Chapter XVII. Goop and evil in interior acts (q. 19)

Tis question has two parts. In the first four articles we ask: Does the will's goodness depend: (a) on the object; (b) on the object alone; (c) on right reason; (d) on the eternal law. In the remaining six articles we answer difficulties about the foregoing principles: (a) Does erroneous reason oblige? (b) Is the will that follows erroneous reason evil? (c) Does the goodness of choice depend on the intention of the end? (d) Does the quantity of good in the choice follow the quantity of good in the intention? (e) Does the goodness of the human will depend on the divine will? (f) Must the human will always be in harmony with the divine will in the object willed?

ART. 1. THE GOODNESS OF THE WILL DEPENDS ON ITS OBJECT

Preliminaries

On first view, this article seems merely a repetition of the preceding question. But here, treating only of the interior act as distinguished from the exterior, St. Thomas wishes to show the relation of the foregoing articles with those that follow.

Authority, Aristotle says: “Justice is the virtue by which we will to do things that are just.”

Reason: The specific difference among acts of the will follows the object proposed by reason. Just as truth and error differentiate per se the acts of reason, so do good and evil differentiate per se the acts of the will, the objects of which are necessarily subject to the order of reason.

Corollary. Acts are intrinsically good if their object is always conformable to reason (e.g., to love God or to pay debts). But we must notice, as said above, that this traditional objectivism is opposed to Kantian subjectivism. The Kantian standard is not the objective nature of good, but the categorical imperative, which is a subjective judgment, synthetic, and a priori, namely: “Act in all things so that the moral direction of your will can be a principle for common and public legislation.” But this moral direction cannot be valid for all men unless it is based on the objectivity of right reason. The act of the will is differentiated, not by reason as such, but by the object subject to measurement by reason. To illustrate: The amount of food is measured by its relation to reason’s standard of health.

ART. 2. GOODNESS OF INTENTION DEPENDS ON THE OBJECT AIMED AT BY PERSONAL PURPOSE

On the object alone depends direct goodness or malice, and, for the interior act, intention, the object is nothing but the purpose of the agent. The essential good and evil of the interior act of the will must be taken primarily from that which is intended by the will primo and per se.

ART. 3. THE GOODNESS OF THE WILL DEPENDS ON REASON, THAT IS, ON THE OBJECT PROPOSED BY REASON

Preliminaries

The proximate rule of morality, practical reason, has three elements: first, synderesis, the habit of first principles; second, moral knowledge which arises from these principles; third, conscience, the act of the practical reason, dictating something to be here and now done or avoided. In the supernatural order, synderesis becomes faith, moral knowledge becomes moral theology, and natural conscience becomes Christian conscience, This latter, in the just man, is an act of infused prudence subserved by acquired prudence. Since the forma- tion of conscience belongs properly to the treatise on prudence, only general questions belong to this treatise on human acts.

Authority. St. Hilary speaks: “Unregulated is the will unless subject to reason.”

Reason. The object of the will is proposed to it by reason; hence the will’s goodness depends on the object of the intention. To explain. Nothing is willed unless foreknown. The will tends to universal good only because the intellect knows universal good. The will is regulated by practical reason, just as speculative reason is directed to the cognition of truth.

Difficulties Analyzed

Although the good as good belongs primarily to the will, nevertheless the good as true belongs to reason before it can belong to the will, because the will, being a blind faculty, must be directed by reason.

2. The goodness of the practical intellect, that is, truth conformed to right appetite, depends on the goodness of the will. When we praise a man as just, we speak of him as a man of good will rather than of good intellect. This objection is repeated today by pragmatism and the philosophy of action. Answer: The goodness of the practical intellect is truth conformed to right appetite. If you are speaking of the judgment of prudence, yes; if you are speaking of the judgment of moral science, no. The right moral judgment, here and now, comes from the virtue of prudence. But prudence cannot perform this duty unless the will is guided by the other virtues (justice, fortitude, and temperance).

3. How does direction by moral science differ from direction by prudence? Moral science shows us the goal to be aimed at, whether that goal be the ultimate end of all human endeavor, or the goal of any particular virtue. Thus the truth of moral science rests on objective conformity to reality. But prudence directs the choice of right ways and means, here and now, and its truth consists in man’s personal intention to reach the right goal even if, as in the case of invincible ignorance, his intention lacks conformity with objective reality. Example: a man invincibly ignorant of the special strength of the liquor set before him. Conformity with right intention justifies his drinking, even though he thereby becomes drunk. His judgment was practically true, by conformity with right intention, though speculatively false in relation to reality.

