Home
  By Author [ A  B  C  D  E  F  G  H  I  J  K  L  M  N  O  P  Q  R  S  T  U  V  W  X  Y  Z |  Other Symbols ]
  By Title [ A  B  C  D  E  F  G  H  I  J  K  L  M  N  O  P  Q  R  S  T  U  V  W  X  Y  Z |  Other Symbols ]
  By Language
all Classics books content using ISYS

Download this book: [ ASCII | HTML | PDF ]

Look for this book on Amazon


We have new books nearly every day.
If you would like a news letter once a week or once a month
fill out this form and we will give you a summary of the books for that week or month by email.

´╗┐Title: Summa Theologica, Part I-II (Pars Prima Secundae) - From the Complete American Edition
Author: Aquinas, Thomas, Saint, 1225?-1274
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.
Copyright Status: Not copyrighted in the United States. If you live elsewhere check the laws of your country before downloading this ebook. See comments about copyright issues at end of book.

*** Start of this Doctrine Publishing Corporation Digital Book "Summa Theologica, Part I-II (Pars Prima Secundae) - From the Complete American Edition" ***

This book is indexed by ISYS Web Indexing system to allow the reader find any word or number within the document.

PRIMA SECUNDAE)***


by David McClamrock



SUMMA THEOLOGICA

PART I-II ("Prima Secundae")

Translated by
Fathers of the English Dominican Province

BENZIGER BROTHERS
NEW YORK
________________________

DEDICATION

To the Blessed Virgin
Mary Immaculate
Seat of Wisdom
________________________

NOTE TO THIS ELECTRONIC EDITION

K. Perry, Perrysburg, Ohio, and made available through the Christian
Classics Ethereal Library . I have eliminated
unnecessary formatting in the text, corrected some errors in
transcription, and added the dedication, tables of contents,
Prologue, and the numbers of the questions and articles, as they
appeared in the printed translation published by Benziger Brothers.
Each article is now designated by part, question number, and article
number in brackets, like this:

> SECOND ARTICLE [I, Q. 49, Art. 2]

> Whether the Supreme Good, God, Is the Cause of Evil?

In a few places, where obvious errors appeared in the Benziger
Brothers edition, I have corrected them by reference to a Latin text
of the _Summa._ These corrections are indicated by English text in
brackets. For example, in Part I, Question 45, Article 2, the first
sentence in the Benziger Brothers edition begins: "Not only is it
impossible that anything should be created by God...." By reference
to the Latin, "non solum _non_ est impossibile a Deo aliquid creari"
(emphasis added), this has been corrected to "Not only is it [not]
impossible that anything should be created by God...."

This electronic edition also differs from the Benziger Brothers
edition in the following details (as well as the obvious lack of the
original page numbers and headers):

* The repetitive expression "We proceed thus to the [next] Article"
does not appear directly below the title of each article.

* Italics are represented by underscores at the beginning and end,
_like this._ Quotations and other "quotable" matter, however, are
ordinarily set off by quotation marks with no underscores in this
edition, in accordance with common English usage, even where they
were set in italics with no quotation marks in the Benziger Brothers
edition. Titles of books are set off by underscores when they appear
in the text with no parentheses, but not when the books are cited in
parentheses.

* Bible chapters and verses are cited with arabic numerals separated
by colons, like this: "Dan. 7:10"--not like this: "Dan. vii. 10."
Small roman numerals have been retained where they appear in
citations to books other than the Bible.

* Any matter that appeared in a footnote in the Benziger Brothers
edition is presented in brackets at the point in the text where the
footnote mark appeared.

* Greek words are presented in Roman transliteration.

* Paragraphs are not indented and are separated by blank lines.

* Numbered topics, set forth at the beginning of each question and
at certain other places, are ordinarily presented on a separate line
for each topic.

* Titles of questions are in all caps.

Anything else in this electronic edition that does not correspond to
the content of the Benziger Brothers edition may be regarded as a
defect in this edition and attributed to me (David McClamrock).

________________________

CONTENTS

FIRST PART OF THE SECOND PART (QQ. 1-114)

Question

1.   Of Man's Last End
2.   Of Those Things in Which Man's Happiness Consists
3.   What Is Happiness
4.   Of Those Things That Are Required for Happiness
5.   Of the Attainment of Happiness
6.   Of the Voluntary and the Involuntary
7.   Of the Circumstances of Human Acts
8.   Of the Will, in Regard to What It Wills
9.   Of That Which Moves the Will
10.  Of the Manner in Which the Will Is Moved
11.  Of Enjoyment, Which Is an Act of the Will
12.  Of Intention
13.  Of Choice, Which Is an Act of the Will with Regard to the Means
14.  Of Counsel, Which Precedes Choice
15.  Of Consent, Which Is an Act of the Will in Regard to the Means
16.  Of Use, Which Is an Act of the Will in Regard to the Means
17.  Of the Acts Commanded by the Will
18.  Of the Good and Evil of Human Acts, in General
19.  Of the Goodness and Malice of the Interior Act of the Will
20.  Of Goodness and Malice in External Human Actions
21.  Of the Consequences of Human Actions by Reason of Their Goodness
       and Malice
22.  Of the Subject of the Soul's Passions
23.  How the Passions Differ from One Another
24.  Of Good and Evil in the Passions of the Soul
25.  Of the Order of the Passions to One Another
26.  Of the Passions of the Soul in Particular: and First, of Love
27.  Of the Cause of Love
28.  Of the Effects of Love
29.  Of Hatred
30.  Of Concupiscence
31.  Of Delight Considered in Itself
32.  Of the Cause of Pleasure
33.  Of the Effects of Pleasure
34.  Of the Goodness and Malice of Pleasures
35.  Of Pain or Sorrow, in Itself
36.  Of the Causes of Sorrow or Pain
37.  Of the Effects of Pain or Sorrow
38.  Of the Remedies of Sorrow or Pain
39.  Of the Goodness and Malice of Sorrow or Pain
40.  Of the Irascible Passions, and First, of Hope and Despair
41.  Of Fear, in Itself
42.  Of the Object of Fear
43.  Of the Cause of Fear
44.  Of the Effects of Fear
45.  Of Daring
46.  Of Anger, in Itself
47.  Of the Cause That Provokes Anger, and of the Remedies of Anger
48.  Of the Effects of Anger

TREATISE ON HABITS

49.  Of Habits in General, As to Their Substance
50.  Of the Subject of Habits
51.  Of the Cause of Habits, As to Their Formation
52.  Of the Increase of Habits
53.  How Habits Are Corrupted or Diminished
54.  Of the Distinction of Habits
55.  Of the Virtues, As to Their Essence
56.  Of the Subject of Virtue
57.  Of the Intellectual Virtues
58.  Of the Difference Between Moral and Intellectual Virtues
59.  Of the Moral Virtues in Relation to the Passions
60.  How the Moral Virtues Differ from One Another
61.  Of the Cardinal Virtues
62.  Of the Theological Virtues
63.  Of the Cause of Virtues
64.  Of the Mean of Virtue
65.  Of the Connection of Virtues
66.  Of Equality Among the Virtues
67.  Of the Duration of Virtues After This Life
68.  Of the Gifts
69.  Of the Beatitudes
70.  Of the Fruits of the Holy Ghost
71.  Of Vice and Sin Considered in Themselves
72.  Of the Distinction of Sins
73.  Of the Comparison of One Sin with Another
74.  Of the Subject of Sin
75.  Of the Causes of Sin, in General
76.  Of the Causes of Sin, in Particular
77.  Of the Cause of Sin, on the Part of the Sensitive Appetite
78.  Of That Cause of Sin Which Is Malice
79.  Of the External Causes of Sin
80.  Of the Cause of Sin, As Regards the Devil
81.  Of the Cause of Sin, on the Part of Man
82.  Of Original Sin, As to Its Essence
83.  Of the Subject of Original Sin
84.  Of the Cause of Sin, in Respect of One Sin Being the Cause
       of Another
85.  Of the Effects of Sin, and, First, of the Corruption of the
       Good of Nature
86.  Of the Stain of Sin
87.  Of the Debt of Punishment
88.  Of Venial and Mortal Sin
89.  Of Venial Sin in Itself

TREATISE ON LAW

90.  Of the Essence of Law
91.  Of the Various Kinds of Law
92.  Of the Effects of Law
93.  Of the Eternal Law
94.  Of the Natural Law
95.  Of Human Law
96.  Of the Power of Human Law
97.  Of Change in Laws
98.  Of the Old Law
99.  Of the Precepts of the Old Law
100. Of the Moral Precepts of the Old Law
101. Of the Ceremonial Precepts in Themselves
102. Of the Causes of the Ceremonial Precepts
103. Of the Duration of the Ceremonial Precepts
104. Of the Judicial Precepts
105. Of the Reason for the Judicial Precepts
106. Of the Law of the Gospel, Called the New Law, Considered in Itself
107. Of the New Law As Compared with the Old
108. Of Those Things That Are Contained in the New Law
109. Of the Necessity of Grace
110. Of the Grace of God as Regards Its Essence
111. Of the Division of Grace
112. Of the Cause of Grace
113. Of the Effects of Grace
114. Of Merit
________________________

FIRST PART OF THE SECOND PART
["I-II," "Prima Secundae"]
________________________

TREATISE ON THE LAST END (QQ. 1-5)
________________________

PROLOGUE

Since, as Damascene states (De Fide Orth. ii, 12), man is said to be
made in God's image, in so far as the image implies "an intelligent
being endowed with free-will and self-movement": now that we have
treated of the exemplar, i.e. God, and of those things which came
forth from the power of God in accordance with His will; it remains
for us to treat of His image, i.e. man, inasmuch as he too is the
principle of his actions, as having free-will and control of his
actions.
________________________

OF MAN'S LAST END
(In Eight Articles)

In this matter we shall consider first the last end of human life;
and secondly, those things by means of which man may advance towards
this end, or stray from the path: for the end is the rule of whatever
is ordained to the end. And since the last end of human life is
stated to be happiness, we must consider (1) the last end in general;
(2) happiness.

Under the first head there are eight points of inquiry:

(1) Whether it belongs to man to act for an end?

(2) Whether this is proper to the rational nature?

(3) Whether a man's actions are specified by their end?

(4) Whether there is any last end of human life?

(5) Whether one man can have several last ends?

(6) Whether man ordains all to the last end?

(7) Whether all men have the same last end?

(8) Whether all other creatures concur with man in that last end?
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 1, Art. 1]

Whether It Belongs to Man to Act for an End?

Objection 1: It would seem that it does not belong to man to act for
an end. For a cause is naturally first. But an end, in its very name,
implies something that is last. Therefore an end is not a cause. But
that for which a man acts, is the cause of his action; since this
preposition "for" indicates a relation of causality. Therefore it
does not belong to man to act for an end.

Obj. 2: Further, that which is itself the last end is not for an end.
But in some cases the last end is an action, as the Philosopher
states (Ethic. i, 1). Therefore man does not do everything for an end.

Obj. 3: Further, then does a man seem to act for an end, when he acts
deliberately. But man does many things without deliberation,
sometimes not even thinking of what he is doing; for instance when
one moves one's foot or hand, or scratches one's beard, while intent
on something else. Therefore man does not do everything for an end.

_On the contrary,_ All things contained in a genus are derived from
the principle of that genus. Now the end is the principle in human
operations, as the Philosopher states (Phys. ii, 9). Therefore it
belongs to man to do everything for an end.

_I answer that,_ Of actions done by man those alone are properly
called "human," which are proper to man as man. Now man differs from
irrational animals in this, that he is master of his actions.
Wherefore those actions alone are properly called human, of which man
is master. Now man is master of his actions through his reason and
will; whence, too, the free-will is defined as "the faculty and will
of reason." Therefore those actions are properly called human which
proceed from a deliberate will. And if any other actions are found in
man, they can be called actions "of a man," but not properly "human"
actions, since they are not proper to man as man. Now it is clear
that whatever actions proceed from a power, are caused by that power
in accordance with the nature of its object. But the object of the
will is the end and the good. Therefore all human actions must be for
an end.

Reply Obj. 1: Although the end be last in the order of execution, yet
it is first in the order of the agent's intention. And it is this way
that it is a cause.

Reply Obj. 2: If any human action be the last end, it must be
voluntary, else it would not be human, as stated above. Now an action
is voluntary in one of two ways: first, because it is commanded by
the will, e.g. to walk, or to speak; secondly, because it is elicited
by the will, for instance the very act of willing. Now it is
impossible for the very act elicited by the will to be the last end.
For the object of the will is the end, just as the object of sight is
color: wherefore just as the first visible cannot be the act of
seeing, because every act of seeing is directed to a visible object;
so the first appetible, i.e. the end, cannot be the very act of
willing. Consequently it follows that if a human action be the last
end, it must be an action commanded by the will: so that there, some
action of man, at least the act of willing, is for the end. Therefore
whatever a man does, it is true to say that man acts for an end, even
when he does that action in which the last end consists.

Reply Obj. 3: Such like actions are not properly human actions; since
they do not proceed from deliberation of the reason, which is the
proper principle of human actions. Therefore they have indeed an
imaginary end, but not one that is fixed by reason.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 1, Art. 2]

Whether It Is Proper to the Rational Nature to Act for an End?

Objection 1: It would seem that it is proper to the rational nature
to act for an end. For man, to whom it belongs to act for an end,
never acts for an unknown end. On the other hand, there are many
things that have no knowledge of an end; either because they are
altogether without knowledge, as insensible creatures: or because
they do not apprehend the idea of an end as such, as irrational
animals. Therefore it seems proper to the rational nature to act for
an end.

Obj. 2: Further, to act for an end is to order one's action to an
end. But this is the work of reason. Therefore it does not belong to
things that lack reason.

Obj. 3: Further, the good and the end is the object of the will. But
"the will is in the reason" (De Anima iii, 9). Therefore to act for
an end belongs to none but a rational nature.

_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher proves (Phys. ii, 5) that "not
only mind but also nature acts for an end."

_I answer that,_ Every agent, of necessity, acts for an end. For if,
in a number of causes ordained to one another, the first be removed,
the others must, of necessity, be removed also. Now the first of all
causes is the final cause. The reason of which is that matter does
not receive form, save in so far as it is moved by an agent; for
nothing reduces itself from potentiality to act. But an agent does
not move except out of intention for an end. For if the agent were
not determinate to some particular effect, it would not do one thing
rather than another: consequently in order that it produce a
determinate effect, it must, of necessity, be determined to some
certain one, which has the nature of an end. And just as this
determination is effected, in the rational nature, by the "rational
appetite," which is called the will; so, in other things, it is
caused by their natural inclination, which is called the "natural
appetite."

Nevertheless it must be observed that a thing tends to an end, by its
action or movement, in two ways: first, as a thing, moving itself to
the end, as man; secondly, as a thing moved by another to the end, as
an arrow tends to a determinate end through being moved by the archer
who directs his action to the end. Therefore those things that are
possessed of reason, move themselves to an end; because they have
dominion over their actions through their free-will, which is the
"faculty of will and reason." But those things that lack reason tend
to an end, by natural inclination, as being moved by another and not
by themselves; since they do not know the nature of an end as such,
and consequently cannot ordain anything to an end, but can be
ordained to an end only by another. For the entire irrational nature
is in comparison to God as an instrument to the principal agent, as
stated above (I, Q. 22, A. 2, ad 4; Q. 103, A. 1, ad 3). Consequently
it is proper to the rational nature to tend to an end, as directing
(_agens_) and leading itself to the end: whereas it is proper to the
irrational nature to tend to an end, as directed or led by another,
whether it apprehend the end, as do irrational animals, or do not
apprehend it, as is the case of those things which are altogether
void of knowledge.

Reply Obj. 1: When a man of himself acts for an end, he knows the
end: but when he is directed or led by another, for instance, when
he acts at another's command, or when he is moved under another's
compulsion, it is not necessary that he should know the end. And it
is thus with irrational creatures.

Reply Obj. 2: To ordain towards an end belongs to that which directs
itself to an end: whereas to be ordained to an end belongs to that
which is directed by another to an end. And this can belong to an
irrational nature, but owing to some one possessed of reason.
Reply Obj. 3: The object of the will is the end and the good in
universal. Consequently there can be no will in those things that
lack reason and intellect, since they cannot apprehend the universal;
but they have a natural appetite or a sensitive appetite, determinate
to some particular good. Now it is clear that particular causes are
moved by a universal cause: thus the governor of a city, who intends
the common good, moves, by his command, all the particular
departments of the city. Consequently all things that lack reason
are, of necessity, moved to their particular ends by some rational
will which extends to the universal good, namely by the Divine will.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 1, Art. 3]

Whether Human Acts Are Specified by Their End?

Objection 1: It would seem that human acts are not specified by their
end. For the end is an extrinsic cause. But everything is specified
by an intrinsic principle. Therefore human acts are not specified by
their end.

Obj. 2: Further, that which gives a thing its species should exist
before it. But the end comes into existence afterwards. Therefore a
human act does not derive its species from the end.

Obj. 3: Further, one thing cannot be in more than one species. But
one and the same act may happen to be ordained to various ends.
Therefore the end does not give the species to human acts.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Mor. Eccl. et Manich. ii, 13):
"According as their end is worthy of blame or praise so are our deeds
worthy of blame or praise."

_I answer that,_ Each thing receives its species in respect of an act
and not in respect of potentiality; wherefore things composed of
matter and form are established in their respective species by their
own forms. And this is also to be observed in proper movements. For
since movements are, in a way, divided into action and passion, each
of these receives its species from an act; action indeed from the act
which is the principle of acting, and passion from the act which is
the terminus of the movement. Wherefore heating, as an action, is
nothing else than a certain movement proceeding from heat, while
heating as a passion is nothing else than a movement towards heat:
and it is the definition that shows the specific nature. And either
way, human acts, whether they be considered as actions, or as
passions, receive their species from the end. For human acts can be
considered in both ways, since man moves himself, and is moved by
himself. Now it has been stated above (A. 1) that acts are called
human, inasmuch as they proceed from a deliberate will. Now the
object of the will is the good and the end. And hence it is clear
that the principle of human acts, in so far as they are human, is the
end. In like manner it is their terminus: for the human act
terminates at that which the will intends as the end; thus in natural
agents the form of the thing generated is conformed to the form of
the generator. And since, as Ambrose says (Prolog. super Luc.)
"morality is said properly of man," moral acts properly speaking
receive their species from the end, for moral acts are the same as
human acts.

Reply Obj. 1: The end is not altogether extrinsic to the act, because
it is related to the act as principle or terminus; and thus it just
this that is essential to an act, viz. to proceed from something,
considered as action, and to proceed towards something, considered as
passion.

Reply Obj. 2: The end, in so far as it pre-exists in the intention,
pertains to the will, as stated above (A. 1, ad 1). And it is thus
that it gives the species to the human or moral act.

Reply Obj. 3: One and the same act, in so far as it proceeds
once from the agent, is ordained to but one proximate end, from which
it has its species: but it can be ordained to several remote ends, of
which one is the end of the other. It is possible, however, that an
act which is one in respect of its natural species, be ordained to
several ends of the will: thus this act "to kill a man," which is but
one act in respect of its natural species, can be ordained, as to an
end, to the safeguarding of justice, and to the satisfying of anger:
the result being that there would be several acts in different species
of morality: since in one way there will be an act of virtue, in
another, an act of vice. For a movement does not receive its species
from that which is its terminus accidentally, but only from that which
is its _per se_ terminus. Now moral ends are accidental to a natural
thing, and conversely the relation to a natural end is accidental to
morality. Consequently there is no reason why acts which are the same
considered in their natural species, should not be diverse, considered
in their moral species, and conversely.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 1, Art. 4]

Whether There Is One Last End of Human Life?

Objection 1: It would seem that there is no last end of human life,
but that we proceed to infinity. For good is essentially diffusive, as
Dionysius states (Div. Nom. iv). Consequently if that which proceeds
from good is itself good, the latter must needs diffuse some other
good: so that the diffusion of good goes on indefinitely. But good has
the nature of an end. Therefore there is an indefinite series of ends.

Obj. 2: Further, things pertaining to the reason can be multiplied to
infinity: thus mathematical quantities have no limit. For the same
reason the species of numbers are infinite, since, given any number,
the reason can think of one yet greater. But desire of the end is
consequent on the apprehension of the reason. Therefore it seems that
there is also an infinite series of ends.

Obj. 3: Further, the good and the end is the object of the will. But
the will can react on itself an infinite number of times: for I can
will something, and will to will it, and so on indefinitely.
Therefore there is an infinite series of ends of the human will, and
there is no last end of the human will.

_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher says (Metaph. ii, 2) that "to
suppose a thing to be indefinite is to deny that it is good." But the
good is that which has the nature of an end. Therefore it is contrary
to the nature of an end to proceed indefinitely. Therefore it is
necessary to fix one last end.

_I answer that,_ Absolutely speaking, it is not possible to proceed
indefinitely in the matter of ends, from any point of view. For in
whatsoever things there is an essential order of one to another, if
the first be removed, those that are ordained to the first, must of
necessity be removed also. Wherefore the Philosopher proves (Phys.
viii, 5) that we cannot proceed to infinitude in causes of movement,
because then there would be no first mover, without which neither can
the others move, since they move only through being moved by the first
mover. Now there is to be observed a twofold order in ends--the order
of intention and the order of execution: and in either of these orders
there must be something first. For that which is first in the order of
intention, is the principle, as it were, moving the appetite;
consequently, if you remove this principle, there will be nothing to
move the appetite. On the other hand, the principle in execution is
that wherein operation has its beginning; and if this principle be
taken away, no one will begin to work. Now the principle in the
intention is the last end; while the principle in execution is the
first of the things which are ordained to the end. Consequently, on
neither side is it possible to go to infinity since if there were no
last end, nothing would be desired, nor would any action have its
term, nor would the intention of the agent be at rest; while if there
is no first thing among those that are ordained to the end, none would
begin to work at anything, and counsel would have no term, but would
continue indefinitely.

On the other hand, nothing hinders infinity from being in things that
are ordained to one another not essentially but accidentally; for
accidental causes are indeterminate. And in this way it happens that
there is an accidental infinity of ends, and of things ordained to the
end.

Reply Obj. 1: The very nature of good is that something flows from
it, but not that it flows from something else. Since, therefore, good
has the nature of end, and the first good is the last end, this
argument does not prove that there is no last end; but that from the
end, already supposed, we may proceed downwards indefinitely towards
those things that are ordained to the end. And this would be true if
we considered but the power of the First Good, which is infinite.
But, since the First Good diffuses itself according to the intellect,
to which it is proper to flow forth into its effects according to a
certain fixed form; it follows that there is a certain measure to the
flow of good things from the First Good from Which all other goods
share the power of diffusion. Consequently the diffusion of goods
does not proceed indefinitely but, as it is written (Wis. 11:21), God
disposes all things "in number, weight and measure."

Reply Obj. 2: In things which are of themselves, reason begins from
principles that are known naturally, and advances to some term.
Wherefore the Philosopher proves (Poster. i, 3) that there is no
infinite process in demonstrations, because there we find a process
of things having an essential, not an accidental, connection with one
another. But in those things which are accidentally connected,
nothing hinders the reason from proceeding indefinitely. Now it is
accidental to a stated quantity or number, as such, that quantity or
unity be added to it. Wherefore in such like things nothing hinders
the reason from an indefinite process.

Reply Obj. 3: This multiplication of acts of the will reacting on
itself, is accidental to the order of ends. This is clear from the
fact that in regard to one and the same end, the will reacts on
itself indifferently once or several times.
________________________

FIFTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 1, Art. 5]

Whether One Man Can Have Several Last Ends?

Objection 1: It would seem possible for one man's will to be directed
at the same time to several things, as last ends. For Augustine says
(De Civ. Dei xix, 1) that some held man's last end to consist in four
things, viz. "in pleasure, repose, the gifts of nature, and virtue."
But these are clearly more than one thing. Therefore one man can place
the last end of his will in many things.

Obj. 2: Further, things not in opposition to one another do not
exclude one another. Now there are many things which are not in
opposition to one another. Therefore the supposition that one thing
is the last end of the will does not exclude others.

Obj. 3: Further, by the fact that it places its last end in one
thing, the will does not lose its freedom. But before it placed its
last end in that thing, e.g. pleasure, it could place it in something
else, e.g. riches. Therefore even after having placed his last end in
pleasure, a man can at the same time place his last end in riches.
Therefore it is possible for one man's will to be directed at the
same time to several things, as last ends.

_On the contrary,_ That in which a man rests as in his last end, is
master of his affections, since he takes therefrom his entire rule of
life. Hence of gluttons it is written (Phil. 3:19): "Whose god is
their belly": viz. because they place their last end in the pleasures
of the belly. Now according to Matt. 6:24, "No man can serve two
masters," such, namely, as are not ordained to one another. Therefore
it is impossible for one man to have several last ends not ordained
to one another.

_I answer that,_ It is impossible for one man's will to be directed
at the same time to diverse things, as last ends. Three reasons may
be assigned for this. First, because, since everything desires its
own perfection, a man desires for his ultimate end, that which he
desires as his perfect and crowning good. Hence Augustine (De Civ.
Dei xix, 1): "In speaking of the end of good we mean now, not that it
passes away so as to be no more, but that it is perfected so as to be
complete." It is therefore necessary for the last end so to fill
man's appetite, that nothing is left besides it for man to desire.
Which is not possible, if something else be required for his
perfection. Consequently it is not possible for the appetite so to
tend to two things, as though each were its perfect good.

The second reason is because, just as in the process of reasoning,
the principle is that which is naturally known, so in the process of
the rational appetite, i.e. the will, the principle needs to be that
which is naturally desired. Now this must needs be one: since nature
tends to one thing only. But the principle in the process of the
rational appetite is the last end. Therefore that to which the will
tends, as to its last end, is one.

The third reason is because, since voluntary actions receive their
species from the end, as stated above (A. 3), they must needs receive
their genus from the last end, which is common to them all: just as
natural things are placed in a genus according to a common form.
Since, then, all things that can be desired by the will, belong, as
such, to one genus, the last end must needs be one. And all the more
because in every genus there is one first principle; and the last end
has the nature of a first principle, as stated above. Now as the last
end of man, simply as man, is to the whole human race, so is the last
end of any individual man to that individual. Therefore, just as of
all men there is naturally one last end, so the will of an individual
man must be fixed on one last end.

