reason that they conspire towards the attainment of the end or Good, themselves attain to the nature of the Good. Hence, useful things are included under the divisions of Good.'^{2} It follows, that the Useful is called Good by an extrinsic denomination. Wherefore, the analogy in its case is an analogy of attribution of the first class, in which the denominated form is intrinsic in the primary analogate, and in the secondary analogate is received by extrinsic denomination from the form inherent in the primary. In this way, the first three would be principal analogates, and the Useful by itself the secondary; for, in the rest, the form of Goodness is intrinsic. But Goodness is not predicated of the other three univocally; and it remains to see, what is the nature of the analogy which subsists between these. It is quite plain that, in moral, natural, and pleasurable Goodness, there is a real, intrinsic conformity with, and proportion to, human nature; consequently, it cannot be an analogy of attribution of the first class. Furthermore, the perfective form, inherent in each, is generically the same; as consisting of a connaturality with human nature as perfectible. It cannot, then, be an analogy of proportion, wherein the forms of the several analogates are simply different. Consequently, it must be an analogy of attribution of the second class, in which the denominating form is one and the same, and is intrinsic in each one of the analogates; but the form in the secondary analogates has an essential relation to the form in the primary analogate. And, as a fact, so it is. For natural and pleasurable Goodness are really and intrinsically good, because proportioned to human desire; yet they are essentially dependent on moral Goodness, and must be estimated by its measure.

{1} 'Bonum non dividitur in ista tria, sicut univocum aequaliter de his praedicatum, sed sicut analogum quod praedicatur secundum prius et posterius. Per prius enim praedicatur de honesto; et secundario, de delectabili; tertio, de utili.' 1ae v, 6, ad 3m.

{2} 'Cum bonum sit id quod est appetibile, id quod est secundum se appetibile, est secundum se bonum. Hoc autem est finis. Sed quia ex hoc quod appetimus finem, sequitur quod appetamus ea quae in finem ordinantur; consequens est, ut ea quae ordinantur in finem, ex hoc ipso quod in finem vel bonum ordinantur, boni rationem obtineant. Unde utilia sub divisione boni comprehenduntur.' De Ma. Q. 1, a. 2, C.