This truth, of great importance in forming conscience, is neglected by many probabilists. They insist too exclusively on the value of the moral virtues: on the truth, say, that the chaste man, by being chaste, judges correctly on matters of chastity, and the humble man on matters of humility. Now this is a part of the truth, a part contained in the teaching of Blondel, who defines truth as “equation of mind and life.” This truth is verified only of the truth of prudence, and, in some measure, of the gift of wisdom, which gift nevertheless presupposes faith as conformed to divine reality.

Summary. Goodness of will depends on right reason, that is, on synderesis and on moral science. But reason in the practical order, that is, under prudence, depends upon correct intention, whereby the rectitude of universal principles descends to the particular deed to be performed here and now.

ART. 4. THE WILL’S GOODNESS DEPENDS ON THE ETERNAL LAW AS ITS SUPREME STANDARD

Preliminaries

This thesis is denied by independent ethics, independent not only of revealed religion, but even of the concept of God and of every metaphysical concept. Kant, for example, holds that the supreme foundation of moral foundation is the categorical imperative, the absolute autonomy of our will. Thus man would be like God: he would be bound, not by any superior, but only by himself, to act wisely, i.e., according to right reason. Were obligation imposed on us by God, our life, being a servitude, spent to obtain a delightful reward, would not be, properly speaking, a moral life, would not be worthy of man’s dignity.

The objections which Kant here raises against traditional ethics are, at bottom, identical with those which St. Thomas puts at the head of this article: 1. Reason alone is a self-sufhcient standard. 2. Whereas measure must be proportioned to the thing measured, the eternal law is not so proportioned. 3. The standard of human activity must be most clear and certain, whereas the eternal law is unknown to us.

Against these arguments, agnostic and positivistic, we defend our thesis: Goodness of the human will depends on the eternal law as its supreme standard.

Authority. Sin, says St. Augustine, is a word or deed or desire against the eternal law. The following proposition was condemned: “A philosophical sin, a moral sin, is a human act out of harmony with rational nature and right reason. Theological sin is free transgression of the divine law. Philosophical sin, however grave, in a man who ignores God, or does not think actually of God, is a grave sin, but it is not an offense against God. It is not a mortal sin dissolving our friendship with God, nor does it deserve eternal punishment.” * From this condemnation it is clear that there cannot be a sin merely philosophical, that is, a sin against reason but not against the eternal law. Therefore the eternal law is the supreme standard of human morality. The following proposition is also condemned: “The laws of morality do not need divine sanction, nor need human laws be in harmony with the natural law, or receive their obligation from God.” ?

Reason. In a series of causes, one subordinated to the other, the effect depends more on the first cause than on the second cause. But human reason regulates the human will only by dependence on eternal law, which is divine reason. To explain. Human reason can rightly command good to be done and evil to be avoided, only by appealing to conformity with¹ the eternal law. Human reason is a second cause, not the first. And the order of subordination of agents Corresponds to the order of goals. Hence movement to universal good, to the last end, must come from the first cause of morality, that is, from God.

Corollary. The obligation of the natural law begins with God’s will to create man. God promulgates the natural law by imprinting it on man’s mind,

Independent Ethics

Objections Analyzed

The objections formulated by St. Thomas are repeated by independent ethics.

1. The one standard of human action is human reason. Answer: Yes, if you are talking of a proximate standard, subordinated to a higher standard.

2. The measure must be proportioned to the thing measured. But the eternal law is not proportioned to human will. Answer: Not proportioned as proximate measure, granted; otherwise, denied.

3- The eternal law is not the supreme standard, because the first and essential goodness of an act comes from its object, and an object in itself good is independent of the eternal law. Answer: Goodness comes from an object, good by moral standards, yes; good by mere physical standards, no.

4. To tell the truth is morally good independent of God’s creative free act. Answer: God is free to create, or not to create. But if He creates rational beings, He must will them to live rationally.

5. Veracity is morally binding on God Himself, before He promulgates the eternal law. Answer: God’s veracity is identified with God’s wisdom. And obligation, properly speaking, does not exist for God, since God has no superior, though He does owe it to Himself to act wisely.

6. The standard of morality must be known naturally, and from the very beginning of moral life. Answer: Must be known even from the beginning of moral life, at least in its first principle, i.e., do good, avoid evil, I grant, though I hold that revelation is morally necessary if all men are to know, explicitly and unerringly, the fullness of the natural law.