Reply Obj. 1: All these several objects were considered as one
perfect good resulting therefrom, by those who placed in them the
last end.

Reply Obj. 2: Although it is possible to find several things which
are not in opposition to one another, yet it is contrary to a thing's
perfect good, that anything besides be required for that thing's
perfection.

Reply Obj. 3: The power of the will does not extend to making
opposites exist at the same time. Which would be the case were it to
tend to several diverse objects as last ends, as has been shown above
(ad 2).
________________________

SIXTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 1, Art. 6]

Whether Man Wills All, Whatsoever He Wills, for the Last End?

Objection 1: It would seem that man does not will all, whatsoever he
wills, for the last end. For things ordained to the last end are said
to be serious matter, as being useful. But jests are foreign to
serious matter. Therefore what man does in jest, he ordains not to
the last end.

Obj. 2: Further, the Philosopher says at the beginning of his
Metaphysics (i. 2) that speculative science is sought for its own sake.
Now it cannot be said that each speculative science is the last end.
Therefore man does not desire all, whatsoever he desires, for the last
end.

Obj. 3: Further, whosoever ordains something to an end, thinks of
that end. But man does not always think of the last end in all that
he desires or does. Therefore man neither desires nor does all for
the last end.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xix, 1): "That is the
end of our good, for the sake of which we love other things, whereas
we love it for its own sake."

_I answer that,_ Man must, of necessity, desire all, whatsoever he
desires, for the last end. This is evident for two reasons. First,
because whatever man desires, he desires it under the aspect of good.
And if he desire it, not as his perfect good, which is the last end,
he must, of necessity, desire it as tending to the perfect good,
because the beginning of anything is always ordained to its
completion; as is clearly the case in effects both of nature and of
art. Wherefore every beginning of perfection is ordained to complete
perfection which is achieved through the last end. Secondly, because
the last end stands in the same relation in moving the appetite, as
the first mover in other movements. Now it is clear that secondary
moving causes do not move save inasmuch as they are moved by the first
mover. Therefore secondary objects of the appetite do not move the
appetite, except as ordained to the first object of the appetite,
which is the last end.

Reply Obj. 1: Actions done jestingly are not directed to any external
end; but merely to the good of the jester, in so far as they afford
him pleasure or relaxation. But man's consummate good is his last end.

Reply Obj. 2: The same applies to speculative science; which is
desired as the scientist's good, included in complete and perfect
good, which is the ultimate end.

Reply Obj. 3: One need not always be thinking of the last end,
whenever one desires or does something: but the virtue of the first
intention, which was in respect of the last end, remains in every
desire directed to any object whatever, even though one's thoughts be
not actually directed to the last end. Thus while walking along the
road one needs not to be thinking of the end at every step.
________________________

SEVENTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 1, Art. 7]

Whether All Men Have the Same Last End?

Objection 1: It would seem that all men have not the same last end.
For before all else the unchangeable good seems to be the last end of
man. But some turn away from the unchangeable good, by sinning.
Therefore all men have not the same last end.

Obj. 2: Further, man's entire life is ruled according to his last
end. If, therefore, all men had the same last end, they would not
have various pursuits in life. Which is evidently false.

Obj. 3: Further, the end is the term of action. But actions are of
individuals. Now although men agree in their specific nature, yet
they differ in things pertaining to individuals. Therefore all men
have not the same last end.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Trin. xiii, 3) that all men
agree in desiring the last end, which is happiness.

_I answer that,_ We can speak of the last end in two ways: first,
considering only the aspect of last end; secondly, considering the
thing in which the aspect of last end is realized. So, then, as to
the aspect of last end, all agree in desiring the last end: since all
desire the fulfilment of their perfection, and it is precisely this
fulfilment in which the last end consists, as stated above (A. 5).
But as to the thing in which this aspect is realized, all men are not
agreed as to their last end: since some desire riches as their
consummate good; some, pleasure; others, something else. Thus to
every taste the sweet is pleasant but to some, the sweetness of wine
is most pleasant, to others, the sweetness of honey, or of something
similar. Yet that sweet is absolutely the best of all pleasant
things, in which he who has the best taste takes most pleasure. In
like manner that good is most complete which the man with well
disposed affections desires for his last end.

Reply Obj. 1: Those who sin turn from that in which their last end
really consists: but they do not turn away from the intention of the
last end, which intention they mistakenly seek in other things.

Reply Obj. 2: Various pursuits in life are found among men by reason
of the various things in which men seek to find their last end.

Reply Obj. 3: Although actions are of individuals, yet their first
principle of action is nature, which tends to one thing, as stated
above (A. 5).
________________________

EIGHTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 1, Art. 8]

Whether Other Creatures Concur in That Last End?

Objection 1: It would seem that all other creatures concur in man's
last end. For the end corresponds to the beginning. But man's
beginning--i.e. God--is also the beginning of all else. Therefore
all other things concur in man's last end.

Obj. 2: Further, Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv) that "God turns all
things to Himself as to their last end." But He is also man's last
end; because He alone is to be enjoyed by man, as Augustine says (De
Doctr. Christ. i, 5, 22). Therefore other things, too, concur in man's
last end.

Obj. 3: Further, man's last end is the object of the will. But the
object of the will is the universal good, which is the end of all.
Therefore other things, too, concur in man's last end.

_On the contrary,_ man's last end is happiness; which all men desire,
as Augustine says (De Trin. xiii, 3, 4). But "happiness is not
possible for animals bereft of reason," as Augustine says (QQ. 83,
qu. 5). Therefore other things do not concur in man's last end.

_I answer that,_ As the Philosopher says (Phys. ii, 2), the end is
twofold--the end "for which" and the end "by which"; viz. the thing
itself in which is found the aspect of good, and the use or
acquisition of that thing. Thus we say that the end of the movement of
a weighty body is either a lower place as "thing," or to be in a lower
place, as "use"; and the end of the miser is money as "thing," or
possession of money as "use."

If, therefore, we speak of man's last end as of the thing which is the
end, thus all other things concur in man's last end, since God is the
last end of man and of all other things. If, however, we speak of
man's last end, as of the acquisition of the end, then irrational
creatures do not concur with man in this end. For man and other
rational creatures attain to their last end by knowing and loving God:
this is not possible to other creatures, which acquire their last end,
in so far as they share in the Divine likeness, inasmuch as they are,
or live, or even know.

Hence it is evident how the objections are solved: since happiness
means the acquisition of the last end.
________________________

QUESTION 2

OF THOSE THINGS IN WHICH MAN'S HAPPINESS CONSISTS
(In Eight Articles)

We have now to consider happiness: and (1) in what it consists; (2)
what it is; (3) how we can obtain it.

Concerning the first there are eight points of inquiry:

(1) Whether happiness consists in wealth?

(2) Whether in honor?

(3) Whether in fame or glory?

(4) Whether in power?

(5) Whether in any good of the body?

(6) Whether in pleasure?

(7) Whether in any good of the soul?

(8) Whether in any created good?
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 2, Art. 1]

Whether Man's Happiness Consists in Wealth?

Objection 1: It would seem that man's happiness consists in wealth.
For since happiness is man's last end, it must consist in that which
has the greatest hold on man's affections. Now this is wealth: for it
is written (Eccles. 10:19): "All things obey money." Therefore man's
happiness consists in wealth.

Obj. 2: Further, according to Boethius (De Consol. iii), happiness is
"a state of life made perfect by the aggregate of all good things."
Now money seems to be the means of possessing all things: for, as the
Philosopher says (Ethic. v, 5), money was invented, that it might be
a sort of guarantee for the acquisition of whatever man desires.
Therefore happiness consists in wealth.

Obj. 3: Further, since the desire for the sovereign good never fails,
it seems to be infinite. But this is the case with riches more than
anything else; since "a covetous man shall not be satisfied with
riches" (Eccles. 5:9). Therefore happiness consists in wealth.

_On the contrary,_ Man's good consists in retaining happiness rather
than in spreading it. But as Boethius says (De Consol. ii), "wealth
shines in giving rather than in hoarding: for the miser is hateful,
whereas the generous man is applauded." Therefore man's happiness
does not consist in wealth.

_I answer that,_ It is impossible for man's happiness to consist in
wealth. For wealth is twofold, as the Philosopher says (Polit. i, 3),
viz. natural and artificial. Natural wealth is that which serves man
as a remedy for his natural wants: such as food, drink, clothing,
cars, dwellings, and such like, while artificial wealth is that which
is not a direct help to nature, as money, but is invented by the art
of man, for the convenience of exchange, and as a measure of things
salable.

Now it is evident that man's happiness cannot consist in natural
wealth. For wealth of this kind is sought for the sake of something
else, viz. as a support of human nature: consequently it cannot be
man's last end, rather is it ordained to man as to its end. Wherefore
in the order of nature, all such things are below man, and made for
him, according to Ps. 8:8: "Thou hast subjected all things under his
feet."

And as to artificial wealth, it is not sought save for the sake of
natural wealth; since man would not seek it except because, by its
means, he procures for himself the necessaries of life. Consequently
much less can it be considered in the light of the last end. Therefore
it is impossible for happiness, which is the last end of man, to
consist in wealth.

Reply Obj. 1: All material things obey money, so far as the
multitude of fools is concerned, who know no other than material
goods, which can be obtained for money. But we should take our
estimation of human goods not from the foolish but from the wise: just
as it is for a person whose sense of taste is in good order, to judge
whether a thing is palatable.

Reply Obj. 2: All things salable can be had for money: not so
spiritual things, which cannot be sold. Hence it is written (Prov.
17:16): "What doth it avail a fool to have riches, seeing he cannot
buy wisdom."

Reply Obj. 3: The desire for natural riches is not infinite:
because they suffice for nature in a certain measure. But the desire
for artificial wealth is infinite, for it is the servant of disordered
concupiscence, which is not curbed, as the Philosopher makes clear
(Polit. i, 3). Yet this desire for wealth is infinite otherwise than
the desire for the sovereign good. For the more perfectly the
sovereign good is possessed, the more it is loved, and other things
despised: because the more we possess it, the more we know it. Hence
it is written (Ecclus. 24:29): "They that eat me shall yet hunger."
Whereas in the desire for wealth and for whatsoever temporal goods,
the contrary is the case: for when we already possess them, we despise
them, and seek others: which is the sense of Our Lord's words (John
4:13): "Whosoever drinketh of this water," by which temporal goods are
signified, "shall thirst again." The reason of this is that we realize
more their insufficiency when we possess them: and this very fact
shows that they are imperfect, and the sovereign good does not consist
therein.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 2, Art. 2]

Whether Man's Happiness Consists in Honors?

Objection 1: It would seem that man's happiness consists in honors.
For happiness or bliss is "the reward of virtue," as the Philosopher
says (Ethic. i, 9). But honor more than anything else seems to be that
by which virtue is rewarded, as the Philosopher says (Ethic. iv, 3).
Therefore happiness consists especially in honor.

Obj. 2: Further, that which belongs to God and to persons of great
excellence seems especially to be happiness, which is the perfect
good. But that is honor, as the Philosopher says (Ethic. iv, 3).
Moreover, the Apostle says (1 Tim. 1:17): "To . . . the only God be
honor and glory." Therefore happiness consists in honor.

Obj. 3: Further, that which man desires above all is happiness. But
nothing seems more desirable to man than honor: since man suffers
loss in all other things, lest he should suffer loss of honor.
Therefore happiness consists in honor.

_On the contrary,_ Happiness is in the happy. But honor is not in the
honored, but rather in him who honors, and who offers deference to
the person honored, as the Philosopher says (Ethic. i, 5). Therefore
happiness does not consist in honor.

_I answer that,_ It is impossible for happiness to consist in honor.
For honor is given to a man on account of some excellence in him; and
consequently it is a sign and attestation of the excellence that is
in the person honored. Now a man's excellence is in proportion,
especially to his happiness, which is man's perfect good; and to its
parts, i.e. those goods by which he has a certain share of happiness.
And therefore honor can result from happiness, but happiness cannot
principally consist therein.

Reply Obj. 1: As the Philosopher says (Ethic. i, 5), honor is not
that reward of virtue, for which the virtuous work: but they receive
honor from men by way of reward, "as from those who have nothing
greater to offer." But virtue's true reward is happiness itself, for
which the virtuous work: whereas if they worked for honor, it would
no longer be a virtue, but ambition.

Reply Obj. 2: Honor is due to God and to persons of great excellence
as a sign of attestation of excellence already existing: not that
honor makes them excellent.

Reply Obj. 3: That man desires honor above all else, arises from his
natural desire for happiness, from which honor results, as stated
above. Wherefore man seeks to be honored especially by the wise, on
whose judgment he believes himself to be excellent or happy.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 2, Art. 3]

Whether Man's Happiness Consists in Fame or Glory?

Objection 1: It would seem that man's happiness consists in glory.
For happiness seems to consist in that which is paid to the saints
for the trials they have undergone in the world. But this is glory:
for the Apostle says (Rom. 8:18): "The sufferings of this time are
not worthy to be compared with the glory to come, that shall be
revealed in us." Therefore happiness consists in glory.

Obj. 2: Further, good is diffusive of itself, as stated by Dionysius
(Div. Nom. iv). But man's good is spread abroad in the knowledge of
others by glory more than by anything else: since, according to
Ambrose [*Augustine, Contra Maxim. Arian. ii. 13], glory consists "in
being well known and praised." Therefore man's happiness consists in
glory.

Obj. 3: Further, happiness is the most enduring good. Now this seems
to be fame or glory; because by this men attain to eternity after a
fashion. Hence Boethius says (De Consol. ii): "You seem to beget unto
yourselves eternity, when you think of your fame in future time."
Therefore man's happiness consists in fame or glory.

_On the contrary,_ Happiness is man's true good. But it happens that
fame or glory is false: for as Boethius says (De Consol. iii), "many
owe their renown to the lying reports spread among the people. Can
anything be more shameful? For those who receive false fame, must
needs blush at their own praise." Therefore man's happiness does not
consist in fame or glory.

_I answer that,_ Man's happiness cannot consist in human fame or
glory. For glory consists "in being well known and praised," as
Ambrose [*Augustine, Contra Maxim. Arian. ii, 13] says. Now the thing
known is related to human knowledge otherwise than to God's
knowledge: for human knowledge is caused by the things known, whereas
God's knowledge is the cause of the things known. Wherefore the
perfection of human good, which is called happiness, cannot be caused
by human knowledge: but rather human knowledge of another's happiness
proceeds from, and, in a fashion, is caused by, human happiness
itself, inchoate or perfect. Consequently man's happiness cannot
consist in fame or glory. On the other hand, man's good depends on
God's knowledge as its cause. And therefore man's beatitude depends,
as on its cause, on the glory which man has with God; according to
Ps. 90:15, 16: "I will deliver him, and I will glorify him; I will
fill him with length of days, and I will show him my salvation."

Furthermore, we must observe that human knowledge often fails,
especially in contingent singulars, such as are human acts. For this
reason human glory is frequently deceptive. But since God cannot be
deceived, His glory is always true; hence it is written (2 Cor.
10:18): "He . . . is approved . . . whom God commendeth."

Reply Obj. 1: The Apostle speaks, then, not of the glory which is
with men, but of the glory which is from God, with His Angels. Hence
it is written (Mk. 8:38): "The Son of Man shall confess him in the
glory of His Father, before His angels" [*St. Thomas joins Mk. 8:38
with Luke 12:8 owing to a possible variant in his text, or to the
fact that he was quoting from memory].

Reply Obj. 2: A man's good which, through fame or glory, is in the
knowledge of many, if this knowledge be true, must needs be derived
from good existing in the man himself: and hence it presupposes
perfect or inchoate happiness. But if the knowledge be false, it does
not harmonize with the thing: and thus good does not exist in him who
is looked upon as famous. Hence it follows that fame can nowise make
man happy.

Reply Obj. 3: Fame has no stability; in fact, it is easily ruined by
false report. And if sometimes it endures, this is by accident. But
happiness endures of itself, and for ever.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 2, Art. 4]

Whether Man's Happiness Consists in Power?

Objection 1: It would seem that happiness consists in power. For all
things desire to become like to God, as to their last end and first
beginning. But men who are in power, seem, on account of the
similarity of power, to be most like to God: hence also in Scripture
they are called "gods" (Ex. 22:28), "Thou shalt not speak ill of the
gods." Therefore happiness consists in power.

Obj. 2: Further, happiness is the perfect good. But the highest
perfection for man is to be able to rule others; which belongs to
those who are in power. Therefore happiness consists in power.

Obj. 3: Further, since happiness is supremely desirable, it is
contrary to that which is before all to be shunned. But, more than
aught else, men shun servitude, which is contrary to power. Therefore
happiness consists in power.

_On the contrary,_ Happiness is the perfect good. But power is most
imperfect. For as Boethius says (De Consol. iii), "the power of man
cannot relieve the gnawings of care, nor can it avoid the thorny path
of anxiety": and further on: "Think you a man is powerful who is
surrounded by attendants, whom he inspires with fear indeed, but whom
he fears still more?"

_I answer that,_ It is impossible for happiness to consist in power;
and this for two reasons. First because power has the nature of
principle, as is stated in _Metaph._ v, 12, whereas happiness has the
nature of last end. Secondly, because power has relation to good and
evil: whereas happiness is man's proper and perfect good. Wherefore
some happiness might consist in the good use of power, which is by
virtue, rather than in power itself.

Now four general reasons may be given to prove that happiness
consists in none of the foregoing external goods. First, because,
since happiness is man's supreme good, it is incompatible with any
evil. Now all the foregoing can be found both in good and in evil
men. Secondly, because, since it is the nature of happiness to
"satisfy of itself," as stated in _Ethic._ i, 7, having gained
happiness, man cannot lack any needful good. But after acquiring any
one of the foregoing, man may still lack many goods that are
necessary to him; for instance, wisdom, bodily health, and such like.
Thirdly, because, since happiness is the perfect good, no evil can
accrue to anyone therefrom. This cannot be said of the foregoing: for
it is written (Eccles. 5:12) that "riches" are sometimes "kept to the
hurt of the owner"; and the same may be said of the other three.
Fourthly, because man is ordained to happiness through principles
that are in him; since he is ordained thereto naturally. Now the four
goods mentioned above are due rather to external causes, and in most
cases to fortune; for which reason they are called goods of fortune.
Therefore it is evident that happiness nowise consists in the
foregoing.

Reply Obj. 1: God's power is His goodness: hence He cannot use His
power otherwise than well. But it is not so with men. Consequently it
is not enough for man's happiness, that he become like God in power,
unless he become like Him in goodness also.

Reply Obj. 2: Just as it is a very good thing for a man to make good
use of power in ruling many, so is it a very bad thing if he makes a
bad use of it. And so it is that power is towards good and evil.

Reply Obj. 3: Servitude is a hindrance to the good use of power:
therefore is it that men naturally shun it; not because man's supreme
good consists in power.
________________________

FIFTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 2, Art. 5]

Whether Man's Happiness Consists in Any Bodily Good?

Objection 1: It would seem that man's happiness consists in bodily
goods. For it is written (Ecclus. 30:16): "There is no riches above
the riches of the health of the body." But happiness consists in that
which is best. Therefore it consists in the health of the body.

Obj. 2: Further, Dionysius says (Div. Nom. v), that "to be" is better
than "to live," and "to live" is better than all that follows. But
for man's being and living, the health of the body is necessary.
Since, therefore, happiness is man's supreme good, it seems that
health of the body belongs more than anything else to happiness.

Obj. 3: Further, the more universal a thing is, the higher the
principle from which it depends; because the higher a cause is, the
greater the scope of its power. Now just as the causality of the
efficient cause consists in its flowing into something, so the
causality of the end consists in its drawing the appetite. Therefore,
just as the First Cause is that which flows into all things, so the
last end is that which attracts the desire of all. But being itself
is that which is most desired by all. Therefore man's happiness
consists most of all in things pertaining to his being, such as the
health of the body.

_On the contrary,_ Man surpasses all other animals in regard to
happiness. But in bodily goods he is surpassed by many animals; for
instance, by the elephant in longevity, by the lion in strength, by
the stag in fleetness. Therefore man's happiness does not consist in
goods of the body.

_I answer that,_ It is impossible for man's happiness to consist in
the goods of the body; and this for two reasons. First, because, if a
thing be ordained to another as to its end, its last end cannot
consist in the preservation of its being. Hence a captain does not
intend as a last end, the preservation of the ship entrusted to him,
since a ship is ordained to something else as its end, viz. to
navigation. Now just as the ship is entrusted to the captain that he
may steer its course, so man is given over to his will and reason;
according to Ecclus. 15:14: "God made man from the beginning and left
him in the hand of his own counsel." Now it is evident that man is
ordained to something as his end: since man is not the supreme good.
Therefore the last end of man's reason and will cannot be the
preservation of man's being.

Secondly, because, granted that the end of man's will and reason be
the preservation of man's being, it could not be said that the end of
man is some good of the body. For man's being consists in soul and
body; and though the being of the body depends on the soul, yet the
being of the human soul depends not on the body, as shown above (I,
Q. 75, A. 2); and the very body is for the soul, as matter for its
form, and the instruments for the man that puts them into motion,
that by their means he may do his work. Wherefore all goods of the
body are ordained to the goods of the soul, as to their end.
Consequently happiness, which is man's last end, cannot consist in
goods of the body.

Reply Obj. 1: Just as the body is ordained to the soul, as its end,
so are external goods ordained to the body itself. And therefore it
is with reason that the good of the body is preferred to external
goods, which are signified by "riches," just as the good of the soul
is preferred to all bodily goods.

Reply Obj. 2: Being taken simply, as including all perfection of
being, surpasses life and all that follows it; for thus being itself
includes all these. And in this sense Dionysius speaks. But if we
consider being itself as participated in this or that thing, which
does not possess the whole perfection of being, but has imperfect
being, such as the being of any creature; then it is evident that
being itself together with an additional perfection is more
excellent. Hence in the same passage Dionysius says that things that
live are better than things that exist, and intelligent better than
living things.

Reply Obj. 3: Since the end corresponds to the beginning; this
argument proves that the last end is the first beginning of being, in
Whom every perfection of being is: Whose likeness, according to their
proportion, some desire as to being only, some as to living being,
some as to being which is living, intelligent and happy. And this
belongs to few.
________________________

SIXTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 2, Art. 5]

Whether Man's Happiness Consists in Pleasure?

Objection 1: It would seem that man's happiness consists in pleasure.
For since happiness is the last end, it is not desired for something
else, but other things for it. But this answers to pleasure more than
to anything else: "for it is absurd to ask anyone what is his motive
in wishing to be pleased" (Ethic. x, 2). Therefore happiness consists
principally in pleasure and delight.

Obj. 2: Further, "the first cause goes more deeply into the effect
than the second cause" (De Causis i). Now the causality of the end
consists in its attracting the appetite. Therefore, seemingly that
which moves most the appetite, answers to the notion of the last end.
Now this is pleasure: and a sign of this is that delight so far
absorbs man's will and reason, that it causes him to despise other
goods. Therefore it seems that man's last end, which is happiness,
consists principally in pleasure.

Obj. 3: Further, since desire is for good, it seems that what all
desire is best. But all desire delight; both wise and foolish, and
even irrational creatures. Therefore delight is the best of all.
Therefore happiness, which is the supreme good, consists in pleasure.

_On the contrary,_ Boethius says (De Consol. iii): "Any one that
chooses to look back on his past excesses, will perceive that
pleasures had a sad ending: and if they can render a man happy, there
is no reason why we should not say that the very beasts are happy
too."

_I answer that,_ Because bodily delights are more generally known,
"the name of pleasure has been appropriated to them" (Ethic. vii,
13), although other delights excel them: and yet happiness does not
consist in them. Because in every thing, that which pertains to its
essence is distinct from its proper accident: thus in man it is one
thing that he is a mortal rational animal, and another that he is a
risible animal. We must therefore consider that every delight is a
proper accident resulting from happiness, or from some part of
happiness; since the reason that a man is delighted is that he has
some fitting good, either in reality, or in hope, or at least in
memory. Now a fitting good, if indeed it be the perfect good, is
precisely man's happiness: and if it is imperfect, it is a share of
happiness, either proximate, or remote, or at least apparent.
Therefore it is evident that neither is delight, which results from
the perfect good, the very essence of happiness, but something
resulting therefrom as its proper accident.

But bodily pleasure cannot result from the perfect good even in that
way. For it results from a good apprehended by sense, which is a power
of the soul, which power makes use of the body. Now good pertaining to
the body, and apprehended by sense, cannot be man's perfect good. For
since the rational soul excels the capacity of corporeal matter, that
part of the soul which is independent of a corporeal organ, has a
certain infinity in regard to the body and those parts of the soul
which are tied down to the body: just as immaterial things are in a
way infinite as compared to material things, since a form is, after a
fashion, contracted and bounded by matter, so that a form which is
independent of matter is, in a way, infinite. Therefore sense, which
is a power of the body, knows the singular, which is determinate
through matter: whereas the intellect, which is a power independent of
matter, knows the universal, which is abstracted from matter, and
contains an infinite number of singulars. Consequently it is evident
that good which is fitting to the body, and which causes bodily
delight through being apprehended by sense, is not man's perfect good,
but is quite a trifle as compared with the good of the soul. Hence it
is written (Wis. 7:9) that "all gold in comparison of her, is as a
little sand." And therefore bodily pleasure is neither happiness
itself, nor a proper accident of happiness.

Reply Obj. 1: It comes to the same whether we desire good, or desire
delight, which is nothing else than the appetite's rest in good: thus
it is owing to the same natural force that a weighty body is borne
downwards and that it rests there. Consequently just as good is
desired for itself, so delight is desired for itself and not for
anything else, if the preposition "for" denote the final cause. But
if it denote the formal or rather the motive cause, thus delight is
desirable for something else, i.e. for the good, which is the object
of that delight, and consequently is its principle, and gives it its
form: for the reason that delight is desired is that it is rest in
the thing desired.