7. But even this first principle of the eternal law, since it is admitted by the authority of reason, is subordinated to reason. Thus even obedience to God is good, not because it is commanded by God, but because it is a dictate of our reason. Hence the supreme foundation, even of religious certitude, is human reason.? Answer: The authority of human reason discovers the divine reason, whose authority transcends altogether the authority of our reason.

8. If the goodness of the will depended on the eternal law, our will would have to be conformed to the divine will in every object which it wills. Thus I would have to will the eternal damnation of my father if God wills it. This is an undesirable conclusion. Answer: Ultimately, I will all evils which Providence permits, but, here and now, under particular reasons which I must consider, I do not will what God wills, but I will what God wills me to will.

A Related Question

Does conscience prove a posteriori the existence of a supreme legislator? l

Preliminaries

Many traditional authors answer affirmatively. Among those who answer negatively is Father Billot, S.J. The background of this denial is the following thesis: Many men are invincibly ignorant of God’s existence, and of the first precepts of the natural law, and are invincibly ignorant of these truths even up to death. Such men never reach the age of reason, as far as morality goes. Atrocious crimes, in such men,

3 Thus Victor Cousin. t De natura el ratione peccati personalis, pp. 23 sqq.

would be only material sins. Moral evil, he says, cannot be conceived, unless we anteriorly know God who obliges.

This concept of Father Billot seems to presuppose that the obligation of the natural law is founded on a special divine law, while we say it rests on God’s general creative will. Otherwise, he adds, we should again fall into the theory of “philosophical sin,” i.e., a man could sin against right reason, without sinning against God whom he would not yet know.

Answer: Notwithstanding these objections, we maintain that the existence of God can be proved from the fact of moral obligation known by conscience, Let us note, first of all, that proofs of God’s existence can begin with any fact, whether in the sense order, or in the intellectual and moral order. Man’s intellective soul leads us to a supreme intellect. What participates (the fourth way), what is changeable (the first way), and what is imperfect (the third and fourth way), demand the pre-existence of something immovable and perfect. Now the human soul is intellective by participation, because only one of its parts is intellective: and it is imperfect, because it does not understand everything and because it proceeds from potentiality to act.

Uniting the five ways, we speak thus: Whatever is changed is changed by another; whatever begins to cause needs to be moved toward causing; every contingent thing is caused by a necessary thing; everything imperfect or composed of parts is caused by a perfect and most simple thing. But the human intellect and will are changeable, contingent, imperfect, yet are destined for universal truth and universal good. Hence the human soul depends on the prime mover, on the prime cause, on the prime necessary being, on the supreme and most perfect being, on the supreme ordinator.

This fivefold demonstration can be applied also in the field of practical reason. On a superior cause depends whatever is moved or begins to cause, or is contingent, or is imperfect, or is ordained to another. Now practical reason begins with the first principle, i.e., good is to be done, evil is to be avoided, and then begins to regulate our activity by this principle. Further, it is contingent and imperfect, and is related to the truth as the will is to the good. Hence our practical reason, in knowing and commanding good, commands by virtue of a supreme cause, namely, God the Legislator.

Objections Analyzed

1. This demonstration proceeds, not from moral obligation, but from the various imperfections of our practical reason. Answer: It proceeds from the imperfections of our practical reason, in its action considered psychologically, no; in its action as commanding and regulating, yes. Practical reason not only shows us the good, but also commands us to do that good. But it commands as a second cause, which does not act except in virtue of the first cause.

2. But we cannot know moral obligation unless we know God beforehand. Answer: Unless we know God, from the very obligation itself, yes; otherwise, no. To explain, Obligation is knowable in two ways: a priori and a posteriori. A priori, we know it either from its supreme foundation in God, or then in its proximate foundation, in the self-evident principle that good is to be done, and evil to be avoided. A posteriori we know it in the joy of a good conscience, in the remorse of conscience, in the insufficiency of human legislation which itself needs regulation. But note that the principle of doing good and avoiding evil is a principle, not a mere conclusion.’ Without this principle man would have no duty to live according to reason.

3- But obligation, known a posteriori, and a priori in its proximate foundation, is known, not as a moral obligation, but only as a rational imperative, not yet morally obliging. Answer: This obligation cannot be known perfectly, a priori, in its supreme cause, unless we first know God. But it can be known in its proximate foundation, which is immediately evi- dent, namely, in remorse of conscience. Knowing the obliga- 5 Ta-Ilae, q.94, a.2.

tion, we simultaneously know, a posteriori, the existence of God the Obligator, precisely because there is no obligation without a superior who obliges.

4. But thus we would have the sin that is called philosophical, because man could know his action to be against right reason, without knowing that it is against the eternal law. Answer: He can know this without knowing the eternal law distinctly, but not without knowing, at least confusedly, the existence of God the Legislator. My practical reason sees at once that I am not the source of a law that binds all men, individually and collectively. Since, then, practical reason knows that it commands as second cause, it follows that philosophical sin is impossible. If God can be known from the wonderful ordination of plants and animals to theii own proper functions, why can He not be known from the natural ordination of our will to God?

ART. 5. ANY ACT OF THE WILL AGAINST REASON, RIGHT OR WRONG IS ALWAYS EVIL

Preliminaries

At this point modern manuals introduce a treatise on conscience. Aquinas is writing, not a manual of practical theology, but a speculative treatise on morality. His treatment is here universal, but later we will meet questions on the principles of human acts: law and virtue, and the relation of prudence to the other virtues, Justice, fortitude, and temperance cannot exist without prudence to direct them, nor can prudence exist without these moral virtues. The special treatise on prudence will be, concomitantly, a treatise on right and certain conscience.

In the present general treatise on human acts, the only truth needing proof is that moral activity demands a conscience that is right and certain. The precise question in this article runs thus: Is our will evil when it is against erroneous reason? Does an erring conscience oblige? The answer is that any act of the will discordant with reason, right or wrong, is always evil. In other words, we are never allowed to act against conscience, even though the conscience be erroneous.

The reason is that the will is a blind power, which follows the lead of reason. Nothing can be willed except as foreknown. Hence, if reason erroneously proposes a line of activity as evil, the will is still bound to avoid that line. Similarly, when reason proposes an object as good and the will refuses, the will will be evil. If reason, for example, tells a man erroneously that he is bound to save his neighbor’s life by a lie, he is bound to tell that lie. Again, a man who eats food which he thinks forbidden, sins, says St. Paul,® because he is not acting from faith, that is, from conscience (so the Fathers commonly interpret this text). Conscience is the proximate and immediate standard for human actions, since it applies the law here and now. To act against conscience is to act against the law.

ART. 6. CONSCIENCE VOLUNTARILY ERRONEOUS DOES NOT EXCUSE FROM SIN

The argument is a distinction between conscience invincibly erroneous and conscience which is voluntarily in error. Man can never act against conscience, but he can and should lay aside any erroneousness of which he is aware, or should be aware,

ART. 7, 8. GOODNESS IN CHOOSING WAYS AND MEANS DEPENDS ON THE GOODNESS OF INTENTION

In article seven we show that goodness in choosing means depends on the antecedent intention of the goal. This relation to the goal is the source of goodness in the object willed. Example: a man who fasts for love of God. Article eight asks this question: Is the goodness of choice equal to the goodness of intention? Answer: The quantity of goodness, whether it comes from the object or the mode of intention, while it does not necessarily descend fully into the act of choice and execution, does nevertheless overflow on the act of choice and execution, in the degree in which these acts tend to the goal to which the intention is directed.

Corollary. In order that the entire goodness of intention overflow on election and execution, the ways and means must be directed, not only to the proximate object, but also to the goal of the intention. Thus genuine Christians do not act from natural precipitation, but keep even their exterior acts directed to that last goal which is the object of charity.

ART. Q. GOODNESS OF WILL DEPENDS ON CONFORMITY WITH GOD’S WILL

Authority comes from our Lord’s words in Gethsemane: “Not as I will, but as Thou wilt.” The argument runs thus: All action is judged by its relation to its standard, and the divine will is the standard, the first rule and measure, of every act of man’s will.” What does this truth mean for men, pagans particularly, who do not know the true God? Answer: If they ordain their actions to the highest good which they know, these actions are morally good, otherwise they are bad.

ART. 10. THIS CONFORMITY MUST BE FOUND IN WHAT IS GOOD BY ITS VERY NATURE

Preliminaries

Objections. 1. We cannot will what we do not know, and often we do not know what God wills. 2. When God wills the condemnation of a man whom he foresees will die in mortal sin, is this man bound to will his own damnation? 3. When God wills my father’s death, would I not be unfilial if I also willed that death?