Reply Obj. 2: The vehemence of desire for sensible delight arises
from the fact that operations of the senses, through being the
principles of our knowledge, are more perceptible. And so it is that
sensible pleasures are desired by the majority.

Reply Obj. 3: All desire delight in the same way as they desire good:
and yet they desire delight by reason of the good and not conversely,
as stated above (ad 1). Consequently it does not follow that delight
is the supreme and essential good, but that every delight results
from some good, and that some delight results from that which is the
essential and supreme good.
________________________

SEVENTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 2, Art. 7]

Whether Some Good of the Soul Constitutes Man's Happiness?

Objection 1: It would seem that some good of the soul constitutes
man's happiness. For happiness is man's good. Now this is threefold:
external goods, goods of the body, and goods of the soul. But
happiness does not consist in external goods, nor in goods of the
body, as shown above (AA. 4, 5). Therefore it consists in goods
of the soul.

Obj. 2: Further, we love that for which we desire good, more than
the good that we desire for it: thus we love a friend for whom we
desire money, more than we love money. But whatever good a man
desires, he desires it for himself. Therefore he loves himself more
than all other goods. Now happiness is what is loved above all: which
is evident from the fact that for its sake all else is loved and
desired. Therefore happiness consists in some good of man himself:
not, however, in goods of the body; therefore, in goods of the soul.

Obj. 3: Further, perfection is something belonging to that which is
perfected. But happiness is a perfection of man. Therefore happiness
is something belonging to man. But it is not something belonging to
the body, as shown above (A. 5). Therefore it is something belonging
to the soul; and thus it consists in goods of the soul.

_On the contrary,_ As Augustine says (De Doctr. Christ. i, 22), "that
which constitutes the life of happiness is to be loved for its own
sake." But man is not to be loved for his own sake, but whatever is
in man is to be loved for God's sake. Therefore happiness consists in
no good of the soul.

_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 1, A. 8), the end is twofold:
namely, the thing itself, which we desire to attain, and the use,
namely, the attainment or possession of that thing. If, then, we speak
of man's last end, it is impossible for man's last end to be the soul
itself or something belonging to it. Because the soul, considered in
itself, is as something existing in potentiality: for it becomes
knowing actually, from being potentially knowing; and actually
virtuous, from being potentially virtuous. Now since potentiality is
for the sake of act as for its fulfilment, that which in itself is in
potentiality cannot be the last end. Therefore the soul itself cannot
be its own last end.

In like manner neither can anything belonging to it, whether power,
habit, or act. For that good which is the last end, is the perfect
good fulfilling the desire. Now man's appetite, otherwise the will,
is for the universal good. And any good inherent to the soul is a
participated good, and consequently a portioned good. Therefore none
of them can be man's last end.

But if we speak of man's last end, as to the attainment or possession
thereof, or as to any use whatever of the thing itself desired as an
end, thus does something of man, in respect of his soul, belong to his
last end: since man attains happiness through his soul. Therefore the
thing itself which is desired as end, is that which constitutes
happiness, and makes man happy; but the attainment of this thing is
called happiness. Consequently we must say that happiness is something
belonging to the soul; but that which constitutes happiness is
something outside the soul.

Reply Obj. 1: Inasmuch as this division includes all goods that man
can desire, thus the good of the soul is not only power, habit, or
act, but also the object of these, which is something outside. And in
this way nothing hinders us from saying that what constitutes
happiness is a good of the soul.

Reply Obj. 2: As far as the proposed objection is concerned,
happiness is loved above all, as the good desired; whereas a friend
is loved as that for which good is desired; and thus, too, man loves
himself. Consequently it is not the same kind of love in both cases.
As to whether man loves anything more than himself with the love of
friendship there will be occasion to inquire when we treat of Charity.

Reply Obj. 3: Happiness, itself, since it is a perfection of the
soul, is an inherent good of the soul; but that which constitutes
happiness, viz. which makes man happy, is something outside his soul,
as stated above.
________________________

EIGHTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 2, Art. 8]

Whether Any Created Good Constitutes Man's Happiness?

Objection 1: It would seem that some created good constitutes man's
happiness. For Dionysius says (Div. Nom. vii) that Divine wisdom
"unites the ends of first things to the beginnings of second things,"
from which we may gather that the summit of a lower nature touches
the base of the higher nature. But man's highest good is happiness.
Since then the angel is above man in the order of nature, as stated
in the First Part (Q. 111, A. 1), it seems that man's happiness
consists in man somehow reaching the angel.

Obj. 2: Further, the last end of each thing is that which, in
relation to it, is perfect: hence the part is for the whole, as for
its end. But the universe of creatures which is called the macrocosm,
is compared to man who is called the microcosm (Phys. viii, 2), as
perfect to imperfect. Therefore man's happiness consists in the whole
universe of creatures.

Obj. 3: Further, man is made happy by that which lulls his natural
desire. But man's natural desire does not reach out to a good
surpassing his capacity. Since then man's capacity does not include
that good which surpasses the limits of all creation, it seems that
man can be made happy by some created good. Consequently some created
good constitutes man's happiness.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xix, 26): "As the soul
is the life of the body, so God is man's life of happiness: of Whom
it is written: 'Happy is that people whose God is the Lord' (Ps.
143:15)."

_I answer that,_ It is impossible for any created good to constitute
man's happiness. For happiness is the perfect good, which lulls the
appetite altogether; else it would not be the last end, if something
yet remained to be desired. Now the object of the will, i.e. of man's
appetite, is the universal good; just as the object of the intellect
is the universal true. Hence it is evident that naught can lull man's
will, save the universal good. This is to be found, not in any
creature, but in God alone; because every creature has goodness by
participation. Wherefore God alone can satisfy the will of man,
according to the words of Ps. 102:5: "Who satisfieth thy desire with
good things." Therefore God alone constitutes man's happiness.

Reply Obj. 1: The summit of man does indeed touch the base of the
angelic nature, by a kind of likeness; but man does not rest there as
in his last end, but reaches out to the universal fount itself of
good, which is the common object of happiness of all the blessed, as
being the infinite and perfect good.

Reply Obj. 2: If a whole be not the last end, but ordained to a
further end, then the last end of a part thereof is not the whole
itself, but something else. Now the universe of creatures, to which
man is compared as part to whole, is not the last end, but is
ordained to God, as to its last end. Therefore the last end of man is
not the good of the universe, but God himself.

Reply Obj. 3: Created good is not less than that good of which man is
capable, as of something intrinsic and inherent to him: but it is
less than the good of which he is capable, as of an object, and which
is infinite. And the participated good which is in an angel, and in
the whole universe, is a finite and restricted good.
________________________

QUESTION 3

WHAT IS HAPPINESS
(In Eight Articles)

We have now to consider (1) what happiness is, and (2) what things
are required for it.

Concerning the first there are eight points of inquiry:

(1) Whether happiness is something uncreated?

(2) If it be something created, whether it is an operation?

(3) Whether it is an operation of the sensitive, or only of the
intellectual part?

(4) If it be an operation of the intellectual part, whether it is an
operation of the intellect, or of the will?

(5) If it be an operation of the intellect, whether it is an
operation of the speculative or of the practical intellect?

(6) If it be an operation of the speculative intellect, whether it
consists in the consideration of speculative sciences?

(7) Whether it consists in the consideration of separate substances
viz. angels?

(8) Whether it consists in the sole contemplation of God seen in His
Essence?
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 3, Art. 1]

Whether Happiness Is Something Uncreated?

Objection 1: It would seem that happiness is something uncreated. For
Boethius says (De Consol. iii): "We must needs confess that God is
happiness itself."

Obj. 2: Further, happiness is the supreme good. But it belongs to God
to be the supreme good. Since, then, there are not several supreme
goods, it seems that happiness is the same as God.

Obj. 3: Further, happiness is the last end, to which man's will tends
naturally. But man's will should tend to nothing else as an end, but
to God, Who alone is to be enjoyed, as Augustine says (De Doctr.
Christ. i, 5, 22). Therefore happiness is the same as God.

_On the contrary,_ Nothing made is uncreated. But man's happiness is
something made; because according to Augustine (De Doctr. Christ. i,
3): "Those things are to be enjoyed which make us happy." Therefore
happiness is not something uncreated.

_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 1, A. 8; Q. 2, A. 7), our end is
twofold. First, there is the thing itself which we desire to attain:
thus for the miser, the end is money. Secondly there is the
attainment or possession, the use or enjoyment of the thing desired;
thus we may say that the end of the miser is the possession of money;
and the end of the intemperate man is to enjoy something pleasurable.
In the first sense, then, man's last end is the uncreated good,
namely, God, Who alone by His infinite goodness can perfectly satisfy
man's will. But in the second way, man's last end is something
created, existing in him, and this is nothing else than the
attainment or enjoyment of the last end. Now the last end is called
happiness. If, therefore, we consider man's happiness in its cause or
object, then it is something uncreated; but if we consider it as to
the very essence of happiness, then it is something created.

Reply Obj. 1: God is happiness by His Essence: for He is happy not by
acquisition or participation of something else, but by His Essence.
On the other hand, men are happy, as Boethius says (De Consol. iii),
by participation; just as they are called "gods," by participation.
And this participation of happiness, in respect of which man is said
to be happy, is something created.

Reply Obj. 2: Happiness is called man's supreme good, because it is
the attainment or enjoyment of the supreme good.

Reply Obj. 3: Happiness is said to be the last end, in the same way
as the attainment of the end is called the end.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 3, Art. 2]

Whether Happiness Is an Operation?

Objection 1: It would seem that happiness is not an operation. For
the Apostle says (Rom. 6:22): "You have your fruit unto
sanctification, and the end, life everlasting." But life is not an
operation, but the very being of living things. Therefore the last
end, which is happiness, is not an operation.

Obj. 2: Further, Boethius says (De Consol. iii) that happiness is "a
state made perfect by the aggregate of all good things." But state
does not indicate operation. Therefore happiness is not an operation.

Obj. 3: Further, happiness signifies something existing in the happy
one: since it is man's final perfection. But the meaning of operation
does not imply anything existing in the operator, but rather
something proceeding therefrom. Therefore happiness is not an
operation.

Obj. 4: Further, happiness remains in the happy one. Now operation
does not remain, but passes. Therefore happiness is not an operation.

Obj. 5: Further, to one man there is one happiness. But operations
are many. Therefore happiness is not an operation.

Obj. 6: Further, happiness is in the happy one uninterruptedly. But
human operation is often interrupted; for instance, by sleep, or some
other occupation, or by cessation. Therefore happiness is not an
operation.

_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher says (Ethic. i, 13) that
"happiness is an operation according to perfect virtue."

_I answer that,_ In so far as man's happiness is something created,
existing in him, we must needs say that it is an operation. For
happiness is man's supreme perfection. Now each thing is perfect in
so far as it is actual; since potentiality without act is imperfect.
Consequently happiness must consist in man's last act. But it is
evident that operation is the last act of the operator, wherefore the
Philosopher calls it "second act" (De Anima ii, 1): because that
which has a form can be potentially operating, just as he who knows
is potentially considering. And hence it is that in other things,
too, each one is said to be "for its operation" (De Coel ii, 3).
Therefore man's happiness must of necessity consist in an operation.

Reply Obj. 1: Life is taken in two senses. First for the very being
of the living. And thus happiness is not life: since it has been
shown (Q. 2, A. 5) that the being of a man, no matter in what it may
consist, is not that man's happiness; for of God alone is it true
that His Being is His Happiness. Secondly, life means the operation
of the living, by which operation the principle of life is made
actual: thus we speak of active and contemplative life, or of a life
of pleasure. And in this sense eternal life is said to be the last
end, as is clear from John 17:3: "This is eternal life, that they may
know Thee, the only true God."

Reply Obj. 2: Boethius, in defining happiness, considered happiness
in general: for considered thus it is the perfect common good; and he
signified this by saying that happiness is "a state made perfect by
the aggregate of all good things," thus implying that the state of a
happy man consists in possessing the perfect good. But Aristotle
expressed the very essence of happiness, showing by what man is
established in this state, and that it is by some kind of operation.
And so it is that he proves happiness to be "the perfect good"
(Ethic. i, 7).

Reply Obj. 3: As stated in _Metaph._ ix, 7 action is twofold. One
proceeds from the agent into outward matter, such as "to burn" and
"to cut." And such an operation cannot be happiness: for such an
operation is an action and a perfection, not of the agent, but rather
of the patient, as is stated in the same passage. The other is an
action that remains in the agent, such as to feel, to understand, and
to will: and such an action is a perfection and an act of the agent.
And such an operation can be happiness.

Reply Obj. 4: Since happiness signifies some final perfection;
according as various things capable of happiness can attain to
various degrees of perfection, so must there be various meanings
applied to happiness. For in God there is happiness essentially;
since His very Being is His operation, whereby He enjoys no other
than Himself. In the happy angels, the final perfection is in respect
of some operation, by which they are united to the Uncreated Good:
and this operation of theirs is one only and everlasting. But in men,
according to their present state of life, the final perfection is in
respect of an operation whereby man is united to God: but this
operation neither can be continual, nor, consequently, is it one
only, because operation is multiplied by being discontinued. And for
this reason in the present state of life, perfect happiness cannot be
attained by man. Wherefore the Philosopher, in placing man's
happiness in this life (Ethic. i, 10), says that it is imperfect, and
after a long discussion, concludes: "We call men happy, but only as
men." But God has promised us perfect happiness, when we shall be "as
the angels . . . in heaven" (Matt. 22:30).

Consequently in regard to this perfect happiness, the objection fails:
because in that state of happiness, man's mind will be united to God
by one, continual, everlasting operation. But in the present life, in
as far as we fall short of the unity and continuity of that operation
so do we fall short of perfect happiness. Nevertheless it is a
participation of happiness: and so much the greater, as the operation
can be more continuous and more one. Consequently the active life,
which is busy with many things, has less of happiness than the
contemplative life, which is busied with one thing, i.e. the
contemplation of truth. And if at any time man is not actually engaged
in this operation, yet since he can always easily turn to it, and
since he ordains the very cessation, by sleeping or occupying himself
otherwise, to the aforesaid occupation, the latter seems, as it were,
continuous. From these remarks the replies to Objections 5 and 6 are
evident.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 3, Art. 3]

Whether Happiness Is an Operation of the Sensitive Part, or of the
Intellective Part Only?

Objection 1: It would seem that happiness consists in an operation of
the senses also. For there is no more excellent operation in man than
that of the senses, except the intellective operation. But in us the
intellective operation depends on the sensitive: since "we cannot
understand without a phantasm" (De Anima iii, 7). Therefore happiness
consists in an operation of the senses also.

Obj. 2: Further, Boethius says (De Consol. iii) that happiness is "a
state made perfect by the aggregate of all good things." But some
goods are sensible, which we attain by the operation of the senses.
Therefore it seems that the operation of the senses is needed for
happiness.

Obj. 3: Further, happiness is the perfect good, as we find proved in
_Ethic._ i, 7: which would not be true, were not man perfected thereby
in all his parts. But some parts of the soul are perfected by
sensitive operations. Therefore sensitive operation is required for
happiness.

_On the contrary,_ Irrational animals have the sensitive operation in
common with us: but they have not happiness in common with us.
Therefore happiness does not consist in a sensitive operation.

_I answer that,_ A thing may belong to happiness in three ways: (1)
essentially, (2) antecedently, (3) consequently. Now the operation of
sense cannot belong to happiness essentially. For man's happiness
consists essentially in his being united to the Uncreated Good, Which
is his last end, as shown above (A. 1): to Which man cannot be united
by an operation of his senses. Again, in like manner, because, as
shown above (Q. 2, A. 5), man's happiness does not consist in goods
of the body, which goods alone, however, we attain through the
operation of the senses.

Nevertheless the operations of the senses can belong to happiness,
both antecedently and consequently: antecedently, in respect of
imperfect happiness, such as can be had in this life, since the
operation of the intellect demands a previous operation of the sense;
consequently, in that perfect happiness which we await in heaven;
because at the resurrection, "from the very happiness of the soul,"
as Augustine says (Ep. ad Dioscor.) "the body and the bodily senses
will receive a certain overflow, so as to be perfected in their
operations"; a point which will be explained further on when we treat
of the resurrection (Suppl. QQ. 82-85). But then the operation
whereby man's mind is united to God will not depend on the senses.

Reply Obj. 1: This objection proves that the operation of the senses
is required antecedently for imperfect happiness, such as can be had
in this life.

Reply Obj. 2: Perfect happiness, such as the angels have, includes
the aggregate of all good things, by being united to the universal
source of all good; not that it requires each individual good. But in
this imperfect happiness, we need the aggregate of those goods that
suffice for the most perfect operation of this life.

Reply Obj. 3: In perfect happiness the entire man is perfected, in
the lower part of his nature, by an overflow from the higher. But in
the imperfect happiness of this life, it is otherwise; we advance
from the perfection of the lower part to the perfection of the higher
part.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 3, Art. 4]

Whether, If Happiness Is in the Intellective Part, It Is an Operation
of the Intellect or of the Will?

Objection 1: It would seem that happiness consists in an act of
the will. For Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xix, 10, 11), that man's
happiness consists in peace; wherefore it is written (Ps. 147:3):
"Who hath placed peace in thy end [Douay: 'borders']". But peace
pertains to the will. Therefore man's happiness is in the will.

Obj. 2: Further, happiness is the supreme good. But good is the
object of the will. Therefore happiness consists in an operation of
the will.

Obj. 3: Further, the last end corresponds to the first mover: thus
the last end of the whole army is victory, which is the end of the
general, who moves all the men. But the first mover in regard to
operations is the will: because it moves the other powers, as we
shall state further on (Q. 9, AA. 1, 3). Therefore happiness regards
the will.

Obj. 4: Further, if happiness be an operation, it must needs be man's
most excellent operation. But the love of God, which is an act of the
will, is a more excellent operation than knowledge, which is an
operation of the intellect, as the Apostle declares (1 Cor. 13).
Therefore it seems that happiness consists in an act of the will.

Obj. 5: Further, Augustine says (De Trin. xiii, 5) that "happy is he
who has whatever he desires, and desires nothing amiss." And a little
further on (6) he adds: "He is most happy who desires well, whatever
he desires: for good things make a man happy, and such a man already
possesses some good--i.e. a good will." Therefore happiness consists
in an act of the will.

_On the contrary,_ Our Lord said (John 17:3): "This is eternal life:
that they may know Thee, the only true God." Now eternal life is the
last end, as stated above (A. 2, ad 1). Therefore man's happiness
consists in the knowledge of God, which is an act of the intellect.

_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 2, A. 6) two things are needed
for happiness: one, which is the essence of happiness: the other,
that is, as it were, its proper accident, i.e. the delight connected
with it. I say, then, that as to the very essence of happiness, it is
impossible for it to consist in an act of the will. For it is evident
from what has been said (AA. 1, 2; Q. 2, A. 7) that happiness is the
attainment of the last end. But the attainment of the end does not
consist in the very act of the will. For the will is directed to the
end, both absent, when it desires it; and present, when it is
delighted by resting therein. Now it is evident that the desire
itself of the end is not the attainment of the end, but is a movement
towards the end: while delight comes to the will from the end being
present; and not conversely, is a thing made present, by the fact
that the will delights in it. Therefore, that the end be present to
him who desires it, must be due to something else than an act of the
will.

This is evidently the case in regard to sensible ends. For if the
acquisition of money were through an act of the will, the covetous
man would have it from the very moment that he wished for it. But at
the moment it is far from him; and he attains it, by grasping it in
his hand, or in some like manner; and then he delights in the money
got. And so it is with an intelligible end. For at first we desire to
attain an intelligible end; we attain it, through its being made
present to us by an act of the intellect; and then the delighted will
rests in the end when attained.

So, therefore, the essence of happiness consists in an act of the
intellect: but the delight that results from happiness pertains to
the will. In this sense Augustine says (Confess. x, 23) that
happiness is "joy in truth," because, to wit, joy itself is the
consummation of happiness.

Reply Obj. 1: Peace pertains to man's last end, not as though it were
the very essence of happiness; but because it is antecedent and
consequent thereto: antecedent, in so far as all those things are
removed which disturb and hinder man in attaining the last end:
consequent inasmuch as when man has attained his last end, he remains
at peace, his desire being at rest.

Reply Obj. 2: The will's first object is not its act: just as neither
is the first object of the sight, vision, but a visible thing.
Wherefore, from the very fact that happiness belongs to the will, as
the will's first object, it follows that it does not belong to it as
its act.

Reply Obj. 3: The intellect apprehends the end before the will does:
yet motion towards the end begins in the will. And therefore to the
will belongs that which last of all follows the attainment of the
end, viz. delight or enjoyment.

Reply Obj. 4: Love ranks above knowledge in moving, but knowledge
precedes love in attaining: for "naught is loved save what is known,"
as Augustine says (De Trin. x, 1). Consequently we first attain an
intelligible end by an act of the intellect; just as we first attain
a sensible end by an act of sense.

Reply Obj. 5: He who has whatever he desires, is happy, because he
has what he desires: and this indeed is by something other than the
act of his will. But to desire nothing amiss is needed for happiness,
as a necessary disposition thereto. And a good will is reckoned among
the good things which make a man happy, forasmuch as it is an
inclination of the will: just as a movement is reduced to the genus
of its terminus, for instance, "alteration" to the genus "quality."
________________________

FIFTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 3, Art. 5]

Whether Happiness Is an Operation of the Speculative, or of the
Practical Intellect?

Objection 1: It would seem that happiness is an operation of the
practical intellect. For the end of every creature consists in
becoming like God. But man is like God, by his practical intellect,
which is the cause of things understood, rather than by his
speculative intellect, which derives its knowledge from things.
Therefore man's happiness consists in an operation of the practical
intellect rather than of the speculative.

Obj. 2: Further, happiness is man's perfect good. But the practical
intellect is ordained to the good rather than the speculative
intellect, which is ordained to the true. Hence we are said to be
good, in reference to the perfection of the practical intellect, but
not in reference to the perfection of the speculative intellect,
according to which we are said to be knowing or understanding.
Therefore man's happiness consists in an act of the practical
intellect rather than of the speculative.

Obj. 3: Further, happiness is a good of man himself. But the
speculative intellect is more concerned with things outside man;
whereas the practical intellect is concerned with things belonging to
man himself, viz. his operations and passions. Therefore man's
happiness consists in an operation of the practical intellect rather
than of the speculative.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Trin. i, 8) that "contemplation
is promised us, as being the goal of all our actions, and the
everlasting perfection of our joys."

_I answer that,_ Happiness consists in an operation of the
speculative rather than of the practical intellect. This is evident
for three reasons. First because if man's happiness is an operation,
it must needs be man's highest operation. Now man's highest operation
is that of his highest power in respect of its highest object: and
his highest power is the intellect, whose highest object is the
Divine Good, which is the object, not of the practical but of the
speculative intellect. Consequently happiness consists principally in
such an operation, viz. in the contemplation of Divine things. And
since that "seems to be each man's self, which is best in him,"
according to _Ethic._ ix, 8, and x, 7, therefore such an operation is
most proper to man and most delightful to him.

Secondly, it is evident from the fact that contemplation is sought
principally for its own sake. But the act of the practical intellect
is not sought for its own sake but for the sake of action: and these
very actions are ordained to some end. Consequently it is evident that
the last end cannot consist in the active life, which pertains to the
practical intellect.

Thirdly, it is again evident, from the fact that in the contemplative
life man has something in common with things above him, viz. with God
and the angels, to whom he is made like by happiness. But in things
pertaining to the active life, other animals also have something in
common with man, although imperfectly.

Therefore the last and perfect happiness, which we await in the life
to come, consists entirely in contemplation. But imperfect happiness,
such as can be had here, consists first and principally, in an
operation of the practical intellect directing human actions and
passions, as stated in _Ethic._ x, 7, 8.

Reply Obj. 1: The asserted likeness of the practical intellect to God
is one of proportion; that is to say, by reason of its standing in
relation to what it knows, as God does to what He knows. But the
likeness of the speculative intellect to God is one of union and
"information"; which is a much greater likeness. And yet it may be
answered that, in regard to the principal thing known, which is His
Essence, God has not practical but merely speculative knowledge.

Reply Obj. 2: The practical intellect is ordained to good which is
outside of it: but the speculative intellect has good within it, viz.
the contemplation of truth. And if this good be perfect, the whole
man is perfected and made good thereby: such a good the practical
intellect has not; but it directs man thereto.

Reply Obj. 3: This argument would hold, if man himself were his own
last end; for then the consideration and direction of his actions and
passions would be his happiness. But since man's last end is
something outside of him, to wit, God, to Whom we reach out by an
operation of the speculative intellect; therefore, man's happiness
consists in an operation of the speculative intellect rather than of
the practical intellect.
________________________

SIXTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 3, Art. 6]

Whether Happiness Consists in the Consideration of Speculative Sciences?

Objection 1: It would seem that man's happiness consists in the
consideration of speculative sciences. For the Philosopher says
(Ethic. i, 13) that "happiness is an operation according to perfect
virtue." And in distinguishing the virtues, he gives no more than
three speculative virtues--"knowledge," "wisdom" and "understanding,"
which all belong to the consideration of speculative sciences.
Therefore man's final happiness consists in the consideration of
speculative sciences.

Obj. 2: Further, that which all desire for its own sake, seems to be
man's final happiness. Now such is the consideration of speculative
sciences; because, as stated in _Metaph._ i, 1, "all men naturally
desire to know"; and, a little farther on (2), it is stated that
speculative sciences are sought for their own sakes. Therefore
happiness consists in the consideration of speculative sciences.

Obj. 3: Further, happiness is man's final perfection. Now everything
is perfected, according as it is reduced from potentiality to act.
But the human intellect is reduced to act by the consideration of
speculative sciences. Therefore it seems that in the consideration of
these sciences, man's final happiness consists.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Jer. 9:23): "Let not the wise man
glory in his wisdom": and this is said in reference to speculative
sciences. Therefore man's final happiness does not consist in the
consideration of these.

_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 2, ad 4), man's happiness is
twofold, one perfect, the other imperfect. And by perfect happiness
we are to understand that which attains to the true notion of
happiness; and by imperfect happiness that which does not attain
thereto, but partakes of some particular likeness of happiness. Thus
perfect prudence is in man, with whom is the idea of things to be
done; while imperfect prudence is in certain irrational animals, who
are possessed of certain particular instincts in respect of works
similar to works of prudence.

Accordingly perfect happiness cannot consist essentially in the
consideration of speculative sciences. To prove this, we must observe
that the consideration of a speculative science does not extend
beyond the scope of the principles of that science: since the entire
science is virtually contained in its principles. Now the first
principles of speculative sciences are received through the senses,
as the Philosopher clearly states at the beginning of the
_Metaphysics_ (i, 1), and at the end of the _Posterior Analytics_
(ii, 15). Wherefore the entire consideration of speculative sciences
cannot extend farther than knowledge of sensibles can lead. Now man's
final happiness, which is his final perfection cannot consist in the
knowledge of sensibles. For a thing is not perfected by something
lower, except in so far as the lower partakes of something higher.
Now it is evident that the form of a stone or of any sensible, is
lower than man. Consequently the intellect is not perfected by the
form of a stone, as such, but inasmuch as it partakes of a certain
likeness to that which is above the human intellect, viz. the
intelligible light, or something of the kind. Now whatever is by
something else is reduced to that which is of itself. Therefore man's
final perfection must needs be through knowledge of something above
the human intellect. But it has been shown (I, Q. 88, A. 2), that man
cannot acquire through sensibles, the knowledge of separate
substances, which are above the human intellect. Consequently it
follows that man's happiness cannot consist in the consideration of
speculative sciences. However, just as in sensible forms there is a
participation of the higher substances, so the consideration of
speculative sciences is a certain participation of true and perfect
happiness.

Reply Obj. 1: In his book on Ethics the Philosopher treats of
imperfect happiness, such as can be had in this life, as stated above
(A. 2, ad 4).

Reply Obj. 2: Not only is perfect happiness naturally desired, but
also any likeness or participation thereof.

Reply Obj. 3: Our intellect is reduced to act, in a fashion, by the
consideration of speculative sciences, but not to its final and
perfect act.
________________________

SEVENTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 3, Art. 7]

Whether Happiness Consists in the Knowledge of Separate Substances,
Namely, Angels?

Objection 1: It would seem that man's happiness consists in the
knowledge of separate substances, namely, angels. For Gregory says in
a homily (xxvi in Evang.): "It avails nothing to take part in the
feasts of men, if we fail to take part in the feasts of angels"; by
which he means final happiness. But we can take part in the feasts of
the angels by contemplating them. Therefore it seems that man's final
happiness consists in contemplating the angels.

Obj. 2: Further, the final perfection of each thing is for it to be
united to its principle: wherefore a circle is said to be a perfect
figure, because its beginning and end coincide. But the beginning of
human knowledge is from the angels, by whom men are enlightened, as
Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. iv). Therefore the perfection of the
human intellect consists in contemplating the angels.

Obj. 3: Further, each nature is perfect, when united to a higher
nature; just as the final perfection of a body is to be united to the
spiritual nature. But above the human intellect, in the natural order,
are the angels. Therefore the final perfection of the human intellect
is to be united to the angels by contemplation.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Jer. 9:24): "Let him that glorieth,
glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth Me." Therefore man's
final glory or happiness consists only in the knowledge of God.

_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 6), man's perfect happiness
consists not in that which perfects the intellect by some
participation, but in that which is so by its essence. Now it is
evident that whatever is the perfection of a power is so in so far as
the proper formal object of that power belongs to it. Now the proper
object of the intellect is the true. Therefore the contemplation of
whatever has participated truth, does not perfect the intellect with
its final perfection. Since, therefore, the order of things is the
same in being and in truth (Metaph. ii, 1); whatever are beings by
participation, are true by participation. Now angels have being by
participation: because in God alone is His Being His Essence, as
shown in the First Part (Q. 44, A. 1). It follows that contemplation
of Him makes man perfectly happy. However, there is no reason why we
should not admit a certain imperfect happiness in the contemplation
of the angels; and higher indeed than in the consideration of
speculative science.

Reply Obj. 1: We shall take part in the feasts of the angels, by
contemplating not only the angels, but, together with them, also God
Himself.

Reply Obj. 2: According to those that hold human souls to be created
by the angels, it seems fitting enough, that man's happiness should
consist in the contemplation of the angels, in the union, as it were,
of man with his beginning. But this is erroneous, as stated in the
First Part (Q. 90, A. 3). Wherefore the final perfection of the human
intellect is by union with God, Who is the first principle both of
the creation of the soul and of its enlightenment. Whereas the angel
enlightens as a minister, as stated in the First Part (Q. 111, A. 2,
ad 2). Consequently, by his ministration he helps man to attain to
happiness; but he is not the object of man's happiness.

Reply Obj. 3: The lower nature may reach the higher in two ways.
First, according to a degree of the participating power: and thus
man's final perfection will consist in his attaining to a
contemplation such as that of the angels. Secondly, as the object is
attained by the power: and thus the final perfection of each power is
to attain that in which is found the fulness of its formal object.
________________________

EIGHTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 3, Art. 8]

Whether Man's Happiness Consists in the Vision of the Divine Essence?

Objection 1: It would seem that man's happiness does not consist in
the vision of the Divine Essence. For Dionysius says (Myst. Theol. i)
that by that which is highest in his intellect, man is united to God
as to something altogether unknown. But that which is seen in its
essence is not altogether unknown. Therefore the final perfection of
the intellect, namely, happiness, does not consist in God being seen
in His Essence.

Obj. 2: Further, the higher the perfection belongs to the higher
nature. But to see His own Essence is the perfection proper to the
Divine intellect. Therefore the final perfection of the human
intellect does not reach to this, but consists in something less.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (1 John 3:2): "When He shall appear,
we shall be like to Him; and [Vulg.: 'because'] we shall see Him as
He is."

_I answer that,_ Final and perfect happiness can consist in nothing
else than the vision of the Divine Essence. To make this clear, two
points must be observed. First, that man is not perfectly happy, so
long as something remains for him to desire and seek: secondly, that
the perfection of any power is determined by the nature of its
object. Now the object of the intellect is "what a thing is," i.e.
the essence of a thing, according to _De Anima_ iii, 6. Wherefore the
intellect attains perfection, in so far as it knows the essence of a
thing. If therefore an intellect knows the essence of some effect,
whereby it is not possible to know the essence of the cause, i.e. to
know of the cause "what it is"; that intellect cannot be said to
reach that cause simply, although it may be able to gather from the
effect the knowledge that the cause is. Consequently, when man knows
an effect, and knows that it has a cause, there naturally remains in
the man the desire to know about the cause, "what it is." And this
desire is one of wonder, and causes inquiry, as is stated in the
beginning of the _Metaphysics_ (i, 2). For instance, if a man,
knowing the eclipse of the sun, consider that it must be due to some
cause, and know not what that cause is, he wonders about it, and from
wondering proceeds to inquire. Nor does this inquiry cease until he
arrive at a knowledge of the essence of the cause.

If therefore the human intellect, knowing the essence of some created
effect, knows no more of God than "that He is"; the perfection of
that intellect does not yet reach simply the First Cause, but there
remains in it the natural desire to seek the cause. Wherefore it is
not yet perfectly happy. Consequently, for perfect happiness the
intellect needs to reach the very Essence of the First Cause. And
thus it will have its perfection through union with God as with that
object, in which alone man's happiness consists, as stated above (AA.
1, 7; Q. 2, A. 8).

Reply Obj. 1: Dionysius speaks of the knowledge of wayfarers
journeying towards happiness.

Reply Obj. 2: As stated above (Q. 1, A. 8), the end has a twofold
acceptation. First, as to the thing itself which is desired: and in
this way, the same thing is the end of the higher and of the lower
nature, and indeed of all things, as stated above (Q. 1, A. 8).
Secondly, as to the attainment of this thing; and thus the end of the
higher nature is different from that of the lower, according to their
respective habitudes to that thing. So then in the happiness of God,
Who, in understanding his Essence, comprehends It, is higher than
that of a man or angel who sees It indeed, but comprehends It not.
________________________

QUESTION 4

OF THOSE THINGS THAT ARE REQUIRED FOR HAPPINESS
(In Eight Articles)

We have now to consider those things that are required for happiness:
and concerning this there are eight points of inquiry:

(1) Whether delight is required for happiness?

(2) Which is of greater account in happiness, delight or vision?

(3) Whether comprehension is required?

(4) Whether rectitude of the will is required?

(5) Whether the body is necessary for man's happiness?

(6) Whether any perfection of the body is necessary?

(7) Whether any external goods are necessary?

(8) Whether the fellowship of friends is necessary?
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 4, Art. 1]

Whether Delight Is Required for Happiness?

Objection 1: It would seem that delight is not required for happiness.
For Augustine says (De Trin. i, 8) that "vision is the entire reward
of faith." But the prize or reward of virtue is happiness, as the
Philosopher clearly states (Ethic. i, 9). Therefore nothing besides
vision is required for happiness.

Obj. 2: Further, happiness is "the most self-sufficient of all
goods," as the Philosopher declares (Ethic. i, 7). But that which
needs something else is not self-sufficient. Since then the essence
of happiness consists in seeing God, as stated above (Q. 3, A. 8);
it seems that delight is not necessary for happiness.

Obj. 3: Further, the "operation of bliss or happiness should be
unhindered" (Ethic. vii, 13). But delight hinders the operation of
the intellect: since it destroys the estimate of prudence (Ethic. vi,
5). Therefore delight is not necessary for happiness.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (Confess. x, 23) that happiness is
"joy in truth."

_I answer that,_ One thing may be necessary for another in four ways.
First, as a preamble and preparation to it: thus instruction is
necessary for science. Secondly, as perfecting it: thus the soul is
necessary for the life of the body. Thirdly, as helping it from
without: thus friends are necessary for some undertaking. Fourthly,
as something attendant on it: thus we might say that heat is
necessary for fire. And in this way delight is necessary for
happiness. For it is caused by the appetite being at rest in the good
attained. Wherefore, since happiness is nothing else but the
attainment of the Sovereign Good, it cannot be without concomitant
delight.

Reply Obj. 1: From the very fact that a reward is given to anyone,
the will of him who deserves it is at rest, and in this consists
delight. Consequently, delight is included in the very notion of
reward.

Reply Obj. 2: The very sight of God causes delight. Consequently, he
who sees God cannot need delight.

Reply Obj. 3: Delight that is attendant upon the operation of the
intellect does not hinder it, rather does it perfect it, as stated in
_Ethic._ x, 4: since what we do with delight, we do with greater care
and perseverance. On the other hand, delight which is extraneous to
the operation is a hindrance thereto: sometimes by distracting the
attention because, as already observed, we are more attentive to
those things that delight us; and when we are very attentive to one
thing, we must needs be less attentive to another: sometimes on
account of opposition; thus a sensual delight that is contrary to
reason, hinders the estimate of prudence more than it hinders the
estimate of the speculative intellect.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 4, Art. 2]

Whether in Happiness Vision Ranks Before Delight?

Objection 1: It would seem that in happiness, delight ranks before
vision. For "delight is the perfection of operation" (Ethic. x, 4).
But perfection ranks before the thing perfected. Therefore delight
ranks before the operation of the intellect, i.e. vision.

Obj. 2: Further, that by reason of which a thing is desirable, is yet
more desirable. But operations are desired on account of the delight
they afford: hence, too, nature has adjusted delight to those
operations which are necessary for the preservation of the individual
and of the species, lest animals should disregard such operations.
Therefore, in happiness, delight ranks before the operation of the
intellect, which is vision.

Obj. 3: Further, vision corresponds to faith; while delight or
enjoyment corresponds to charity. But charity ranks before faith, as
the Apostle says (1 Cor. 13:13). Therefore delight or enjoyment ranks
before vision.

_On the contrary,_ The cause is greater than its effect. But vision
is the cause of delight. Therefore vision ranks before delight.

_I answer that,_ The Philosopher discusses this question (Ethic. x,
4), and leaves it unsolved. But if one consider the matter carefully,
the operation of the intellect which is vision, must needs rank
before delight. For delight consists in a certain repose of the will.
Now that the will finds rest in anything, can only be on account of
the goodness of that thing in which it reposes. If therefore the will
reposes in an operation, the will's repose is caused by the goodness
of the operation. Nor does the will seek good for the sake of repose;
for thus the very act of the will would be the end, which has been
disproved above (Q. 1, A. 1, ad 2;Q. 3, A. 4): but it seeks to be at
rest in the operation, because that operation is its good.
Consequently it is evident that the operation in which the will
reposes ranks before the resting of the will therein.

Reply Obj. 1: As the Philosopher says (Ethic. x, 4) "delight perfects
operation as vigor perfects youth," because it is a result of youth.
Consequently delight is a perfection attendant upon vision; but not a
perfection whereby vision is made perfect in its own species.

Reply Obj. 2: The apprehension of the senses does not attain to the
universal good, but to some particular good which is delightful. And
consequently, according to the sensitive appetite which is in
animals, operations are sought for the sake of delight. But the
intellect apprehends the universal good, the attainment of which
results in delight: wherefore its purpose is directed to good rather
than to delight. Hence it is that the Divine intellect, which is the
Author of nature, adjusted delights to operations on account of the
operations. And we should form our estimate of things not simply
according to the order of the sensitive appetite, but rather
according to the order of the intellectual appetite.

Reply Obj. 3: Charity does not seek the beloved good for the sake of
delight: it is for charity a consequence that it delights in the good
gained which it loves. Thus delight does not answer to charity as its
end, but vision does, whereby the end is first made present to
charity.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 4, Art. 3]

Whether Comprehension Is Necessary for Happiness?

Objection 1: It would seem that comprehension is not necessary for
happiness. For Augustine says (Ad Paulinam de Videndo Deum; [*Cf.
Serm. xxxciii De Verb. Dom.]): "To reach God with the mind is
happiness, to comprehend Him is impossible." Therefore happiness is
without comprehension.

Obj. 2: Further, happiness is the perfection of man as to his
intellective part, wherein there are no other powers than the
intellect and will, as stated in the First Part (QQ. 79 and
following). But the intellect is sufficiently perfected by seeing
God, and the will by enjoying Him. Therefore there is no need for
comprehension as a third.

Obj. 3: Further, happiness consists in an operation. But operations
are determined by their objects: and there are two universal objects,
the true and the good: of which the true corresponds to vision, and
good to delight. Therefore there is no need for comprehension as a
third.

_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says (1 Cor. 9:24): "So run that you
may comprehend [Douay: 'obtain']." But happiness is the goal of the
spiritual race: hence he says (2 Tim. 4:7, 8): "I have fought a good
fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith; as to the
rest there is laid up for me a crown of justice." Therefore
comprehension is necessary for Happiness.

_I answer that,_ Since Happiness consists in gaining the last end,
those things that are required for Happiness must be gathered from
the way in which man is ordered to an end. Now man is ordered to an
intelligible end partly through his intellect, and partly through his
will: through his intellect, in so far as a certain imperfect
knowledge of the end pre-exists in the intellect: through the will,
first by love which is the will's first movement towards anything;
secondly, by a real relation of the lover to the thing beloved, which
relation may be threefold. For sometimes the thing beloved is present
to the lover: and then it is no longer sought for. Sometimes it is
not present, and it is impossible to attain it: and then, too, it is
not sought for. But sometimes it is possible to attain it, yet it is
raised above the capability of the attainer, so that he cannot have
it forthwith; and this is the relation of one that hopes, to that
which he hopes for, and this relation alone causes a search for the
end. To these three, there are a corresponding three in Happiness
itself. For perfect knowledge of the end corresponds to imperfect
knowledge; presence of the end corresponds to the relation of hope;
but delight in the end now present results from love, as already
stated (A. 2, ad 3). And therefore these three must concur with
Happiness; to wit, vision, which is perfect knowledge of the
intelligible end; comprehension, which implies presence of the end;
and delight or enjoyment, which implies repose of the lover in the
object beloved.

Reply Obj. 1: Comprehension is twofold. First, inclusion of the
comprehended in the comprehensor; and thus whatever is comprehended
by the finite, is itself finite. Wherefore God cannot be thus
comprehended by a created intellect. Secondly, comprehension means
nothing but the holding of something already present and possessed:
thus one who runs after another is said to comprehend [*In English we
should say 'catch.'] him when he lays hold on him. And in this sense
comprehension is necessary for Happiness.

Reply Obj. 2: Just as hope and love pertain to the will, because it
is the same one that loves a thing, and that tends towards it while
not possessed, so, too, comprehension and delight belong to the will,
since it is the same that possesses a thing and reposes therein.

Reply Obj. 3: Comprehension is not a distinct operation from vision;
but a certain relation to the end already gained. Wherefore even
vision itself, or the thing seen, inasmuch as it is present, is the
object of comprehension.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 4, Art. 4]

Whether Rectitude of the Will Is Necessary for Happiness?

Objection 1: It would seem that rectitude of the will is not
necessary for Happiness. For Happiness consists essentially in an
operation of the intellect, as stated above (Q. 3, A. 4). But
rectitude of the will, by reason of which men are said to be clean of
heart, is not necessary for the perfect operation of the intellect:
for Augustine says (Retract. i, 4) "I do not approve of what I said
in a prayer: O God, Who didst will none but the clean of heart to
know the truth. For it can be answered that many who are not clean of
heart, know many truths." Therefore rectitude of the will is not
necessary for Happiness.

Obj. 2: Further, what precedes does not depend on what follows. But
the operation of the intellect precedes the operation of the will.
Therefore Happiness, which is the perfect operation of the intellect,
does not depend on rectitude of the will.

Obj. 3: Further, that which is ordained to another as its end, is not
necessary, when the end is already gained; as a ship, for instance,
after arrival in port. But rectitude of will, which is by reason of
virtue, is ordained to Happiness as to its end. Therefore, Happiness
once obtained, rectitude of the will is no longer necessary.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Matt. 5:8): "Blessed are the clean
of heart; for they shall see God": and (Heb. 12:14): "Follow peace
with all men, and holiness; without which no man shall see God."

_I answer that,_ Rectitude of will is necessary for Happiness both
antecedently and concomitantly. Antecedently, because rectitude of
the will consists in being duly ordered to the last end. Now the end
in comparison to what is ordained to the end is as form compared to
matter. Wherefore, just as matter cannot receive a form, unless it be
duly disposed thereto, so nothing gains an end, except it be duly
ordained thereto. And therefore none can obtain Happiness, without
rectitude of the will. Concomitantly, because as stated above (Q. 3,
A. 8), final Happiness consists in the vision of the Divine Essence,
Which is the very essence of goodness. So that the will of him who
sees the Essence of God, of necessity, loves, whatever he loves, in
subordination to God; just as the will of him who sees not God's
Essence, of necessity, loves whatever he loves, under the common
notion of good which he knows. And this is precisely what makes the
will right. Wherefore it is evident that Happiness cannot be without
a right will.

[Reply Obj. 1: Augustine is speaking of knowledge of truth that is
not the essence of goodness itself.]

Reply Obj. 2: Every act of the will is preceded by an act of the
intellect: but a certain act of the will precedes a certain act of
the intellect. For the will tends to the final act of the intellect
which is happiness. And consequently right inclination of the will is
required antecedently for happiness, just as the arrow must take a
right course in order to strike the target.

Reply Obj. 3: Not everything that is ordained to the end, ceases with
the getting of the end: but only that which involves imperfection,
such as movement. Hence the instruments of movement are no longer
necessary when the end has been gained: but the due order to the end
is necessary.
________________________

FIFTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 4, Art. 5]

Whether the Body Is Necessary for Man's Happiness?

Objection 1: It would seem that the body is necessary for Happiness.
For the perfection of virtue and grace presupposes the perfection of
nature. But Happiness is the perfection of virtue and grace. Now the
soul, without the body, has not the perfection of nature; since it is
naturally a part of human nature, and every part is imperfect while
separated from its whole. Therefore the soul cannot be happy without
the body.

Obj. 2: Further, Happiness is a perfect operation, as stated above
(Q. 3, AA. 2, 5). But perfect operation follows perfect being: since
nothing operates except in so far as it is an actual being. Since,
therefore, the soul has not perfect being, while it is separated from
the body, just as neither has a part, while separate from its whole;
it seems that the soul cannot be happy without the body.

Obj. 3: Further, Happiness is the perfection of man. But the soul,
without the body, is not man. Therefore Happiness cannot be in the
soul separated from the body.

Obj. 4: Further, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. vii, 13) "the
operation of bliss," in which operation happiness consists, is "not
hindered." But the operation of the separate soul is hindered;
because, as Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. xii, 35), the soul "has a
natural desire to rule the body, the result of which is that it is
held back, so to speak, from tending with all its might to the
heavenward journey," i.e. to the vision of the Divine Essence.
Therefore the soul cannot be happy without the body.

Obj. 5: Further, Happiness is the sufficient good and lulls desire.
But this cannot be said of the separated soul; for it yet desires to
be united to the body, as Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. xii, 35).
Therefore the soul is not happy while separated from the body.

Obj. 6: Further, in Happiness man is equal to the angels. But the
soul without the body is not equal to the angels, as Augustine says
(Gen. ad lit. xii, 35). Therefore it is not happy.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Apoc. 14:13): "Happy [Douay:
'blessed'] are the dead who die in the Lord."

_I answer that,_ Happiness is twofold; the one is imperfect and is had
in this life; the other is perfect, consisting in the vision of God.
Now it is evident that the body is necessary for the happiness of this
life. For the happiness of this life consists in an operation of the
intellect, either speculative or practical. And the operation of the
intellect in this life cannot be without a phantasm, which is only in
a bodily organ, as was shown in the First Part (Q. 84, AA. 6, 7).
Consequently that happiness which can be had in this life, depends, in
a way, on the body. But as to perfect Happiness, which consists in the
vision of God, some have maintained that it is not possible to the
soul separated from the body; and have said that the souls of saints,
when separated from their bodies, do not attain to that Happiness
until the Day of Judgment, when they will receive their bodies back
again. And this is shown to be false, both by authority and by reason.
By authority, since the Apostle says (2 Cor. 5:6): "While we are in
the body, we are absent from the Lord"; and he points out the reason
of this absence, saying: "For we walk by faith and not by sight." Now
from this it is clear that so long as we walk by faith and not by
sight, bereft of the vision of the Divine Essence, we are not present
to the Lord. But the souls of the saints, separated from their bodies,
are in God's presence; wherefore the text continues: "But we are
confident and have a good will to be absent . . . from the body, and
to be present with the Lord." Whence it is evident that the souls of
the saints, separated from their bodies, "walk by sight," seeing the
Essence of God, wherein is true Happiness.

Again this is made clear by reason. For the intellect needs not the
body, for its operation, save on account of the phantasms, wherein it
looks on the intelligible truth, as stated in the First Part (Q. 84,
A. 7). Now it is evident that the Divine Essence cannot be seen by
means of phantasms, as stated in the First Part (Q. 12, A. 3).
Wherefore, since man's perfect Happiness consists in the vision of
the Divine Essence, it does not depend on the body. Consequently,
without the body the soul can be happy.

We must, however, notice that something may belong to a thing's
perfection in two ways. First, as constituting the essence thereof;
thus the soul is necessary for man's perfection. Secondly, as
necessary for its well-being: thus, beauty of body and keenness of
perfection belong to man's perfection. Wherefore though the body does
not belong in the first way to the perfection of human Happiness, yet
it does in the second way. For since operation depends on a thing's
nature, the more perfect is the soul in its nature, the more
perfectly it has its proper operation, wherein its happiness
consists. Hence, Augustine, after inquiring (Gen. ad lit. xii, 35)
"whether that perfect Happiness can be ascribed to the souls of the
dead separated from their bodies," answers "that they cannot see the
Unchangeable Substance, as the blessed angels see It; either for some
other more hidden reason, or because they have a natural desire to
rule the body."

Reply Obj. 1: Happiness is the perfection of the soul on the part of
the intellect, in respect of which the soul transcends the organs of
the body; but not according as the soul is the natural form of the
body. Wherefore the soul retains that natural perfection in respect
of which happiness is due to it, though it does not retain that
natural perfection in respect of which it is the form of the body.

Reply Obj. 2: The relation of the soul to being is not the same as
that of other parts: for the being of the whole is not that of any
individual part: wherefore, either the part ceases altogether to be,
when the whole is destroyed, just as the parts of an animal, when the
animal is destroyed; or, if they remain, they have another actual
being, just as a part of a line has another being from that of the
whole line. But the human soul retains the being of the composite
after the destruction of the body: and this because the being of the
form is the same as that of its matter, and this is the being of the
composite. Now the soul subsists in its own being, as stated in the
First Part (Q. 75, A. 2). It follows, therefore, that after being
separated from the body it has perfect being and that consequently it
can have a perfect operation; although it has not the perfect
specific nature.

Reply Obj. 3: Happiness belongs to man in respect of his intellect:
and, therefore, since the intellect remains, it can have Happiness.
Thus the teeth of an Ethiopian, in respect of which he is said to be
white, can retain their whiteness, even after extraction.

Reply Obj. 4: One thing is hindered by another in two ways. First, by
way of opposition; thus cold hinders the action of heat: and such a
hindrance to operation is repugnant to Happiness. Secondly, by way of
some kind of defect, because, to wit, that which is hindered has not
all that is necessary to make it perfect in every way: and such a
hindrance to operation is not incompatible with Happiness, but
prevents it from being perfect in every way. And thus it is that
separation from the body is said to hold the soul back from tending
with all its might to the vision of the Divine Essence. For the soul
desires to enjoy God in such a way that the enjoyment also may
overflow into the body, as far as possible. And therefore, as long as
it enjoys God, without the fellowship of the body, its appetite is at
rest in that which it has, in such a way, that it would still wish
the body to attain to its share.

Reply Obj. 5: The desire of the separated soul is entirely at rest,
as regards the thing desired; since, to wit, it has that which
suffices its appetite. But it is not wholly at rest, as regards the
desirer, since it does not possess that good in every way that it
would wish to possess it. Consequently, after the body has been
resumed, Happiness increases not in intensity, but in extent.