Contrary objections. 1. That man has the right heart who wills what God wills. 2. Since the will is differentiated by its object, if man must conform his will to the divine will,² then he must also conform his will to the object of God's will.

First thesis. Our will must be conformed to God's will formally, i.e., by willing the good-in-itself. Proof: Since man must will everything for the sake of good-in-itself, he who knowingly wills a good, not good-in-itself, formally wills evil. Action is judged rather by its form than by its matter. But he who aims at good-in-itself aims, at least implicitly, at the supreme good.

Second thesis. Our will is not bound to conformity with the divine will materially unless this object is known by precept or prohibition.

This truth was not understood by the Quietists, who said that conforming our will to the divine will means sacrificing our own interests, even our eternal interests. Proof: Will tends to its object as proposed by reason. Now one and the same object can be good from the standpoint of God, the universal provider, and still not be good from the standpoint of man as viator.

The death of a robber, to illustrate, is necessary to the common good, but injurious to the robber’s family. The judge wills the death of the murderer, but the murderer’s wife, whose duty it is to care for the family, does not will her husband’s death. Similarly, the universal provider permits evils in view of greater good, to manifest His mercy and justice. Though God allows my father to die in heresy, I cannot will that death. A fortiori I cannot will my own damnation. Thus, in the object willed, though I seem to recede from the divine will, I am indirectly in harmony with that will, since, here and now, I will not what God wills, but what God wills me to will.

Corollary. Opposite wills of different men can each be good. St. Philip Neri and St. Charles Borromeo, attempting to found an institute of priests, differed in their ideas, hence each made his own foundation. The more saintly men are, the more must they agree to disagree, each insisting on what God wills him to do.

Objections Analyzed

1. While sense-appetite can refuse what God wills, the object of deliberate will must be conformed to God’s will. Answer: Conformed to God’s will as our reason for willing, yes; but not necessarily in the material object, unless there be a precept. When Christ said, “Let this chalice pass from Me,” He shrank from death as material object, but embraced death as willed by divine Providence.

2. The object formally willed is the most universal aspect under which all particular reasons are contained, Now, since, we are bound to conform in the formal object, we are bound to conform also in the material object. Answer: The formal object is the most universal reason, in causing, yes; in being, no.

3- In the Lord’s Prayer we say, “Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.” But in heaven the blessed are conformed to the divine will also in the material object. Answer: The blessed in heaven are conformed, even in the material object, to God’s will because, knowing God's will perfectly, they are no longer bound by temporal considerations, since they adhere fixedly and immovably to God’s will in everything, even in the manifestation of His justice. But this privilege does not belong to those still on earth.

4. But is it not better to be conformed to the divine will also in the material object? Answer: Yes, when such conformity is licit, in willing, for example, my own humiliation or the advantage of religious obedience, which means formal conformity even in the smallest details of life.

5. When does material conformity become illicit? First, when the material object, sin, say, is only permitted by God and not positively willed. Secondly, when we are dealing with an opposite precept. Thus I am not allowed to will damna- tion, my own or that of another. Again, since charity binds me, I am not allowed to will, either for myself or my neighbor, an evil which would deprive us of confession or communion.

6. Supposing we are not bound to material conformity, may we continue in this attitude? Answer: If the thing is irrevocably done, no. We can only be sad about it, and wish it were not, if that were possible. But if the thing has not yet been done, yes, we can and should labor against it. Even saints, to whom God has revealed their death, should and would take remedies against sickness.

In preaching, let us avoid subleties. Christians in general understand that we may not will our own damnation, that we must all labor toward salvation. Yet the distinctions in the present article are necessary, particularly in confuting the errors of the Quietists, on sacrificing our own good, our eternal salvation. To our people let us urge conformity to the divine will of sign, namely, the precepts and counsels of the Gospel, the spirit of humility, mildness, and patience, and blessings offered to the poor, to the meek, to the victims of persecution.

7. When the deed in question is known by revelation, what conformity is required? Answer: Although we cannot strive against God’s will or permission, we must still strive against the deed considered materially, as far as it depends on particular causes. Peter, after the revelation of his threefold denial, was still bound to strive against sin. And Christ, foreknowing His own crucifixion, still prayed that the chalice might pass from Him.

Footnotes

1. Ibid., 1290. 2 Ibid., 1756. ↩

2. De veritate, q.23, a.7. ↩