Reply Obj. 6: The statement made (Gen. ad lit. xii, 35) to the effect
that "the souls of the departed see not God as the angels do," is not
to be understood as referring to inequality of quantity; because even
now some souls of the Blessed are raised to the higher orders of the
angels, thus seeing God more clearly than the lower angels. But it
refers to inequality of proportion: because the angels, even the
lowest, have every perfection of Happiness that they ever will have,
whereas the separated souls of the saints have not.
________________________

SIXTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 4, Art. 6]

Whether Perfection of the Body Is Necessary for Happiness?

Objection 1: It would seem that perfection of the body is not
necessary for man's perfect Happiness. For perfection of the body is
a bodily good. But it has been shown above (Q. 2) that Happiness does
not consist in bodily goods. Therefore no perfect disposition of the
body is necessary for man's Happiness.

Obj. 2: Further, man's Happiness consists in the vision of the Divine
Essence, as shown above (Q. 3, A. 8). But the body has no part in
this operation, as shown above (A. 5). Therefore no disposition of
the body is necessary for Happiness.

Obj. 3: Further, the more the intellect is abstracted from the body,
the more perfectly it understands. But Happiness consists in the most
perfect operation of the intellect. Therefore the soul should be
abstracted from the body in every way. Therefore, in no way is a
disposition of the body necessary for Happiness.

_On the contrary,_ Happiness is the reward of virtue; wherefore it is
written (John 13:17): "You shall be blessed, if you do them." But the
reward promised to the saints is not only that they shall see and
enjoy God, but also that their bodies shall be well-disposed; for it
is written (Isa. 66:14): "You shall see and your heart shall rejoice,
and your bones shall flourish like a herb." Therefore good
disposition of the body is necessary for Happiness.

_I answer that,_ If we speak of that happiness which man can acquire
in this life, it is evident that a well-disposed body is of necessity
required for it. For this happiness consists, according to the
Philosopher (Ethic. i, 13) in "an operation according to perfect
virtue"; and it is clear that man can be hindered, by indisposition
of the body, from every operation of virtue.

But speaking of perfect Happiness, some have maintained that no
disposition of body is necessary for Happiness; indeed, that it is
necessary for the soul to be entirely separated from the body. Hence
Augustine (De Civ. Dei xxii, 26) quotes the words of Porphyry who said
that "for the soul to be happy, it must be severed from everything
corporeal." But this is unreasonable. For since it is natural to the
soul to be united to the body; it is not possible for the perfection
of the soul to exclude its natural perfection.

Consequently, we must say that perfect disposition of the body is
necessary, both antecedently and consequently, for that Happiness
which is in all ways perfect. Antecedently, because, as Augustine
says (Gen. ad lit. xii, 35), "if the body be such, that the
governance thereof is difficult and burdensome, like unto flesh which
is corruptible and weighs upon the soul, the mind is turned away from
that vision of the highest heaven." Whence he concludes that, "when
this body will no longer be 'natural,' but 'spiritual,' then will it
be equalled to the angels, and that will be its glory, which
erstwhile was its burden." Consequently, because from the Happiness
of the soul there will be an overflow on to the body, so that this
too will obtain its perfection. Hence Augustine says (Ep. ad
Dioscor.) that "God gave the soul such a powerful nature that from
its exceeding fulness of happiness the vigor of incorruption
overflows into the lower nature."

Reply Obj. 1: Happiness does not consist in bodily good as its
object: but bodily good can add a certain charm and perfection to
Happiness.

Reply Obj. 2: Although the body has no part in that operation of the
intellect whereby the Essence of God is seen, yet it might prove a
hindrance thereto. Consequently, perfection of the body is necessary,
lest it hinder the mind from being lifted up.

Reply Obj. 3: The perfect operation of the intellect requires indeed
that the intellect be abstracted from this corruptible body which
weighs upon the soul; but not from the spiritual body, which will be
wholly subject to the spirit. On this point we shall treat in the
Third Part of this work (Suppl., Q. 82, seqq.).
________________________

SEVENTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 4, Art. 7]

Whether Any External Goods Are Necessary for Happiness?

Objection 1: It would seem that external goods also are necessary for
Happiness. For that which is promised the saints for reward, belongs
to Happiness. But external goods are promised the saints; for
instance, food and drink, wealth and a kingdom: for it is said (Luke
22:30): "That you may eat and drink at My table in My kingdom": and
(Matt. 6:20): "Lay up to yourselves treasures in heaven": and (Matt.
25:34): "Come, ye blessed of My Father, possess you the kingdom."
Therefore external goods are necessary for Happiness.

Obj. 2: Further, according to Boethius (De Consol. iii): happiness is
"a state made perfect by the aggregate of all good things." But some
of man's goods are external, although they be of least account, as
Augustine says (De Lib. Arb. ii, 19). Therefore they too are
necessary for Happiness.

Obj. 3: Further, Our Lord said (Matt. 5:12): "Your reward is very
great in heaven." But to be in heaven implies being in a place.
Therefore at least external place is necessary for Happiness.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Ps. 72:25): "For what have I in
heaven? and besides Thee what do I desire upon earth?" As though to
say: "I desire nothing but this, "--"It is good for me to adhere to my
God." Therefore nothing further external is necessary for Happiness.

_I answer that,_ For imperfect happiness, such as can be had in this
life, external goods are necessary, not as belonging to the essence
of happiness, but by serving as instruments to happiness, which
consists in an operation of virtue, as stated in _Ethic._ i, 13. For
man needs in this life, the necessaries of the body, both for the
operation of contemplative virtue, and for the operation of active
virtue, for which latter he needs also many other things by means of
which to perform its operations.

On the other hand, such goods as these are nowise necessary for
perfect Happiness, which consists in seeing God. The reason of this is
that all suchlike external goods are requisite either for the support
of the animal body; or for certain operations which belong to human
life, which we perform by means of the animal body: whereas that
perfect Happiness which consists in seeing God, will be either in the
soul separated from the body, or in the soul united to the body then
no longer animal but spiritual. Consequently these external goods are
nowise necessary for that Happiness, since they are ordained to the
animal life. And since, in this life, the felicity of contemplation,
as being more Godlike, approaches nearer than that of action to the
likeness of that perfect Happiness, therefore it stands in less need
of these goods of the body as stated in _Ethic._ x, 8.

Reply Obj. 1: All those material promises contained in Holy
Scripture, are to be understood metaphorically, inasmuch as Scripture
is wont to express spiritual things under the form of things
corporeal, in order "that from things we know, we may rise to the
desire of things unknown," as Gregory says (Hom. xi in Evang.). Thus
food and drink signify the delight of Happiness; wealth, the
sufficiency of God for man; the kingdom, the lifting up of man to
union of God.

Reply Obj. 2: These goods that serve for the animal life, are
incompatible with that spiritual life wherein perfect Happiness
consists. Nevertheless in that Happiness there will be the aggregate
of all good things, because whatever good there be in these things, we
shall possess it all in the Supreme Fount of goodness.

Reply Obj. 3: According to Augustine (De Serm. Dom. in Monte
i, 5), it is not material heaven that is described as the reward of
the saints, but a heaven raised on the height of spiritual goods.
Nevertheless a bodily place, viz. the empyrean heaven, will be
appointed to the Blessed, not as a need of Happiness, but by reason of
a certain fitness and adornment.
________________________

EIGHTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 4, Art. 8]

Whether the Fellowship of Friends Is Necessary for Happiness?

Objection 1: It would seem that friends are necessary for Happiness.
For future Happiness is frequently designated by Scripture under the
name of "glory." But glory consists in man's good being brought to the
notice of many. Therefore the fellowship of friends is necessary for
Happiness.

Obj. 2: Further, Boethius [*Seneca, Ep. 6] says that "there is no
delight in possessing any good whatever, without someone to share it
with us." But delight is necessary for Happiness. Therefore fellowship
of friends is also necessary.

Obj. 3: Further, charity is perfected in Happiness. But charity
includes the love of God and of our neighbor. Therefore it seems that
fellowship of friends is necessary for Happiness.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Wis. 7:11): "All good things came to
me together with her," i.e. with divine wisdom, which consists in
contemplating God. Consequently nothing else is necessary for
Happiness.

_I answer that,_ If we speak of the happiness of this life, the happy
man needs friends, as the Philosopher says (Ethic. ix, 9), not,
indeed, to make use of them, since he suffices himself; nor to
delight in them, since he possesses perfect delight in the operation
of virtue; but for the purpose of a good operation, viz. that he may
do good to them; that he may delight in seeing them do good; and
again that he may be helped by them in his good work. For in order
that man may do well, whether in the works of the active life, or in
those of the contemplative life, he needs the fellowship of friends.

But if we speak of perfect Happiness which will be in our heavenly
Fatherland, the fellowship of friends is not essential to Happiness;
since man has the entire fulness of his perfection in God. But the
fellowship of friends conduces to the well-being of Happiness. Hence
Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. viii, 25) that "the spiritual creatures
receive no other interior aid to happiness than the eternity, truth,
and charity of the Creator. But if they can be said to be helped from
without, perhaps it is only by this that they see one another and
rejoice in God, at their fellowship."

Reply Obj. 1: That glory which is essential to Happiness, is that
which man has, not with man but with God.

Reply Obj. 2: This saying is to be understood of the possession of
good that does not fully satisfy. This does not apply to the question
under consideration; because man possesses in God a sufficiency of
every good.

Reply Obj. 3: Perfection of charity is essential to Happiness, as to
the love of God, but not as to the love of our neighbor. Wherefore if
there were but one soul enjoying God, it would be happy, though
having no neighbor to love. But supposing one neighbor to be there,
love of him results from perfect love of God. Consequently,
friendship is, as it were, concomitant with perfect Happiness.
________________________

QUESTION 5

OF THE ATTAINMENT OF HAPPINESS
(In Eight Articles)

We must now consider the attainment of Happiness. Under this heading
there are eight points of inquiry:

(1) Whether man can attain Happiness?

(2) Whether one man can be happier than another?

(3) Whether any man can be happy in this life?

(4) Whether Happiness once had can be lost?

(5) Whether man can attain Happiness by means of his natural powers?

(6) Whether man attains Happiness through the action of some higher
creature?

(7) Whether any actions of man are necessary in order that man may
obtain Happiness of God?

(8) Whether every man desires Happiness?
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 5, Art. 1]

Whether Man Can Attain Happiness?

Objection 1: It would seem that man cannot attain happiness. For just
as the rational is above the sensible nature, so the intellectual is
above the rational, as Dionysius declares (Div. Nom. iv, vi, vii) in
several passages. But irrational animals that have the sensitive
nature only, cannot attain the end of the rational nature. Therefore
neither can man, who is of rational nature, attain the end of the
intellectual nature, which is Happiness.

Obj. 2: Further, True Happiness consists in seeing God, Who is pure
Truth. But from his very nature, man considers truth in material
things: wherefore "he understands the intelligible species in the
phantasm" (De Anima iii, 7). Therefore he cannot attain Happiness.

Obj. 3: Further, Happiness consists in attaining the Sovereign Good.
But we cannot arrive at the top without surmounting the middle.
Since, therefore, the angelic nature through which man cannot mount
is midway between God and human nature; it seems that he cannot
attain Happiness.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Ps. 93:12): "Blessed is the man
whom Thou shalt instruct, O Lord."

_I answer that,_ Happiness is the attainment of the Perfect Good.
Whoever, therefore, is capable of the Perfect Good can attain
Happiness. Now, that man is capable of the Perfect Good, is proved
both because his intellect can apprehend the universal and perfect
good, and because his will can desire it. And therefore man can
attain Happiness. This can be proved again from the fact that man is
capable of seeing God, as stated in the First Part (Q. 12, A. 1): in
which vision, as we stated above (Q. 3, A. 8) man's perfect Happiness
consists.

Reply Obj. 1: The rational exceeds the sensitive nature, otherwise
than the intellectual surpasses the rational. For the rational
exceeds the sensitive nature in respect of the object of its
knowledge: since the senses have no knowledge whatever of the
universal, whereas the reason has knowledge thereof. But the
intellectual surpasses the rational nature, as to the mode of knowing
the same intelligible truth: for the intellectual nature grasps
forthwith the truth which the rational nature reaches by the inquiry
of reason, as was made clear in the First Part (Q. 58, A. 3; Q. 79,
A. 8). Therefore reason arrives by a kind of movement at that which
the intellect grasps. Consequently the rational nature can attain
Happiness, which is the perfection of the intellectual nature: but
otherwise than the angels. Because the angels attained it forthwith
after the beginning of their creation: whereas man attains if after a
time. But the sensitive nature can nowise attain this end.

Reply Obj. 2: To man in the present state of life the natural way of
knowing intelligible truth is by means of phantasms. But after this
state of life, he has another natural way, as was stated in the First
Part (Q. 84, A. 7; Q. 89, A. 1).

Reply Obj. 3: Man cannot surmount the angels in the degree of nature
so as to be above them naturally. But he can surmount them by an
operation of the intellect, by understanding that there is above the
angels something that makes men happy; and when he has attained it,
he will be perfectly happy.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 5, Art. 2]

Whether One Man Can Be Happier Than Another?

Objection 1: It would seem that one man cannot be happier than
another. For Happiness is "the reward of virtue," as the Philosopher
says (Ethic. i, 9). But equal reward is given for all the works of
virtue; because it is written (Matt. 20:10) that all who labor in the
vineyard "received every man a penny"; for, as Gregory says (Hom. xix
in Evang.), "each was equally rewarded with eternal life." Therefore
one man cannot be happier than another.

Obj. 2: Further, Happiness is the supreme good. But nothing can
surpass the supreme. Therefore one man's Happiness cannot be
surpassed by another's.

Obj. 3: Further, since Happiness is "the perfect and sufficient good"
(Ethic. i, 7) it brings rest to man's desire. But his desire is not
at rest, if he yet lacks some good that can be got. And if he lack
nothing that he can get, there can be no still greater good.
Therefore either man is not happy; or, if he be happy, no other
Happiness can be greater.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (John 14:2): "In My Father's house
there are many mansions"; which, according to Augustine (Tract. lxvii
in Joan.) signify "the diverse dignities of merits in the one eternal
life." But the dignity of eternal life which is given according to
merit, is Happiness itself. Therefore there are diverse degrees of
Happiness, and Happiness is not equally in all.

_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 1, A. 8; Q. 2, A. 7), Happiness
implies two things, to wit, the last end itself, i.e. the Sovereign
Good; and the attainment or enjoyment of that same Good. As to that
Good itself, Which is the object and cause of Happiness, one
Happiness cannot be greater than another, since there is but one
Sovereign Good, namely, God, by enjoying Whom, men are made happy.
But as to the attainment or enjoyment of this Good, one man can be
happier than another; because the more a man enjoys this Good the
happier he is. Now, that one man enjoys God more than another,
happens through his being better disposed or ordered to the enjoyment
of Him. And in this sense one man can be happier than another.

Reply Obj. 1: The one penny signifies that Happiness is one in its
object. But the many mansions signify the manifold Happiness in the
divers degrees of enjoyment.

Reply Obj. 2: Happiness is said to be the supreme good, inasmuch as
it is the perfect possession or enjoyment of the Supreme Good.

Reply Obj. 3: None of the Blessed lacks any desirable good;
since they have the Infinite Good Itself, Which is "the good of all
good," as Augustine says (Enarr. in Ps. 134). But one is said to be
happier than another, by reason of diverse participation of the same
good. And the addition of other goods does not increase Happiness,
since Augustine says (Confess. v, 4): "He who knows Thee, and others
besides, is not the happier for knowing them, but is happy for knowing
Thee alone."
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 5, Art. 3]

Whether One Can Be Happy in This Life?

Objection 1: It would seem that Happiness can be had in this life. For
it is written (Ps. 118:1): "Blessed are the undefiled in the way, who
walk in the law of the Lord." But this happens in this life. Therefore
one can be happy in this life.

Obj. 2: Further, imperfect participation in the Sovereign Good does
not destroy the nature of Happiness, otherwise one would not be
happier than another. But men can participate in the Sovereign Good
in this life, by knowing and loving God, albeit imperfectly.
Therefore man can be happy in this life.

Obj. 3: Further, what is said by many cannot be altogether false:
since what is in many, comes, apparently, from nature; and nature
does not fail altogether. Now many say that Happiness can be had in
this life, as appears from Ps. 143:15: "They have called the people
happy that hath these things," to wit, the good things in this life.
Therefore one can be happy in this life.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Job 14:1): "Man born of a woman,
living for a short time, is filled with many miseries." But Happiness
excludes misery. Therefore man cannot be happy in this life.

_I answer that,_ A certain participation of Happiness can be had in
this life: but perfect and true Happiness cannot be had in this life.
This may be seen from a twofold consideration.

First, from the general notion of happiness. For since happiness is a
"perfect and sufficient good," it excludes every evil, and fulfils
every desire. But in this life every evil cannot be excluded. For
this present life is subject to many unavoidable evils; to ignorance
on the part of the intellect; to inordinate affection on the part of
the appetite, and to many penalties on the part of the body; as
Augustine sets forth in De Civ. Dei xix, 4. Likewise neither can the
desire for good be satiated in this life. For man naturally desires
the good, which he has, to be abiding. Now the goods of the present
life pass away; since life itself passes away, which we naturally
desire to have, and would wish to hold abidingly, for man naturally
shrinks from death. Wherefore it is impossible to have true Happiness
in this life.

Secondly, from a consideration of the specific nature of Happiness,
viz. the vision of the Divine Essence, which man cannot obtain in
this life, as was shown in the First Part (Q. 12, A. 11). Hence it is
evident that none can attain true and perfect Happiness in this life.

Reply Obj. 1: Some are said to be happy in this life, either on
account of the hope of obtaining Happiness in the life to come,
according to Rom. 8:24: "We are saved by hope"; or on account of a
certain participation of Happiness, by reason of a kind of enjoyment
of the Sovereign Good.

Reply Obj. 2: The imperfection of participated Happiness is due to
one of two causes. First, on the part of the object of Happiness,
which is not seen in Its Essence: and this imperfection destroys the
nature of true Happiness. Secondly, the imperfection may be on the
part of the participator, who indeed attains the object of Happiness,
in itself, namely, God: imperfectly, however, in comparison with the
way in which God enjoys Himself. This imperfection does not destroy
the true nature of Happiness; because, since Happiness is an
operation, as stated above (Q. 3, A. 2), the true nature of Happiness
is taken from the object, which specifies the act, and not from the
subject.

Reply Obj. 3: Men esteem that there is some kind of happiness to be
had in this life, on account of a certain likeness to true Happiness.
And thus they do not fail altogether in their estimate.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 5, Art. 4]

Whether Happiness Once Had Can Be Lost?

Objection 1: It would seem that Happiness can be lost. For Happiness
is a perfection. But every perfection is in the thing perfected
according to the mode of the latter. Since then man is, by his
nature, changeable, it seems that Happiness is participated by man in
a changeable manner. And consequently it seems that man can lose
Happiness.

Obj. 2: Further, Happiness consists in an act of the intellect; and
the intellect is subject to the will. But the will can be directed to
opposites. Therefore it seems that it can desist from the operation
whereby man is made happy: and thus man will cease to be happy.

Obj. 3: Further, the end corresponds to the beginning. But man's
Happiness has a beginning, since man was not always happy. Therefore
it seems that it has an end.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Matt. 25:46) of the righteous that
"they shall go . . . into life everlasting," which, as above stated
(A. 2), is the Happiness of the saints. Now what is eternal ceases
not. Therefore Happiness cannot be lost.

_I answer that,_ If we speak of imperfect happiness, such as can be
had in this life, in this sense it can be lost. This is clear of
contemplative happiness, which is lost either by forgetfulness, for
instance, when knowledge is lost through sickness; or again by
certain occupations, whereby a man is altogether withdrawn from
contemplation.

This is also clear of active happiness: since man's will can be
changed so as to fall to vice from the virtue, in whose act that
happiness principally consists. If, however, the virtue remain
unimpaired, outward changes can indeed disturb such like happiness,
in so far as they hinder many acts of virtue; but they cannot take it
away altogether because there still remains an act of virtue, whereby
man bears these trials in a praiseworthy manner. And since the
happiness of this life can be lost, a circumstance that appears to be
contrary to the nature of happiness, therefore did the Philosopher
state (Ethic. i, 10) that some are happy in this life, not simply,
but "as men," whose nature is subject to change.

But if we speak of that perfect Happiness which we await after this
life, it must be observed that Origen (Peri Archon. ii, 3), following
the error of certain Platonists, held that man can become unhappy
after the final Happiness.

This, however, is evidently false, for two reasons. First, from the
general notion of happiness. For since happiness is the "perfect and
sufficient good," it must needs set man's desire at rest and exclude
every evil. Now man naturally desires to hold to the good that he
has, and to have the surety of his holding: else he must of necessity
be troubled with the fear of losing it, or with the sorrow of knowing
that he will lose it. Therefore it is necessary for true Happiness
that man have the assured opinion of never losing the good that he
possesses. If this opinion be true, it follows that he never will
lose happiness: but if it be false, it is in itself an evil that he
should have a false opinion: because the false is the evil of the
intellect, just as the true is its good, as stated in _Ethic._ vi, 2.
Consequently he will no longer be truly happy, if evil be in him.

Secondly, it is again evident if we consider the specific nature of
Happiness. For it has been shown above (Q. 3, A. 8) that man's
perfect Happiness consists in the vision of the Divine Essence. Now
it is impossible for anyone seeing the Divine Essence, to wish not to
see It. Because every good that one possesses and yet wishes to be
without, is either insufficient, something more sufficing being
desired in its stead; or else has some inconvenience attached to it,
by reason of which it becomes wearisome. But the vision of the Divine
Essence fills the soul with all good things, since it unites it to
the source of all goodness; hence it is written (Ps. 16:15): "I shall
be satisfied when Thy glory shall appear"; and (Wis. 7:11): "All good
things came to me together with her," i.e. with the contemplation of
wisdom. In like manner neither has it any inconvenience attached to
it; because it is written of the contemplation of wisdom (Wis. 8:16):
"Her conversation hath no bitterness, nor her company any
tediousness." It is thus evident that the happy man cannot forsake
Happiness of his own accord. Moreover, neither can he lose Happiness,
through God taking it away from him. Because, since the withdrawal of
Happiness is a punishment, it cannot be enforced by God, the just
Judge, except for some fault; and he that sees God cannot fall into a
fault, since rectitude of the will, of necessity, results from that
vision as was shown above (Q. 4, A. 4). Nor again can it be withdrawn
by any other agent. Because the mind that is united to God is raised
above all other things: and consequently no other agent can sever the
mind from that union. Therefore it seems unreasonable that as time
goes on, man should pass from happiness to misery, and vice versa;
because such like vicissitudes of time can only be for such things as
are subject to time and movement.

Reply Obj. 1: Happiness is consummate perfection, which excludes
every defect from the happy. And therefore whoever has happiness has
it altogether unchangeably: this is done by the Divine power, which
raises man to the participation of eternity which transcends all
change.

Reply Obj. 2: The will can be directed to opposites, in things which
are ordained to the end; but it is ordained, of natural necessity, to
the last end. This is evident from the fact that man is unable not to
wish to be happy.

Reply Obj. 3: Happiness has a beginning owing to the condition of the
participator: but it has no end by reason of the condition of the
good, the participation of which makes man happy. Hence the beginning
of happiness is from one cause, its endlessness is from another.
________________________

FIFTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 5, Art. 5]

Whether Man Can Attain Happiness by His Natural Powers?

Objection 1: It would seem that man can attain Happiness by his
natural powers. For nature does not fail in necessary things. But
nothing is so necessary to man as that by which he attains the last
end. Therefore this is not lacking to human nature. Therefore man
can attain Happiness by his natural powers.

Obj. 2: Further, since man is more noble than irrational creatures,
it seems that he must be better equipped than they. But irrational
creatures can attain their end by their natural powers. Much more
therefore can man attain Happiness by his natural powers.

Obj. 3: Further, Happiness is a "perfect operation," according to the
Philosopher (Ethic. vii, 13). Now the beginning of a thing belongs to
the same principle as the perfecting thereof. Since, therefore, the
imperfect operation, which is as the beginning in human operations,
is subject to man's natural power, whereby he is master of his own
actions; it seems that he can attain to perfect operation, i.e.
Happiness, by his natural powers.

_On the contrary,_ Man is naturally the principle of his action, by
his intellect and will. But final Happiness prepared for the saints,
surpasses the intellect and will of man; for the Apostle says (1 Cor.
2:9) "Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither hath it entered into
the heart of man, what things God hath prepared for them that love
Him." Therefore man cannot attain Happiness by his natural powers.

_I answer that,_ Imperfect happiness that can be had in this life,
can be acquired by man by his natural powers, in the same way as
virtue, in whose operation it consists: on this point we shall speak
further on (Q. 63). But man's perfect Happiness, as stated above (Q.
3, A. 8), consists in the vision of the Divine Essence. Now the
vision of God's Essence surpasses the nature not only of man, but
also of every creature, as was shown in the First Part (Q. 12, A. 4).
For the natural knowledge of every creature is in keeping with the
mode of his substance: thus it is said of the intelligence (De
Causis; Prop. viii) that "it knows things that are above it, and
things that are below it, according to the mode of its substance."
But every knowledge that is according to the mode of created
substance, falls short of the vision of the Divine Essence, which
infinitely surpasses all created substance. Consequently neither man,
nor any creature, can attain final Happiness by his natural powers.

Reply Obj. 1: Just as nature does not fail man in necessaries,
although it has not provided him with weapons and clothing, as it
provided other animals, because it gave him reason and hands, with
which he is able to get these things for himself; so neither did it
fail man in things necessary, although it gave him not the wherewithal
to attain Happiness: since this it could not do. But it did give him
free-will, with which he can turn to God, that He may make him happy.
"For what we do by means of our friends, is done, in a sense, by
ourselves" (Ethic. iii, 3).

Reply Obj. 2: The nature that can attain perfect good, although it
needs help from without in order to attain it, is of more noble
condition than a nature which cannot attain perfect good, but attains
some imperfect good, although it need no help from without in order
to attain it, as the Philosopher says (De Coel. ii, 12). Thus he is
better disposed to health who can attain perfect health, albeit by
means of medicine, than he who can attain but imperfect health,
without the help of medicine. And therefore the rational creature,
which can attain the perfect good of happiness, but needs the Divine
assistance for the purpose, is more perfect than the irrational
creature, which is not capable of attaining this good, but attains
some imperfect good by its natural powers.

Reply Obj. 3: When imperfect and perfect are of the same species,
they can be caused by the same power. But this does not follow of
necessity, if they be of different species: for not everything, that
can cause the disposition of matter, can produce the final
perfection. Now the imperfect operation, which is subject to man's
natural power, is not of the same species as that perfect operation
which is man's happiness: since operation takes its species from its
object. Consequently the argument does not prove.
________________________

SIXTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 5, Art. 6]

Whether Man Attains Happiness Through the Action of Some Higher
Creature?

Objection 1: It would seem that man can be made happy through the
action of some higher creature, viz. an angel. For since we observe a
twofold order in things--one, of the parts of the universe to one
another, the other, of the whole universe to a good which is outside
the universe; the former order is ordained to the second as to its end
(Metaph. xii, 10). Thus the mutual order of the parts of an army is
dependent on the order of the parts of an army is dependent on the
order of the whole army to the general. But the mutual order of the
parts of the universe consists in the higher creatures acting on the
lower, as stated in the First Part (Q. 109, A. 2): while happiness
consists in the order of man to a good which is outside the universe,
i.e. God. Therefore man is made happy, through a higher creature, viz.
an angel, acting on him.

Obj. 2: Further, that which is such in potentiality, can be reduced
to act, by that which is such actually: thus what is potentially hot,
is made actually hot, by something that is actually hot. But man is
potentially happy. Therefore he can be made actually happy by an
angel who is actually happy.

Obj. 3: Further, Happiness consists in an operation of the intellect
as stated above (Q. 3, A. 4). But an angel can enlighten man's
intellect as shown in the First Part (Q. 111, A. 1). Therefore an
angel can make a man happy.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Ps. 83:12): "The Lord will give
grace and glory."

_I answer that,_ Since every creature is subject to the laws of
nature, from the very fact that its power and action are limited:
that which surpasses created nature, cannot be done by the power of
any creature. Consequently if anything need to be done that is above
nature, it is done by God immediately; such as raising the dead to
life, restoring sight to the blind, and such like. Now it has been
shown above (A. 5) that Happiness is a good surpassing created
nature. Therefore it is impossible that it be bestowed through the
action of any creature: but by God alone is man made happy, if we
speak of perfect Happiness. If, however, we speak of imperfect
happiness, the same is to be said of it as of the virtue, in whose
act it consists.

Reply Obj. 1: It often happens in the case of active powers ordained
to one another, that it belongs to the highest power to reach the
last end, while the lower powers contribute to the attainment of that
last end, by causing a disposition thereto: thus to the art of
sailing, which commands the art of shipbuilding, it belongs to use a
ship for the end for which it was made. Thus, too, in the order of
the universe, man is indeed helped by the angels in the attainment of
his last end, in respect of certain preliminary dispositions thereto:
whereas he attains the last end itself through the First Agent, which
is God.

Reply Obj. 2: When a form exists perfectly and naturally in
something, it can be the principle of action on something else: for
instance a hot thing heats through heat. But if a form exist in
something imperfectly, and not naturally, it cannot be the principle
whereby it is communicated to something else: thus the _intention_ of
color which is in the pupil, cannot make a thing white; nor indeed
can everything enlightened or heated give heat or light to something
else; for if they could, enlightening and heating would go on to
infinity. But the light of glory, whereby God is seen, is in God
perfectly and naturally; whereas in any creature, it is imperfectly
and by likeness or participation. Consequently no creature can
communicate its Happiness to another.

Reply Obj. 3: A happy angel enlightens the intellect of a man or of a
lower angel, as to certain notions of the Divine works: but not as to
the vision of the Divine Essence, as was stated in the First Part (Q.
106, A. 1): since in order to see this, all are immediately
enlightened by God.
________________________

SEVENTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 5, Art. 7]

Whether Any Good Works Are Necessary That Man May Receive Happiness
from God?

Objection 1: It would seem that no works of man are necessary that he
may obtain Happiness from God. For since God is an agent of infinite
power, He requires before acting, neither matter, nor disposition of
matter, but can forthwith produce the whole effect. But man's works,
since they are not required for Happiness, as the efficient cause
thereof, as stated above (A. 6), can be required only as
dispositions thereto. Therefore God who does not require dispositions
before acting, bestows Happiness without any previous works.

Obj. 2: Further, just as God is the immediate cause of Happiness, so
is He the immediate cause of nature. But when God first established
nature, He produced creatures without any previous disposition or
action on the part of the creature, but made each one perfect
forthwith in its species. Therefore it seems that He bestows
Happiness on man without any previous works.

Obj. 3: Further, the Apostle says (Rom. 4:6) that Happiness is of the
man "to whom God reputeth justice without works." Therefore no works
of man are necessary for attaining Happiness.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (John 13:17): "If you know these
things, you shall be blessed if you do them." Therefore Happiness is
obtained through works.

_I answer that,_ Rectitude of the will, as stated above (Q. 4, A. 4),
is necessary for Happiness; since it is nothing else than the right
order of the will to the last end; and it is therefore necessary for
obtaining the end, just as the right disposition of matter, in order
to receive the form. But this does not prove that any work of man
need precede his Happiness: for God could make a will having a right
tendency to the end, and at the same time attaining the end; just as
sometimes He disposes matter and at the same time introduces the
form. But the order of Divine wisdom demands that it should not be
thus; for as is stated in _De Coelo_ ii, 12, "of those things that
have a natural capacity for the perfect good, one has it without
movement, some by one movement, some by several." Now to possess the
perfect good without movement, belongs to that which has it
naturally: and to have Happiness naturally belongs to God alone.
Therefore it belongs to God alone not to be moved towards Happiness
by any previous operation. Now since Happiness surpasses every
created nature, no pure creature can becomingly gain Happiness,
without the movement of operation, whereby it tends thereto. But the
angel, who is above man in the natural order, obtained it, according
to the order of Divine wisdom, by one movement of a meritorious work,
as was explained in the First Part (Q. 62, A. 5); whereas man obtains
it by many movements of works which are called merits. Wherefore also
according to the Philosopher (Ethic. i, 9), happiness is the reward
of works of virtue.

Reply Obj. 1: Works are necessary to man in order to gain Happiness;
not on account of the insufficiency of the Divine power which bestows
Happiness, but that the order in things be observed.

Reply Obj. 2: God produced the first creatures so that they are
perfect forthwith, without any previous disposition or operation of
the creature; because He instituted the first individuals of the
various species, that through them nature might be propagated to
their progeny. In like manner, because Happiness was to be bestowed
on others through Christ, who is God and Man, "Who," according to
Heb. 2:10, "had brought many children into glory"; therefore, from
the very beginning of His conception, His soul was happy, without any
previous meritorious operation. But this is peculiar to Him: for
Christ's merit avails baptized children for the gaining of Happiness,
though they have no merits of their own; because by Baptism they are
made members of Christ.

Reply Obj. 3: The Apostle is speaking of the Happiness of Hope, which
is bestowed on us by sanctifying grace, which is not given on account
of previous works. For grace is not a term of movement, as Happiness
is; rather is it the principle of the movement that tends towards
Happiness.
________________________

EIGHTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 5, Art. 8]

Whether Every Man Desires Happiness?

Objection 1: It would seem that not all desire Happiness. For no man
can desire what he knows not; since the apprehended good is the object
of the appetite (De Anima iii, 10). But many know not what Happiness
is. This is evident from the fact that, as Augustine says (De Trin.
xiii, 4), "some thought that Happiness consists in pleasures of the
body; some, in a virtue of the soul; some in other things." Therefore
not all desire Happiness.

Obj. 2: Further, the essence of Happiness is the vision of the Divine
Essence, as stated above (Q. 3, A. 8). But some consider it
impossible for man to see the Divine Essence; wherefore they desire
it not. Therefore all men do not desire Happiness.

Obj. 3: Further, Augustine says (De Trin. xiii, 5) that "happy is he
who has all he desires, and desires nothing amiss." But all do not
desire this; for some desire certain things amiss, and yet they wish
to desire such things. Therefore all do not desire Happiness.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Trin. xiii, 3): "If that actor
had said: 'You all wish to be happy; you do not wish to be unhappy,'
he would have said that which none would have failed to acknowledge
in his will." Therefore everyone desires to be happy.

_I answer that,_ Happiness can be considered in two ways. First
according to the general notion of happiness: and thus, of necessity,
every man desires happiness. For the general notion of happiness
consists in the perfect good, as stated above (AA. 3, 4). But since
good is the object of the will, the perfect good of a man is that
which entirely satisfies his will. Consequently to desire happiness
is nothing else than to desire that one's will be satisfied. And this
everyone desires. Secondly we may speak of Happiness according to its
specific notion, as to that in which it consists. And thus all do not
know Happiness; because they know not in what thing the general
notion of happiness is found. And consequently, in this respect, not
all desire it. Wherefore the reply to the first Objection is clear.

Reply Obj. 2: Since the will follows the apprehension of the
intellect or reason; just as it happens that where there is no real
distinction, there may be a distinction according to the
consideration of reason; so does it happen that one and the same
thing is desired in one way, and not desired in another. So that
happiness may be considered as the final and perfect good, which is
the general notion of happiness: and thus the will naturally and of
necessity tends thereto, as stated above. Again it can be considered
under other special aspects, either on the part of the operation
itself, or on the part of the operating power, or on the part of the
object; and thus the will does not tend thereto of necessity.

Reply Obj. 3: This definition of Happiness given by some--"Happy is
the man that has all he desires," or, "whose every wish is
fulfilled," is a good and adequate definition, if it be understood in
a certain way; but an inadequate definition if understood in another.
For if we understand it simply of all that man desires by his natural
appetite, thus it is true that he who has all that he desires, is
happy: since nothing satisfies man's natural desire, except the
perfect good which is Happiness. But if we understand it of those
things that man desires according to the apprehension of the reason,
thus it does not belong to Happiness, to have certain things that man
desires; rather does it belong to unhappiness, in so far as the
possession of such things hinders man from having all that he desires
naturally; thus it is that reason sometimes accepts as true things
that are a hindrance to the knowledge of truth. And it was through
taking this into consideration that Augustine added so as to include
perfect Happiness--that he "desires nothing amiss": although the
first part suffices if rightly understood, to wit, that "happy is he
who has all he desires."
________________________

TREATISE ON HUMAN ACTS: ACTS PECULIAR TO MAN (QQ. 6-21)
________________________

QUESTION 6

OF THE VOLUNTARY AND THE INVOLUNTARY
(In Eight Articles)

Since therefore Happiness is to be gained by means of certain acts,
we must in due sequence consider human acts, in order to know by what
acts we may obtain Happiness, and by what acts we are prevented from
obtaining it. But because operations and acts are concerned with
things singular, consequently all practical knowledge is incomplete
unless it take account of things in detail. The study of Morals,
therefore, since it treats of human acts, should consider first the
general principles; and secondly matters of detail.

In treating of the general principles, the points that offer
themselves for our consideration are (1) human acts themselves; (2)
their principles. Now of human acts some are proper to man; others
are common to man and animals. And since Happiness is man's proper
good, those acts which are proper to man have a closer connection
with Happiness than have those which are common to man and the other
animals. First, then, we must consider those acts which are proper to
man; secondly, those acts which are common to man and the other
animals, and are called Passions. The first of these points offers a
twofold consideration: (1) What makes a human act? (2) What
distinguishes human acts?

And since those acts are properly called human which are voluntary,
because the will is the rational appetite, which is proper to man; we
must consider acts in so far as they are voluntary.

First, then, we must consider the voluntary and involuntary in
general; secondly, those acts which are voluntary, as being elicited
by the will, and as issuing from the will immediately; thirdly, those
acts which are voluntary, as being commanded by the will, which issue
from the will through the medium of the other powers.

And because voluntary acts have certain circumstances, according to
which we form our judgment concerning them, we must first consider
the voluntary and the involuntary, and afterwards, the circumstances
of those acts which are found to be voluntary or involuntary. Under
the first head there are eight points of inquiry:

(1) Whether there is anything voluntary in human acts?

(2) Whether in irrational animals?

(3) Whether there can be voluntariness without any action?

(4) Whether violence can be done to the will?

(5) Whether violence causes involuntariness?

(6) Whether fear causes involuntariness?

(7) Whether concupiscence causes involuntariness?

(8) Whether ignorance causes involuntariness?
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 6, Art. 1]

Whether There Is Anything Voluntary in Human Acts?

Objection 1: It would seem that there is nothing voluntary in human
acts. For that is voluntary "which has its principle within itself."
as Gregory of Nyssa [*Nemesius, De Natura Hom. xxxii.], Damascene (De
Fide Orth. ii, 24), and Aristotle (Ethic. iii, 1) declare. But the
principle of human acts is not in man himself, but outside him: since
man's appetite is moved to act, by the appetible object which is
outside him, and is as a "mover unmoved" (De Anima iii, 10).
Therefore there is nothing voluntary in human acts.

Obj. 2: Further, the Philosopher (Phys. viii, 2) proves that in
animals no new movement arises that is not preceded by a motion from
without. But all human acts are new, since none is eternal.
Consequently, the principle of all human acts is from without: and
therefore there is nothing voluntary in them.

Obj. 3: Further, he that acts voluntarily, can act of himself. But
this is not true of man; for it is written (John 15:5): "Without Me
you can do nothing." Therefore there is nothing voluntary in human
acts.

_On the contrary,_ Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii) that "the
voluntary is an act consisting in a rational operation." Now such are
human acts. Therefore there is something voluntary in human acts.

_I answer that,_ There must needs be something voluntary in human
acts. In order to make this clear, we must take note that the
principle of some acts or movements is within the agent, or that
which is moved; whereas the principle of some movements or acts is
outside. For when a stone is moved upwards, the principle of this
movement is outside the stone: whereas when it is moved downwards,
the principle of this movement is in the stone. Now of those things
that are moved by an intrinsic principle, some move themselves, some
not. For since every agent or thing moved, acts or is moved for an
end, as stated above (Q. 1, A. 2); those are perfectly moved by an
intrinsic principle, whose intrinsic principle is one not only of
movement but of movement for an end. Now in order for a thing to be
done for an end, some knowledge of the end is necessary. Therefore,
whatever so acts or is moved by an intrinsic principle, that it has
some knowledge of the end, has within itself the principle of its
act, so that it not only acts, but acts for an end. On the other
hand, if a thing has no knowledge of the end, even though it have an
intrinsic principle of action or movement, nevertheless the principle
of acting or being moved for an end is not in that thing, but in
something else, by which the principle of its action towards an end
is not in that thing, but in something else, by which the principle
of its action towards an end is imprinted on it. Wherefore such like
things are not said to move themselves, but to be moved by others.
But those things which have a knowledge of the end are said to move
themselves because there is in them a principle by which they not
only act but also act for an end. And consequently, since both are
from an intrinsic principle, to wit, that they act and that they act
for an end, the movements of such things are said to be voluntary:
for the word "voluntary" implies that their movements and acts are
from their own inclination. Hence it is that, according to the
definitions of Aristotle, Gregory of Nyssa, and Damascene [*See
Objection 1], the voluntary is defined not only as having "a principle
within" the agent, but also as implying "knowledge." Therefore, since
man especially knows the end of his work, and moves himself, in his
acts especially is the voluntary to be found.

Reply Obj. 1: Not every principle is a first principle. Therefore,
although it is essential to the voluntary act that its principle be
within the agent, nevertheless it is not contrary to the nature of
the voluntary act that this intrinsic principle be caused or moved by
an extrinsic principle: because it is not essential to the voluntary
act that its intrinsic principle be a first principle. Yet again it
must be observed that a principle of movement may happen to be first
in a genus, but not first simply: thus in the genus of things subject
to alteration, the first principle of alteration is a heavenly body,
which nevertheless is not the first mover simply, but is moved
locally by a higher mover. And so the intrinsic principle of the
voluntary act, i.e. the cognitive and appetitive power, is the first
principle in the genus of appetitive movement, although it is moved
by an extrinsic principle according to other species of movement.

Reply Obj. 2: New movements in animals are indeed preceded by a
motion from without; and this in two respects. First, in so far as by
means of an extrinsic motion an animal's senses are confronted with
something sensible, which, on being apprehended, moves the appetite.
Thus a lion, on seeing a stag in movement and coming towards him,
begins to be moved towards the stag. Secondly, in so far as some
extrinsic motion produces a physical change in an animal's body, as
in the case of cold or heat; and through the body being affected by
the motion of an outward body, the sensitive appetite which is the
power of a bodily organ, is also moved indirectly; thus it happens
that through some alteration in the body the appetite is roused to
the desire of something. But this is not contrary to the nature of
voluntariness, as stated above (ad 1), for such movements caused by
an extrinsic principle are of another genus of movement.

Reply Obj. 3: God moves man to act, not only by proposing the
appetible to the senses, or by effecting a change in his body, but
also by moving the will itself; because every movement either of the
will or of nature, proceeds from God as the First Mover. And just as
it is not incompatible with nature that the natural movement be from
God as the First Mover, inasmuch as nature is an instrument of God
moving it: so it is not contrary to the essence of a voluntary act,
that it proceed from God, inasmuch as the will is moved by God.
Nevertheless both natural and voluntary movements have this in common,
that it is essential that they should proceed from a principle within
the agent.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 6, Art. 2]

Whether There Is Anything Voluntary in Irrational Animals?

Objection 1: It would seem that there is nothing voluntary in
irrational animals. For a thing is called "voluntary" from _voluntas_
(will). Now since the will is in the reason (De Anima iii, 9), it
cannot be in irrational animals. Therefore neither is there anything
voluntary in them.

Obj. 2: Further, according as human acts are voluntary, man is said
to be master of his actions. But irrational animals are not masters
of their actions; for "they act not; rather are they acted upon," as
Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii, 27). Therefore there is no such
thing as a voluntary act in irrational animals.

Obj. 3: Further, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. 24) that "voluntary
acts lead to praise and blame." But neither praise nor blame is due
to the acts of irrational minds. Therefore such acts are not
voluntary.

_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher says (Ethic. iii, 2) that "both
children and irrational animals participate in the voluntary." The
same is said by Damascene (De Fide Orth. 24) and Gregory of Nyssa
[*Nemesius, De Nat. Hom. xxxii.].

_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1), it is essential to the
voluntary act that its principle be within the agent, together with
some knowledge of the end. Now knowledge of the end is twofold;
perfect and imperfect. Perfect knowledge of the end consists in not
only apprehending the thing which is the end, but also in knowing it
under the aspect of end, and the relationship of the means to that
end. And such knowledge belongs to none but the rational nature. But
imperfect knowledge of the end consists in mere apprehension of the
end, without knowing it under the aspect of end, or the relationship
of an act to the end. Such knowledge of the end is exercised by
irrational animals, through their senses and their natural estimative
power.

Consequently perfect knowledge of the end leads to the perfect
voluntary; inasmuch as, having apprehended the end, a man can, from
deliberating about the end and the means thereto, be moved, or not,
to gain that end. But imperfect knowledge of the end leads to the
imperfect voluntary; inasmuch as the agent apprehends the end, but
does not deliberate, and is moved to the end at once. Wherefore the
voluntary in its perfection belongs to none but the rational nature:
whereas the imperfect voluntary is within the competency of even
irrational animals.

Reply Obj. 1: The will is the name of the rational appetite; and
consequently it cannot be in things devoid of reason. But the word
"voluntary" is derived from "voluntas" (will), and can be extended to
those things in which there is some participation of will, by way of
likeness thereto. It is thus that voluntary action is attributed to
irrational animals, in so far as they are moved to an end, through
some kind of knowledge.

Reply Obj. 2: The fact that man is master of his actions, is due to
his being able to deliberate about them: for since the deliberating
reason is indifferently disposed to opposite things, the will can be
inclined to either. But it is not thus that voluntariness is in
irrational animals, as stated above.

Reply Obj. 3: Praise and blame are the result of the voluntary act,
wherein is the perfect voluntary; such as is not to be found in
irrational animals.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 6, Art. 3]

Whether There Can Be Voluntariness Without Any Act?

Objection 1: It would seem that voluntariness cannot be without any
act. For that is voluntary which proceeds from the will. But nothing
can proceed from the will, except through some act, at least an act
of the will. Therefore there cannot be voluntariness without act.

Obj. 2: Further, just as one is said to wish by an act of the will,
so when the act of the will ceases, one is said not to wish. But not
to wish implies involuntariness, which is contrary to voluntariness.
Therefore there can be nothing voluntary when the act of the will
ceases.

Obj. 3: Further, knowledge is essential to the voluntary, as stated
above (AA. 1, 2). But knowledge involves an act. Therefore
voluntariness cannot be without some act.

_On the contrary,_ The word "voluntary" is applied to that of which
we are masters. Now we are masters in respect of to act and not to
act, to will and not to will. Therefore just as to act and to will
are voluntary, so also are not to act and not to will.

_I answer that,_ Voluntary is what proceeds from the will. Now one
thing proceeds from another in two ways. First, directly; in which
sense something proceeds from another inasmuch as this other acts;
for instance, heating from heat. Secondly, indirectly; in which sense
something proceeds from another through this other not acting; thus
the sinking of a ship is set down to the helmsman, from his having
ceased to steer. But we must take note that the cause of what follows
from want of action is not always the agent as not acting; but only
then when the agent can and ought to act. For if the helmsman were
unable to steer the ship or if the ship's helm be not entrusted to
him, the sinking of the ship would not be set down to him, although
it might be due to his absence from the helm.

Since, then, the will by willing and acting, is able, and sometimes
ought, to hinder not-willing and not-acting; this not-willing and
not-acting is imputed to, as though proceeding from, the will. And
thus it is that we can have the voluntary without an act; sometimes
without outward act, but with an interior act; for instance, when one
wills not to act; and sometimes without even an interior act, as when
one does not will to act.

Reply Obj. 1: We apply the word "voluntary" not only to that which
proceeds from the will directly, as from its action; but also to that
which proceeds from it indirectly as from its inaction.

Reply Obj. 2: "Not to wish" is said in two senses. First, as though
it were one word, and the infinitive of "I-do-not-wish." Consequently
just as when I say "I do not wish to read," the sense is, "I wish not
to read"; so "not to wish to read" is the same as "to wish not to
read," and in this sense "not to wish" implies involuntariness.
Secondly it is taken as a sentence: and then no act of the will is
affirmed. And in this sense "not to wish" does not imply
involuntariness.

Reply Obj. 3: Voluntariness requires an act of knowledge in the same
way as it requires an act of will; namely, in order that it be in
one's power to consider, to wish and to act. And then, just as not to
wish, and not to act, when it is time to wish and to act, is
voluntary, so is it voluntary not to consider.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 6, Art. 4]

Whether Violence Can Be Done to the Will?

Objection 1: It would seem that violence can be done to the will. For
everything can be compelled by that which is more powerful. But there
is something, namely, God, that is more powerful than the human will.
Therefore it can be compelled, at least by Him.

Obj. 2: Further, every passive subject is compelled by its active
principle, when it is changed by it. But the will is a passive force:
for it is a "mover moved" (De Anima iii, 10). Therefore, since it is
sometimes moved by its active principle, it seems that sometimes it
is compelled.

Obj. 3: Further, violent movement is that which is contrary to
nature. But the movement of the will is sometimes contrary to nature;
as is clear of the will's movement to sin, which is contrary to
nature, as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv, 20). Therefore the
movement of the will can be compelled.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Civ. Dei v, 10) that what is
done by the will is not done of necessity. Now, whatever is done under
compulsion is done of necessity: consequently what is done by the
will, cannot be compelled. Therefore the will cannot be compelled to
act.

_I answer that,_ The act of the will is twofold: one is its immediate
act, as it were, elicited by it, namely, "to wish"; the other is an
act of the will commanded by it, and put into execution by means of
some other power, such as "to walk" and "to speak," which are
commanded by the will to be executed by means of the motive power.

As regards the commanded acts of the will, then, the will can suffer
violence, in so far as violence can prevent the exterior members from
executing the will's command. But as to the will's own proper act,
violence cannot be done to the will.

The reason of this is that the act of the will is nothing else than
an inclination proceeding from the interior principle of knowledge:
just as the natural appetite is an inclination proceeding from an
interior principle without knowledge. Now what is compelled or
violent is from an exterior principle. Consequently it is contrary to
the nature of the will's own act, that it should be subject to
compulsion and violence: just as it is also contrary to the nature of
a natural inclination or movement. For a stone may have an upward
movement from violence, but that this violent movement be from its
natural inclination is impossible. In like manner a man may be
dragged by force: but it is contrary to the very notion of violence,
that he be dragged of his own will.

Reply Obj. 1: God Who is more powerful than the human will, can move
the will of man, according to Prov. 21:1: "The heart of the king is
in the hand of the Lord; whithersoever He will He shall turn it." But
if this were by compulsion, it would no longer be by an act of the
will, nor would the will itself be moved, but something else against
the will.

Reply Obj. 2: It is not always a violent movement, when a passive
subject is moved by its active principle; but only when this is done
against the interior inclination of the passive subject. Otherwise
every alteration and generation of simple bodies would be unnatural
and violent: whereas they are natural by reason of the natural
interior aptitude of the matter or subject to such a disposition. In
like manner when the will is moved, according to its own inclination,
by the appetible object, this movement is not violent but voluntary.

Reply Obj. 3: That to which the will tends by sinning, although in
reality it is evil and contrary to the rational nature, nevertheless
is apprehended as something good and suitable to nature, in so far as
it is suitable to man by reason of some pleasurable sensation or some
vicious habit.
________________________

FIFTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 6, Art. 5]

Whether Violence Causes Involuntariness?

Objection 1: It would seem that violence does not cause
involuntariness. For we speak of voluntariness and involuntariness
in respect of the will. But violence cannot be done to the will, as
shown above (A. 4). Therefore violence cannot cause involuntariness.

Obj. 2: Further, that which is done involuntarily is done with grief,
as Damascene (De Fide Orth. ii, 24) and the Philosopher (Ethic. iii,
5) say. But sometimes a man suffers compulsion without being grieved
thereby. Therefore violence does not cause involuntariness.

Obj. 3: Further, what is from the will cannot be involuntary. But
some violent actions proceed from the will: for instance, when a man
with a heavy body goes upwards; or when a man contorts his limbs in a
way contrary to their natural flexibility. Therefore violence does
not cause involuntariness.

_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher (Ethic. iii, 1) and Damascene (De
Fide Orth. ii, 24) say that "things done under compulsion are
involuntary."

_I answer that,_ Violence is directly opposed to the voluntary, as
likewise to the natural. For the voluntary and the natural have this
in common, that both are from an intrinsic principle; whereas
violence is from an extrinsic principle. And for this reason, just as
in things devoid of knowledge, violence effects something against
nature: so in things endowed with knowledge, it effects something
against the will. Now that which is against nature is said to be
"unnatural"; and in like manner that which is against the will is
said to be "involuntary." Therefore violence causes involuntariness.

Reply Obj. 1: The involuntary is opposed to the voluntary. Now it has
been said (A. 4) that not only the act, which proceeds immediately
from the will, is called voluntary, but also the act commanded by the
will. Consequently, as to the act which proceeds immediately from the
will, violence cannot be done to the will, as stated above (A. 4):
wherefore violence cannot make that act involuntary. But as to the
commanded act, the will can suffer violence: and consequently in this
respect violence causes involuntariness.

Reply Obj. 2: As that is said to be natural, which is according to
the inclination of nature; so that is said to be voluntary, which is
according to the inclination of the will. Now a thing is said to be
natural in two ways. First, because it is from nature as from an
active principle: thus it is natural for fire to produce heat.
Secondly, according to a passive principle; because, to wit, there is
in nature an inclination to receive an action from an extrinsic
principle: thus the movement of the heavens is said to be natural, by
reason of the natural aptitude in a heavenly body to receive such
movement; although the cause of that movement is a voluntary agent.
In like manner an act is said to be voluntary in two ways. First, in
regard to action, for instance, when one wishes to be passive to
another. Hence when action is brought to bear on something, by an
extrinsic agent, as long as the will to suffer that action remains in
the passive subject, there is not violence simply: for although the
patient does nothing by way of action, he does something by being
willing to suffer. Consequently this cannot be called involuntary.

Reply Obj. 3: As the Philosopher says (Phys. viii, 4) the movement of
an animal, whereby at times an animal is moved against the natural
inclination of the body, although it is not natural to the body, is
nevertheless somewhat natural to the animal, to which it is natural
to be moved according to its appetite. Accordingly this is violent,
not simply but in a certain respect. The same remark applies in the
case of one who contorts his limbs in a way that is contrary to their
natural disposition. For this is violent in a certain respect, i.e.
as to that particular limb; but not simply, i.e. as to the man
himself.
________________________

SIXTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 6, Art. 6]

Whether Fear Causes Involuntariness Simply?

Objection 1: It would seem that fear causes involuntariness simply.
For just as violence regards that which is contrary to the will at the
time, so fear regards a future evil which is repugnant to the will.
But violence causes involuntariness simply. Therefore fear too causes
involuntariness simply.

Obj. 2: Further, that which is such of itself, remains such, whatever
be added to it: thus what is hot of itself, as long as it
remains, is still hot, whatever be added to it. But that which is done
through fear, is involuntary in itself. Therefore, even with the
addition of fear, it is involuntary.

Obj. 3: Further, that which is such, subject to a condition, is
such in a certain respect; whereas what is such, without any
condition, is such simply: thus what is necessary, subject to a
condition, is necessary in some respect: but what is necessary
absolutely, is necessary simply. But that which is done through
fear, is absolutely involuntary; and is not voluntary, save under a
condition, namely, in order that the evil feared may be avoided.
Therefore that which is done through fear, is involuntary simply.

_On the contrary,_ Gregory of Nyssa [*Nemesius, De Nat. Hom. xxx.] and
the Philosopher (Ethic. iii, 1) say that such things as are done
through fear are "voluntary rather than involuntary."

_I answer that,_ As the Philosopher says (Ethic. iii) and likewise
Gregory of Nyssa in his book on Man (Nemesius, De Nat. Hom. xxx), such
things are done through fear "are of a mixed character," being partly
voluntary and partly involuntary. For that which is done through fear,
considered in itself, is not voluntary; but it becomes voluntary in
this particular case, in order, namely, to avoid the evil feared.

But if the matter be considered aright, such things are voluntary
rather than involuntary; for they are voluntary simply, but
involuntary in a certain respect. For a thing is said to be simply,
according as it is in act; but according as it is only in
apprehension, it is not simply, but in a certain respect. Now that
which is done through fear, is in act in so far as it is done. For,
since acts are concerned with singulars; and the singular, as such,
is here and now; that which is done is in act, in so far as it is
here and now and under other individuating circumstances. And that
which is done through fear is voluntary, inasmuch as it is here and
now, that is to say, in so far as, under the circumstances, it
hinders a greater evil which was feared; thus the throwing of the
cargo into the sea becomes voluntary during the storm, through fear
of the danger: wherefore it is clear that it is voluntary simply. And
hence it is that what is done out of fear is essentially voluntary,
because its principle is within. But if we consider what is done
through fear, as outside this particular case, and inasmuch as it is
repugnant to the will, this is merely a consideration of the mind.
And consequently what is done through fear is involuntary, considered
in that respect, that is to say, outside the actual circumstances of
the case.

Reply Obj. 1: Things done through fear and compulsion differ not only
according to present and future time, but also in this, that the will
does not consent, but is moved entirely counter to that which is done
through compulsion: whereas what is done through fear, becomes
voluntary, because the will is moved towards it, albeit not for its
own sake, but on account of something else, that is, in order to
avoid an evil which is feared. For the conditions of a voluntary act
are satisfied, if it be done on account of something else voluntary:
since the voluntary is not only what we wish, for its own sake, as an
end, but also what we wish for the sake of something else, as an end.
It is clear therefore that in what is done from compulsion, the will
does nothing inwardly; whereas in what is done through fear, the will
does something. Accordingly, as Gregory of Nyssa [*Nemesius, De Nat.
Hom. xxx.] says, in order to exclude things done through fear, a
violent action is defined as not only one, "the princip[le] whereof
is from without," but with the addition, "in which he that suffers
violence concurs not at all"; because the will of him that is in
fear, does concur somewhat in that which he does through fear.

Reply Obj. 2: Things that are such absolutely, remain such, whatever
be added to them; for instance, a cold thing, or a white thing: but
things that are such relatively, vary according as they are compared
with different things. For what is big in comparison with one thing,
is small in comparison with another. Now a thing is said to be
voluntary, not only for its own sake, as it were absolutely; but also
for the sake of something else, as it were relatively. Accordingly,
nothing prevents a thing which was not voluntary in comparison with
one thing, from becoming voluntary when compared with another.

Reply Obj. 3: That which is done through fear, is voluntary without
any condition, that is to say, according as it is actually done: but
it is involuntary, under a certain condition, that is to say, if such
a fear were not threatening. Consequently, this argument proves
rather the opposite.
________________________

SEVENTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 6, Art. 7]

Whether Concupiscence Causes Involuntariness?

Objection 1: It would seem that concupiscence causes involuntariness.
For just as fear is a passion, so is concupiscence. But fear causes
involuntariness to a certain extent. Therefore concupiscence does so
too.

Obj. 2: Further, just as the timid man through fear acts counter to
that which he proposed, so does the incontinent, through
concupiscence. But fear causes involuntariness to a certain extent.
Therefore concupiscence does so also.

Obj. 3: Further, knowledge is necessary for voluntariness. But
concupiscence impairs knowledge; for the Philosopher says (Ethic. vi,
5) that "delight," or the lust of pleasure, "destroys the judgment of
prudence." Therefore concupiscence causes involuntariness.

_On the contrary,_ Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii, 24): "The
involuntary act deserves mercy or indulgence, and is done with
regret." But neither of these can be said of that which is done out
of concupiscence. Therefore concupiscence does not cause
involuntariness.

_I answer that,_ Concupiscence does not cause involuntariness, but on
the contrary makes something to be voluntary. For a thing is said to
be voluntary, from the fact that the will is moved to it. Now
concupiscence inclines the will to desire the object of
concupiscence. Therefore the effect of concupiscence is to make
something to be voluntary rather than involuntary.

Reply Obj. 1: Fear regards evil, but concupiscence regards good. Now
evil of itself is counter to the will, whereas good harmonizes with
the will. Therefore fear has a greater tendency than concupiscence to
cause involuntariness.

Reply Obj. 2: He who acts from fear retains the repugnance of the
will to that which he does, considered in itself. But he that acts
from concupiscence, e.g. an incontinent man, does not retain his
former will whereby he repudiated the object of his concupiscence;
for his will is changed so that he desires that which previously he
repudiated. Accordingly, that which is done out of fear is
involuntary, to a certain extent, but that which is done from
concupiscence is nowise involuntary. For the man who yields to
concupiscence acts counter to that which he purposed at first, but
not counter to that which he desires now; whereas the timid man acts
counter to that which in itself he desires now.

Reply Obj. 3: If concupiscence were to destroy knowledge altogether,
as happens with those whom concupiscence has rendered mad, it would
follow that concupiscence would take away voluntariness. And yet
properly speaking it would not result in the act being involuntary,
because in things bereft of reason, there is neither voluntary nor
involuntary. But sometimes in those actions which are done from
concupiscence, knowledge is not completely destroyed, because the
power of knowing is not taken away entirely, but only the actual
consideration in some particular possible act. Nevertheless, this
itself is voluntary, according as by voluntary we mean that which is
in the power of the will, for example "not to act" or "not to will,"
and in like manner "not to consider"; for the will can resist the
passion, as we shall state later on (Q. 10, A. 3; Q. 77, A.)
________________________

EIGHTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 6, Art. 8]

Whether Ignorance Causes Involuntariness?

Objection 1: It would seem that ignorance does not cause
involuntariness. For "the involuntary act deserves pardon," as
Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii, 24). But sometimes that which is
done through ignorance does not deserve pardon, according to 1 Cor.
14:38: "If any man know not, he shall not be known." Therefore
ignorance does not cause involuntariness.

Obj. 2: Further, every sin implies ignorance; according to Prov.
14:22: "They err, that work evil." If, therefore, ignorance causes
involuntariness, it would follow that every sin is involuntary: which
is opposed to the saying of Augustine, that "every sin is voluntary"
(De Vera Relig. xiv).

Obj. 3: Further, "involuntariness is not without sadness," as
Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii, 24). But some things are done out
of ignorance, but without sadness: for instance, a man may kill a
foe, whom he wishes to kill, thinking at the time that he is killing
a stag. Therefore ignorance does not cause involuntariness.

_On the contrary,_ Damascene (De Fide Orth. ii, 24) and the
Philosopher (Ethic. iii, 1) say that "what is done through ignorance
is involuntary."

_I answer that,_ If ignorance causes involuntariness, it is in so far
as it deprives one of knowledge, which is a necessary condition of
voluntariness, as was declared above (A. 1). But it is not every
ignorance that deprives one of this knowledge. Accordingly, we must
take note that ignorance has a threefold relationship to the act of
the will: in one way, "concomitantly"; in another, "consequently"; in
a third way, "antecedently." "Concomitantly," when there is ignorance
of what is done; but, so that even if it were known, it would be
done. For then, ignorance does not induce one to wish this to be
done, but it just happens that a thing is at the same time done, and
not known: thus in the example given (Obj. 3) a man did indeed wish
to kill his foe, but killed him in ignorance, thinking to kill a
stag. And ignorance of this kind, as the Philosopher states (Ethic.
iii, 1), does not cause involuntariness, since it is not the cause
of anything that is repugnant to the will: but it causes
"non-voluntariness," since that which is unknown cannot be actually
willed. Ignorance is "consequent" to the act of the will, in so far
as ignorance itself is voluntary: and this happens in two ways, in
accordance with the two aforesaid modes of voluntary (A. 3). First,
because the act of the will is brought to bear on the ignorance: as
when a man wishes not to know, that he may have an excuse for sin,
or that he may not be withheld from sin; according to Job 21:14: "We
desire not the knowledge of Thy ways." And this is called "affected
ignorance." Secondly, ignorance is said to be voluntary, when it
regards that which one can and ought to know: for in this sense "not
to act" and "not to will" are said to be voluntary, as stated above
(A. 3). And ignorance of this kind happens, either when one does not
actually consider what one can and ought to consider; this is called
"ignorance of evil choice," and arises from some passion or habit: or
when one does not take the trouble to acquire the knowledge which one
ought to have; in which sense, ignorance of the general principles of
law, which one to know, is voluntary, as being due to negligence.
Accordingly, if in either of these ways, ignorance is voluntary, it
cannot cause involuntariness simply. Nevertheless it causes
involuntariness in a certain respect, inasmuch as it precedes the
movement of the will towards the act, which movement would not be, if
there were knowledge. Ignorance is "antecedent" to the act of the
will, when it is not voluntary, and yet is the cause of man's willing
what he would not will otherwise. Thus a man may be ignorant of some
circumstance of his act, which he was not bound to know, the result
being that he does that which he would not do, if he knew of that
circumstance; for instance, a man, after taking proper precaution,
may not know that someone is coming along the road, so that he shoots
an arrow and slays a passer-by. Such ignorance causes involuntariness
simply.

From this may be gathered the solution of the objections. For the
first objection deals with ignorance of what a man is bound to know.
The second, with ignorance of choice, which is voluntary to a certain
extent, as stated above. The third, with that ignorance which is
concomitant with the act of the will.
________________________

QUESTION 7

OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF HUMAN ACTS
(In Four Articles)

We must now consider the circumstances of human acts: under which head
there are four points of inquiry:

(1) What is a circumstance?

(2) Whether a theologian should take note of the circumstances of
human acts?

(3) How many circumstances are there?

(4) Which are the most important of them?
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 7, Art. 1]

Whether a Circumstance Is an Accident of a Human Act?

Objection 1: It would seem that a circumstance is not an accident of
a human act. For Tully says (De Invent. Rhetor. i) that a
circumstance is that from "which an orator adds authority and
strength to his argument." But oratorical arguments are derived
principally from things pertaining to the essence of a thing, such as
the definition, the genus, the species, and the like, from which also
Tully declares that an orator should draw his arguments. Therefore a
circumstance is not an accident of a human act.

Obj. 2: Further, "to be in" is proper to an accident. But that which
surrounds (_circumstat_) is rather out than in. Therefore the
circumstances are not accidents of human acts.

Obj. 3: Further, an accident has no accident. But human acts
themselves are accidents. Therefore the circumstances are not
accidents of acts.

_On the contrary,_ The particular conditions of any singular thing
are called its individuating accidents. But the Philosopher (Ethic.
iii, 1) calls the circumstances particular things [*_ta kath'
ekasta_], i.e. the particular conditions of each act. Therefore the
circumstances are individual accidents of human acts.

_I answer that,_ Since, according to the Philosopher (Peri Herm. i),
"words are the signs of what we understand," it must needs be that in
naming things we follow the process of intellectual knowledge. Now
our intellectual knowledge proceeds from the better known to the less
known. Accordingly with us, names of more obvious things are
transferred so as to signify things less obvious: and hence it is
that, as stated in _Metaph._ x, 4, "the notion of distance has been
transferred from things that are apart locally, to all kinds of
opposition": and in like manner words that signify local movement are
employed to designate all other movements, because bodies which are
circumscribed by place, are best known to us. And hence it is that
the word "circumstance" has passed from located things to human acts.

Now in things located, that is said to surround something, which is
outside it, but touches it, or is placed near it. Accordingly,
whatever conditions are outside the substance of an act, and yet in
some way touch the human act, are called circumstances. Now what is
outside a thing's substance, while it belongs to that thing, is
called its accident. Wherefore the circumstances of human acts should
be called their accidents.

Reply Obj. 1: The orator gives strength to his argument, in the first
place, from the substance of the act; and secondly, from the
circumstances of the act. Thus a man becomes indictable, first,
through being guilty of murder; secondly, through having done it
fraudulently, or from motives of greed or at a holy time or place,
and so forth. And so in the passage quoted, it is said pointedly that
the orator "adds strength to his argument," as though this were
something secondary.

Reply Obj. 2: A thing is said to be an accident of something in two
ways. First, from being in that thing: thus, whiteness is said to be
an accident of Socrates. Secondly, because it is together with that
thing in the same subject: thus, whiteness is an accident of the art
of music, inasmuch as they meet in the same subject, so as to touch
one another, as it were. And in this sense circumstances are said to
be the accidents of human acts.

Reply Obj. 3: As stated above (ad 2), an accident is said to
be the accident of an accident, from the fact that they meet in the
same subject. But this happens in two ways. First, in so far as two
accidents are both related to the same subject, without any relation
to one another; as whiteness and the art of music in Socrates.
Secondly, when such accidents are related to one another; as when the
subject receives one accident by means of the other; for instance, a
body receives color by means of its surface. And thus also is one
accident said to be in another; for we speak of color as being in the
surface.

Accordingly, circumstances are related to acts in both these ways. For
some circumstances that have a relation to acts, belong to the agent
otherwise than through the act; as place and condition of person;
whereas others belong to the agent by reason of the act, as the manner
in which the act is done.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 7, Art. 2]

Whether Theologians Should Take Note of the Circumstances of Human
Acts?

Objection 1: It would seem that theologians should not take note of
the circumstances of human acts. Because theologians do not consider
human acts otherwise than according to their quality of good or evil.
But it seems that circumstances cannot give quality to human acts; for
a thing is never qualified, formally speaking, by that which is
outside it; but by that which is in it. Therefore theologians should
not take note of the circumstances of acts.

Obj. 2: Further, circumstances are the accidents of acts. But one
thing may be subject to an infinity of accidents; hence the
Philosopher says (Metaph. vi, 2) that "no art or science considers
accidental being, except only the art of sophistry." Therefore the
theologian has not to consider circumstances.

Obj. 3: Further, the consideration of circumstances belongs to the
orator. But oratory is not a part of theology. Therefore it is not
a theologian's business to consider circumstances.

_On the contrary,_ Ignorance of circumstances causes an act to be
involuntary, according to Damascene (De Fide Orth. ii, 24) and
Gregory of Nyssa [*Nemesius, De Nat. Hom. xxxi.]. But involuntariness
excuses from sin, the consideration of which belongs to the
theologian. Therefore circumstances also should be considered by the
theologian.

_I answer that,_ Circumstances come under the consideration of the
theologian, for a threefold reason. First, because the theologian
considers human acts, inasmuch as man is thereby directed to
Happiness. Now, everything that is directed to an end should be
proportionate to that end. But acts are made proportionate to an end
by means of a certain commensurateness, which results from the due
circumstances. Hence the theologian has to consider the
circumstances. Secondly, because the theologian considers human acts
according as they are found to be good or evil, better or worse: and
this diversity depends on circumstances, as we shall see further on
(Q. 18, AA. 10, 11; Q. 73, A. 7). Thirdly, because the theologian
considers human acts under the aspect of merit and demerit, which is
proper to human acts; and for this it is requisite that they be
voluntary. Now a human act is deemed to be voluntary or involuntary,
according to knowledge or ignorance of circumstances, as stated above
(Q. 6, A. 8). Therefore the theologian has to consider circumstances.

Reply Obj. 1: Good directed to the end is said to be useful; and this
implies some kind of relation: wherefore the Philosopher says (Ethic.
i, 6) that "the good in the genus 'relation' is the useful." Now, in
the genus "relation" a thing is denominated not only according to
that which is inherent in the thing, but also according to that which
is extrinsic to it: as may be seen in the expressions "right" and
"left," "equal" and "unequal," and such like. Accordingly, since the
goodness of acts consists in their utility to the end, nothing
hinders their being called good or bad according to their proportion
to extrinsic things that are adjacent to them.

Reply Obj. 2: Accidents which are altogether accidental are neglected
by every art, by reason of their uncertainty and infinity. But such
like accidents are not what we call circumstances; because
circumstances although, as stated above (A. 1), they are extrinsic to
the act, nevertheless are in a kind of contact with it, by being
related to it. Proper accidents, however, come under the
consideration of art.

Reply Obj. 3: The consideration of circumstances belongs to the
moralist, the politician, and the orator. To the moralist, in so far
as with respect to circumstances we find or lose the mean of virtue
in human acts and passions. To the politician and to the orator, in
so far as circumstances make acts to be worthy of praise or blame, of
excuse or indictment. In different ways, however: because where the
orator persuades, the politician judges. To the theologian this
consideration belongs, in all the aforesaid ways: since to him all
the other arts are subservient: for he has to consider virtuous and
vicious acts, just as the moralist does; and with the orator and
politician he considers acts according as they are deserving of
reward or punishment.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 7, Art. 3]

Whether the Circumstances Are Properly Set Forth in the Third Book of
Ethics?

Objection 1: It would seem that the circumstances are not properly
set forth in _Ethic._ iii, 1. For a circumstance of an act is
described as something outside the act. Now time and place answer to
this description. Therefore there are only two circumstances, to wit,
"when" and "where."

Obj. 2: Further, we judge from the circumstances whether a thing is
well or ill done. But this belongs to the mode of an act. Therefore
all the circumstances are included under one, which is the "mode of
acting."

Obj. 3: Further, circumstances are not part of the substance of an
act. But the causes of an act seem to belong to its substance.
Therefore no circumstance should be taken from the cause of the act
itself. Accordingly, neither "who," nor "why," nor "about what," are
circumstances: since "who" refers to the efficient cause, "why" to
the final cause, and "about what" to the material cause.

On the contrary is the authority of the Philosopher in _Ethic._ iii,
1.

_I answer that,_ Tully, in his Rhetoric (De Invent. Rhetor. i), gives
seven circumstances, which are contained in this verse:

"Quis, quid, ubi, quibus auxiliis, cur, quomodo, quando--

"Who, what, where, by what aids, why, how, and when."

For in acts we must take note of "who" did it, "by what aids" or
"instruments" he did it, "what" he did, "where" he did it, "why" he
did it, "how" and "when" he did it. But Aristotle in _Ethic._ iii, 1
adds yet another, to wit, "about what," which Tully includes in the
circumstance "what."

The reason of this enumeration may be set down as follows. For a
circumstance is described as something outside the substance of the
act, and yet in a way touching it. Now this happens in three ways:
first, inasmuch as it touches the act itself; secondly, inasmuch as
it touches the cause of the act; thirdly, inasmuch as it touches the
effect. It touches the act itself, either by way of measure, as
"time" and "place"; or by qualifying the act as the "mode of acting."
It touches the effect when we consider "what" is done. It touches the
cause of the act, as to the final cause, by the circumstance "why";
as to the material cause, or object, in the circumstance "about
what"; as to the principal efficient cause, in the circumstance
"who"; and as to the instrumental efficient cause, in the
circumstance "by what aids."

Reply Obj. 1: Time and place surround (_circumstant_) the act by way of
measure; but the others surround the act by touching it in any other
way, while they are extrinsic to the substance of the act.

Reply Obj. 2: This mode "well" or "ill" is not a circumstance, but
results from all the circumstances. But the mode which refers to a
quality of the act is a special circumstance; for instance, that a
man walk fast or slowly; that he strike hard or gently, and so forth.

Reply Obj. 3: A condition of the cause, on which the substance of the
act depends, is not a circumstance; it must be an additional
condition. Thus, in regard to the object, it is not a circumstance of
theft that the object is another's property, for this belongs to the
substance of the act; but that it be great or small. And the same
applies to the other circumstances which are considered in reference
to the other causes. For the end that specifies the act is not a
circumstance, but some additional end. Thus, that a valiant man act
_valiantly for the sake of_ the good of the virtue o[f] fortitude, is
not a circumstance; but if he act valiantly for the sake of the
delivery of the state, or of Christendom, or some such purpose. The
same is to be said with regard to the circumstance "what"; for that a
man by pouring water on someone should happen to wash him, is not a
circumstance of the washing; but that in doing so he give him a
chill, or scald him; heal him or harm him, these are circumstances.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 7, Art. 4]

Whether the Most Important Circumstances Are "Why" and "In What the
Act Consists"?

Objection 1: It would seem that these are not the most important
circumstances, namely, "why" and those "in which the act is, [*_hen ois
e praxis_]" as stated in _Ethic._ iii, 1. For those in which the act is
seem to be place and time: and these do not seem to be the most
important of the circumstances, since, of them all, they are the most
extrinsic to the act. Therefore those things in which the act is are
not the most important circumstances.

Obj. 2: Further, the end of a thing is extrinsic to it. Therefore it
is not the most important circumstance.

Obj. 3: Further, that which holds the foremost place in regard to
each thing, is its cause and its form. But the cause of an act is the
person that does it; while the form of an act is the manner in which
it is done. Therefore these two circumstances seem to be of the
greatest importance.

_On the contrary,_ Gregory of Nyssa [*Nemesius, De Nat. Hom. xxxi.]
says that "the most important circumstances" are "why it is done" and
"what is done."

_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 1, A. 1), acts are properly
called human, inasmuch as they are voluntary. Now, the motive and
object of the will is the end. Therefore that circumstance is the
most important of all which touches the act on the part of the end,
viz. the circumstance "why": and the second in importance, is that
which touches the very substance of the act, viz. the circumstance
"what he did." As to the other circumstances, they are more or less
important, according as they more or less approach to these.

Reply Obj. 1: By those things "in which the act is" the Philosopher
does not mean time and place, but those circumstances that are
affixed to the act itself. Wherefore Gregory of Nyssa [*Nemesius, De
Nat. Hom. xxxi], as though he were explaining the dictum of the
Philosopher, instead of the latter's term--"in which the act
is"--said, "what is done."

Reply Obj. 2: Although the end is not part of the substance of the
act, yet it is the most important cause of the act, inasmuch as it
moves the agent to act. Wherefore the moral act is specified chiefly
by the end.

Reply Obj. 3: The person that does the act is the cause of
that act, inasmuch as he is moved thereto by the end; and it is
chiefly in this respect that he is directed to the act; while other
conditions of the person have not such an important relation to the
act. As to the mode, it is not the substantial form of the act, for in
an act the substantial form depends on the object and term or end; but
it is, as it were, a certain accidental quality of the act.
________________________

QUESTION 8

OF THE WILL, IN REGARD TO WHAT IT WILLS
(In Three Articles)

We must now consider the different acts of the will; and in the first
place, those acts which belong to the will itself immediately, as
being elicited by the will; secondly, those acts which are commanded
by the will.

Now the will is moved to the end, and to the means to the end; we must
therefore consider: (1) those acts of the will whereby it is moved to
the end; and (2) those whereby it is moved to the means. And since it
seems that there are three acts of the will in reference to the end;
viz. "volition," "enjoyment," and "intention"; we must consider: (1)
volition; (2) enjoyment; (3) intention. Concerning the first, three
things must be considered:

(1) Of what things is the will?

(2) By what is the will moved?

(3) How is it moved?

Under the first head there are three points of inquiry:

(1) Whether the will is of good only?

(2) Whether it is of the end only, or also of the means?

(3) If in any way it be of the means, whether it be moved to the end
and to the means, by the same movement?
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 8, Art. 1]

Whether the Will Is of Good Only?

Objection 1: It would seem that the will is not of good only. For the
same power regards opposites; for instance, sight regards white and
black. But good and evil are opposites. Therefore the will is not only
of good, but also of evil.

Obj. 2: Further, rational powers can be directed to opposite
purposes, according to the Philosopher (Metaph. ix, 2). But the will
is a rational power, since it is "in the reason," as is stated in _De
Anima_ iii, 9. Therefore the will can be directed to opposites; and
consequently its volition is not confined to good, but extends to
evil.

Obj. 3: Further, good and being are convertible. But volition is
directed not only to beings, but also to non-beings. For sometimes we
wish "not to walk," or "not to speak"; and again at times we wish for
future things, which are not actual beings. Therefore the will is not
of good only.

_On the contrary,_ Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv) that "evil is
outside the scope of the will," and that "all things desire good."

_I answer that,_ The will is a rational appetite. Now every appetite
is only of something good. The reason of this is that the appetite is
nothing else than an inclination of a person desirous of a thing
towards that thing. Now every inclination is to something like and
suitable to the thing inclined. Since, therefore, everything,
inasmuch as it is being and substance, is a good, it must needs be
that every inclination is to something good. And hence it is that the
Philosopher says (Ethic. i, 1) that "the good is that which all
desire."

But it must be noted that, since every inclination results from a
form, the natural appetite results from a form existing in the nature
of things: while the sensitive appetite, as also the intellective or
rational appetite, which we call the will, follows from an
apprehended form. Therefore, just as the natural appetite tends to
good existing in a thing; so the animal or voluntary appetite tends
to a good which is apprehended. Consequently, in order that the will
tend to anything, it is requisite, not that this be good in very
truth, but that it be apprehended as good. Wherefore the Philosopher
says (Phys. ii, 3) that "the end is a good, or an apparent good."

Reply Obj. 1: The same power regards opposites, but it is not
referred to them in the same way. Accordingly, the will is referred
both to good and evil: but to good by desiring it: to evil, by
shunning it. Wherefore the actual desire of good is called "volition"
[*In Latin, 'voluntas'. To avoid confusion with "voluntas" (the will)
St. Thomas adds a word of explanation, which in the translation may
appear superfluous.], meaning thereby the act of the will; for it is
in this sense that we are now speaking of the will. On the other
hand, the shunning of evil is better described as "nolition":
wherefore, just as volition is of good, so nolition is of evil.

Reply Obj. 2: A rational power is not to be directed to all opposite
purposes, but to those which are contained under its proper object;
for no power seeks other than its proper object. Now, the object of
the will is good. Wherefore the will can be directed to such opposite
purposes as are contained under good, such as to be moved or to be at
rest, to speak or to be silent, and such like: for the will can be
directed to either under the aspect of good.

Reply Obj. 3: That which is not a being in nature, is considered as a
being in the reason, wherefore negations and privations are said to
be "beings of reason." In this way, too, future things, in so far as
they are apprehended, are beings. Accordingly, in so far as such like
are beings, they are apprehended under the aspect of good; and it is
thus that the will is directed to them. Wherefore the Philosopher
says (Ethic. v, 1) that "to lack evil is considered as a good."
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 8, Art. 2]

Whether Volition Is of the End Only, or Also of the Means?

Objection 1: It would seem that volition is not of the means, but of
the end only. For the Philosopher says (Ethic. iii, 2) that "volition
is of the end, while choice is of the means."

Obj. 2: Further, "For objects differing in genus there are
corresponding different powers of the soul" (Ethic. vi, 1). Now, the
end and the means are in different genera of good: because the end,
which is a good either of rectitude or of pleasure, is in the genus
"quality," or "action," or "passion"; whereas the good which is
useful, and is directed to and end, is in the genus "relation" (Ethic.
i, 6). Therefore, if volition is of the end, it is not of the means.

Obj. 3: Further, habits are proportionate to powers, since they are
perfections thereof. But in those habits which are called practical
arts, the end belongs to one, and the means to another art; thus the
use of a ship, which is its end, belongs to the (art of the)
helmsman; whereas the building of the ship, which is directed to the
end, belongs to the art of the shipwright. Therefore, since volition
is of the end, it is not of the means.

_On the contrary,_ In natural things, it is by the same power that a
thing passes through the middle space, and arrives at the terminus.
But the means are a kind of middle space, through which one arrives
at the end or terminus. Therefore, if volition is of the end, it is
also of the means.

_I answer that,_ The word "voluntas" sometimes designates the power
of the will, sometimes its act [*See note to A. 1, Reply Obj. 1].
Accordingly, if we speak of the will as a power, thus it extends both
to the end and to the means. For every power extends to those things
in which may be considered the aspect of the object of that power in
any way whatever: thus the sight extends to all things whatsoever
that are in any way colored. Now the aspect of good, which is the
object of the power of the will, may be found not only in the end,
but also in the means.

If, however, we speak of the will in regard to its act, then, properly
speaking, volition is of the end only. Because every act denominated
from a power, designates the simple act of that power: thus "to
understand" designates the simple act of the understanding. Now the
simple act of a power is referred to that which is in itself the
object of that power. But that which is good and willed in itself is
the end. Wherefore volition, properly speaking, is of the end itself.
On the other hand, the means are good and willed, not in themselves,
but as referred to the end. Wherefore the will is directed to them,
only in so far as it is directed to the end: so that what it wills in
them, is the end. Thus, to understand, is properly directed to things
that are known in themselves, i.e. first principles: but we do not
speak of understanding with regard to things known through first
principles, except in so far as we see the principles in those things.
For in morals the end is what principles are in speculative science
(Ethic. viii, 8).

Reply Obj. 1: The Philosopher is speaking of the will in reference to
the simple act of the will; not in reference to the power of the will.

Reply Obj. 2: There are different powers for objects that differ in
genus and are on an equality; for instance, sound and color are
different genera of sensibles, to which are referred hearing and
sight. But the useful and the righteous are not on an equality, but
are as that which is of itself, and that which is in relation to
another. Now such like objects are always referred to the same power;
for instance, the power of sight perceives both color and light by
which color is seen.

Reply Obj. 3: Not everything that diversifies habits, diversifies the
powers: since habits are certain determinations of powers to certain
special acts. Moreover, every practical art considers both the end
and the means. For the art of the helmsman does indeed consider the
end, as that which it effects; and the means, as that which it
commands. On the other hand, the ship-building art considers the
means as that which it effects; but it considers that which is the
end, as that to which it refers what it effects. And again, in every
practical art there is an end proper to it and means that belong
properly to that art.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 8, Art. 3]

Whether the Will Is Moved by the Same Act to the End and to the Means?

Objection 1: It would seem that the will is moved by the same act, to
the end and to the means. Because according to the Philosopher (Topic.
iii, 2) "where one thing is on account of another there is only one."
But the will does not will the means save on account of the end.
Therefore it is moved to both by the same act.

Obj. 2: Further, the end is the reason for willing the means, just as
light is the reason of seeing colors. But light and colors are seen
by the same act. Therefore it is the same movement of the will,
whereby it wills the end and the means.

Obj. 3: Further, it is one and the same natural movement which tends
through the middle space to the terminus. But the means are in
comparison to the end, as the middle space is to the terminus.
Therefore it is the same movement of the will whereby it is directed
to the end and to the means.

_On the contrary,_ Acts are diversified according to their objects.
But the end is a different species of good from the means, which are
a useful good. Therefore the will is not moved to both by the same
act.

_I answer that,_ Since the end is willed in itself, whereas the
means, as such, are only willed for the end, it is evident that the
will can be moved to the end, without being moved to the means;
whereas it cannot be moved to the means, as such, unless it is moved
to the end. Accordingly the will is moved to the end in two ways:
first, to the end absolutely and in itself; secondly, as the reason
for willing the means. Hence it is evident that the will is moved by
one and the same movement, to the end, as the reason for willing the
means; and to the means themselves. But it is another act whereby the
will is moved to the end absolutely. And sometimes this act precedes
the other in time; for example when a man first wills to have health,
and afterwards deliberating by what means to be healed, wills to send
for the doctor to heal him. The same happens in regard to the
intellect: for at first a man understands the principles in
themselves; but afterwards he understands them in the conclusions,
inasmuch as he assents to the conclusions on account of the
principles.

Reply Obj. 1: This argument holds in respect of the will being moved
to the end as the reason for willing the means.

Reply Obj. 2: Whenever color is seen, by the same act the light is
seen; but the light can be seen without the color being seen. In like
manner whenever a man wills the means, by the same act he wills the
end; but not the conversely.

Reply Obj. 3: In the execution of a work, the means are as the middle
space, and the end, as the terminus. Wherefore just as natural
movement sometimes stops in the middle and does not reach the
terminus; so sometimes one is busy with the means, without gaining
the end. But in willing it is the reverse: the will through (willing)
the end comes to will the means; just as the intellect arrives at the
conclusions through the principles which are called "means." Hence it
is that sometimes the intellect understands a mean, and does not
proceed thence to the conclusion. And in like manner the will
sometimes wills the end, and yet does not proceed to will the means.

The solution to the argument in the contrary sense is clear from what
has been said above (A. 2, ad 2). For the useful and the righteous
are not species of good in an equal degree, but are as that which is
for its own sake and that which is for the sake of something else:
wherefore the act of the will can be directed to one and not to the
other; but not conversely.
________________________

QUESTION 9

OF THAT WHICH MOVES THE WILL
(In Six Articles)

We must now consider what moves the will: and under this head there
are six points of inquiry:

(1) Whether the will is moved by the intellect?

(2) Whether it is moved by the sensitive appetite?

(3) Whether the will moves itself?

(4) Whether it is moved by an extrinsic principle?

(5) Whether it is moved by a heavenly body?

(6) Whether the will is moved by God alone as by an extrinsic
principle?
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 9, Art. 1]

Whether the Will Is Moved by the Intellect?

Objection 1: It would seem that the will is not moved by the
intellect. For Augustine says on Ps. 118:20: "My soul hath coveted to
long for Thy justifications: The intellect flies ahead, the desire
follows sluggishly or not at all: we know what is good, but deeds
delight us not." But it would not be so, if the will were moved by
the intellect: because movement of the movable results from motion of
the mover. Therefore the intellect does not move the will.

Obj. 2: Further, the intellect in presenting the appetible object to
the will, stands in relation to the will, as the imagination in
representing the appetible object to the sensitive appetite. But the
imagination, in presenting the appetible object, does not remove the
sensitive appetite: indeed sometimes our imagination affects us no
more than what is set before us in a picture, and moves us not at all
(De Anima ii, 3). Therefore neither does the intellect move the will.

Obj. 3: Further, the same is not mover and moved in respect of the
same thing. But the will moves the intellect; for we exercise the
intellect when we will. Therefore the intellect does not move the
will.

_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher says (De Anima iii, 10) that "the
appetible object is a mover not moved, whereas the will is a mover
moved."

_I answer that,_ A thing requires to be moved by something in so far
as it is in potentiality to several things; for that which is in
potentiality needs to be reduced to act by something actual; and to
do this is to move. Now a power of the soul is seen to be in
potentiality to different things in two ways: first, with regard to
acting and not acting; secondly, with regard to this or that action.
Thus the sight sometimes sees actually, and sometimes sees not: and
sometimes it sees white, and sometimes black. It needs therefore a
mover in two respects, viz. as to the exercise or use of the act, and
as to the determination of the act. The first of these is on the part
of the subject, which is sometimes acting, sometimes not acting:
while the other is on the part of the object, by reason of which the
act is specified.

The motion of the subject itself is due to some agent. And since
every agent acts for an end, as was shown above (Q. 1, A. 2), the
principle of this motion lies in the end. And hence it is that the
art which is concerned with the end, by its command moves the art
which is concerned with the means; just as the "art of sailing
commands the art of shipbuilding" (Phys. ii, 2). Now good in general,
which has the nature of an end, is the object of the will.
Consequently, in this respect, the will moves the other powers of the
soul to their acts, for we make use of the other powers when we will.
For the end and perfection of every other power, is included under
the object of the will as some particular good: and always the art or
power to which the universal end belongs, moves to their acts the
arts or powers to which belong the particular ends included in the
universal end. Thus the leader of an army, who intends the common
good--i.e. the order of the whole army--by his command moves one of
the captains, who intends the order of one company.

On the other hand, the object moves, by determining the act, after
the manner of a formal principle, whereby in natural things actions
are specified, as heating by heat. Now the first formal principle is
universal "being" and "truth," which is the object of the intellect.
And therefore by this kind of motion the intellect moves the will, as
presenting its object to it.

Reply Obj. 1: The passage quoted proves, not that the intellect does
not move, but that it does not move of necessity.

Reply Obj. 2: Just as the imagination of a form without estimation of
fitness or harmfulness, does not move the sensitive appetite; so
neither does the apprehension of the true without the aspect of
goodness and desirability. Hence it is not the speculative intellect
that moves, but the practical intellect (De Anima iii, 9).

Reply Obj. 3: The will moves the intellect as to the exercise of its
act; since even the true itself which is the perfection of the
intellect, is included in the universal good, as a particular good.
But as to the determination of the act, which the act derives from
the object, the intellect moves the will; since the good itself is
apprehended under a special aspect as contained in the universal
true. It is therefore evident that the same is not mover and moved in
the same respect.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 9, Art. 2]

Whether the Will Is Moved by the Sensitive Appetite?

Objection 1: It would seem that the will cannot be moved by the
sensitive appetite. For "to move and to act is more excellent than to
be passive," as Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. xii, 16). But the
sensitive appetite is less excellent than the will which is the
intellectual appetite; just as sense is less excellent than intellect.
Therefore the sensitive appetite does not move the will.

Obj. 2: Further, no particular power can produce a universal effect.
But the sensitive appetite is a particular power, because it follows
the particular apprehension of sense. Therefore it cannot cause the
movement of the will, which movement is universal, as following the
universal apprehension of the intellect.

Obj. 3: Further, as is proved in _Phys._  viii, 5, the mover is not
moved by that which it moves, in such a way that there be reciprocal
motion. But the will moves the sensitive appetite, inasmuch as the
sensitive appetite obeys the reason. Therefore the sensitive appetite
does not move the will.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (James 1:14): "Every man is tempted
by his own concupiscence, being drawn away and allured." But man
would not be drawn away by his concupiscence, unless his will were
moved by the sensitive appetite, wherein concupiscence resides.
Therefore the sensitive appetite moves the will.

_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1), that which is apprehended as
good and fitting, moves the will by way of object. Now, that a thing
appear to be good and fitting, happens from two causes: namely, from
the condition, either of the thing proposed, or of the one to whom it
is proposed. For fitness is spoken of by way of relation; hence it
depends on both extremes. And hence it is that taste, according as it
is variously disposed, takes to a thing in various ways, as being
fitting or unfitting. Wherefore as the Philosopher says (Ethic. iii,
5): "According as a man is, such does the end seem to him."

Now it is evident that according to a passion of the sensitive
appetite man is changed to a certain disposition. Wherefore according
as man is affected by a passion, something seems to him fitting,
which does not seem so when he is not so affected: thus that seems
good to a man when angered, which does not seem good when he is calm.
And in this way, the sensitive appetite moves the will, on the part
of the object.

Reply Obj. 1: Nothing hinders that which is better simply and in
itself, from being less excellent in a certain respect. Accordingly
the will is simply more excellent than the sensitive appetite: but in
respect of the man in whom a passion is predominant, in so far as he
is subject to that passion, the sensitive appetite is more excellent.

Reply Obj. 2: Men's acts and choices are in reference to singulars.
Wherefore from the very fact that the sensitive appetite is a
particular power, it has great influence in disposing man so that
something seems to him such or otherwise, in particular cases.

Reply Obj. 3: As the Philosopher says (Polit. i, 2), the reason, in
which resides the will, moves, by its command, the irascible and
concupiscible powers, not, indeed, "by a despotic sovereignty," as a
slave is moved by his master, but by a "royal and politic
sovereignty," as free men are ruled by their governor, and can
nevertheless act counter to his commands. Hence both irascible and
concupiscible can move counter to the will: and accordingly nothing
hinders the will from being moved by them at times.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 9, Art. 3]

Whether the Will Moves Itself?

Objection 1: It would seem that the will does not move itself. For
every mover, as such, is in act: whereas what is moved, is in
potentiality; since "movement is the act of that which is in
potentiality, as such" [*Aristotle, _Phys._ iii, 1]. Now the same is
not in potentiality and in act, in respect of the same. Therefore
nothing moves itself. Neither, therefore, can the will move itself.

Obj. 2: Further, the movable is moved on the mover being present. But
the will is always present to itself. If, therefore, it moved itself,
it would always be moving itself, which is clearly false.

Obj. 3: Further, the will is moved by the intellect, as stated above
(A. 1). If, therefore, the will move itself, it would follow that the
same thing is at once moved immediately by two movers; which seems
unreasonable. Therefore the will does not move itself.

_On the contrary,_ The will is mistress of its own act, and to it
belongs to will and not to will. But this would not be so, had it not
the power to move itself to will. Therefore it moves itself.

_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1), it belongs to the will to
move the other powers, by reason of the end which is the will's
object. Now, as stated above (Q. 8, A. 2), the end is in things
appetible, what the principle is in things intelligible. But it is
evident that the intellect, through its knowledge of the principle,
reduces itself from potentiality to act, as to its knowledge of the
conclusions; and thus it moves itself. And, in like manner, the will,
through its volition of the end, moves itself to will the means.

Reply Obj. 1: It is not in respect of the same that the will moves
itself and is moved: wherefore neither is it in act and in
potentiality in respect of the same. But forasmuch as it actually
wills the end, it reduces itself from potentiality to act, in respect
of the means, so as, in a word, to will them actually.

Reply Obj. 2: The power of the will is always actually present to
itself; but the act of the will, whereby it wills an end, is not
always in the will. But it is by this act that it moves itself.
Accordingly it does not follow that it is always moving itself.

Reply Obj. 3: The will is moved by the intellect, otherwise than by
itself. By the intellect it is moved on the part of the object:
whereas it is moved by itself, as to the exercise of its act, in
respect of the end.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 9, Art. 4]

Whether the Will Is Moved by an Exterior Principle?

Objection 1: It would seem that the will is not moved by anything
exterior. For the movement of the will is voluntary. But it is
essential to the voluntary act that it be from an intrinsic principle,
just as it is essential to the natural act. Therefore the movement of
the will is not from anything exterior.

Obj. 2: Further, the will cannot suffer violence, as was shown above
(Q. 6, A. 4). But the violent act is one "the principle of which is
outside the agent" [*Aristotle, _Ethic._ iii, 1]. Therefore the will
cannot be moved by anything exterior.

Obj. 3: Further, that which is sufficiently moved by one mover, needs
not to be moved by another. But the will moves itself sufficiently.
Therefore it is not moved by anything exterior.

_On the contrary,_ The will is moved by the object, as stated above
(A. 1). But the object of the will can be something exterior, offered
to the sense. Therefore the will can be moved by something exterior.

_I answer that,_ As far as the will is moved by the object, it is
evident that it can be moved by something exterior. But in so far as
it is moved in the exercise of its act, we must again hold it to be
moved by some exterior principle.

For everything that is at one time an agent actually, and at another
time an agent in potentiality, needs to be moved by a mover. Now it
is evident that the will begins to will something, whereas previously
it did not will it. Therefore it must, of necessity, be moved by
something to will it. And, indeed, it moves itself, as stated above
(A. 3), in so far as through willing the end it reduces itself to the
act of willing the means. Now it cannot do this without the aid of
counsel: for when a man wills to be healed, he begins to reflect how
this can be attained, and through this reflection he comes to the
conclusion that he can be healed by a physician: and this he wills.
But since he did not always actually will to have health, he must, of
necessity, have begun, through something moving him, to will to be
healed. And if the will moved itself to will this, it must, of
necessity, have done this with the aid of counsel following some
previous volition. But this process could not go on to infinity.
Wherefore we must, of necessity, suppose that the will advanced to
its first movement in virtue of the instigation of some exterior
mover, as Aristotle concludes in a chapter of the Eudemian Ethics
(vii, 14).

Reply Obj. 1: It is essential to the voluntary act that its principle
be within the agent: but it is not necessary that this inward
principle be the first principle unmoved by another. Wherefore though
the voluntary act has an inward proximate principle, nevertheless its
first principle is from without. Thus, too, the first principle of
the natural movement is from without, that, to wit, which moves
nature.

Reply Obj. 2: For an act to be violent it is not enough that its
principle be extrinsic, but we must add "without the concurrence of
him that suffers violence." This does not happen when the will is
moved by an exterior principle: for it is the will that wills, though
moved by another. But this movement would be violent, if it were
counter to the movement of the will: which in the present case is
impossible; since then the will would will and not will the same
thing.

Reply Obj. 3: The will moves itself sufficiently in one respect, and
in its own order, that is to say as proximate agent; but it cannot
move itself in every respect, as we have shown. Wherefore it needs to
be moved by another as first mover.
________________________

FIFTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 9, Art. 5]

Whether the Will Is Moved by a Heavenly Body?

Objection 1: It would seem that the human will is moved by a heavenly
body. For all various and multiform movements are reduced, as to
their cause, to a uniform movement which is that of the heavens, as
is proved in _Phys._  viii, 9. But human movements are various and
multiform, since they begin to be, whereas previously they were not.
Therefore they are reduced, as to their cause, to the movement of the
heavens, which is uniform according to its nature.

Obj. 2: Further, according to Augustine (De Trin. iii, 4) "the lower
bodies are moved by the higher." But the movements of the human body,
which are caused by the will, could not be reduced to the movement of
the heavens, as to their cause, unless the will too were moved by the
heavens. Therefore the heavens move the human will.

Obj. 3: Further, by observing the heavenly bodies astrologers
foretell the truth about future human acts, which are caused by the
will. But this would not be so, if the heavenly bodies could not move
man's will. Therefore the human will is moved by a heavenly body.

_On the contrary,_ Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii, 7) that "the
heavenly bodies are not the causes of our acts." But they would be,
if the will, which is the principle of human acts, were moved by the
heavenly bodies. Therefore the will is not moved by the heavenly
bodies.

_I answer that,_ It is evident that the will can be moved by the
heavenly bodies in the same way as it is moved by its object; that is
to say, in so far as exterior bodies, which move the will, through
being offered to the senses, and also the organs themselves of the
sensitive powers, are subject to the movements of the heavenly bodies.

But some have maintained that heavenly bodies have an influence on the
human will, in the same way as some exterior agent moves the will, as
to the exercise of its act. But this is impossible. For the "will," as
stated in _De Anima_ iii, 9, "is in the reason." Now the reason is a
power of the soul, not bound to a bodily organ: wherefore it follows
that the will is a power absolutely incorporeal and immaterial. But it
is evident that no body can act on what is incorporeal, but rather the
reverse: because things incorporeal and immaterial have a power more
formal and more universal than any corporeal things whatever.
Therefore it is impossible for a heavenly body to act directly on the
intellect or will. For this reason Aristotle (De Anima iii, 3)
ascribed to those who held that intellect differs not from sense, the
theory that "such is the will of men, as is the day which the father
of men and of gods bring on" [*Odyssey xviii. 135] (referring to
Jupiter, by whom they understand the entire heavens). For all the
sensitive powers, since they are acts of bodily organs, can be moved
accidentally, by the heavenly bodies, i.e. through those bodies being
moved, whose acts they are.

But since it has been stated (A. 2) that the intellectual appetite is
moved, in a fashion, by the sensitive appetite, the movements of the
heavenly bodies have an indirect bearing on the will; in so far as
the will happens to be moved by the passions of the sensitive
appetite.

Reply Obj. 1: The multiform movements of the human will are reduced
to some uniform cause, which, however, is above the intellect and
will. This can be said, not of any body, but of some superior
immaterial substance. Therefore there is no need for the movement of
the will to be referred to the movement of the heavens, as to its
cause.

Reply Obj. 2: The movements of the human body are reduced, as to
their cause, to the movement of a heavenly body, in so far as the
disposition suitable to a particular movement, is somewhat due to the
influence of heavenly bodies; also, in so far as the sensitive
appetite is stirred by the influence of heavenly bodies; and again,
in so far as exterior bodies are moved in accordance with the
movement of heavenly bodies, at whose presence, the will begins to
will or not to will something; for instance, when the body is
chilled, we begin to wish to make the fire. But this movement of the
will is on the part of the object offered from without: not on the
part of an inward instigation.

Reply Obj. 3: As stated above (Cf. I, Q. 84, AA. 6, 7), the sensitive
appetite is the act of a bodily organ. Wherefore there is no reason
why man should not be prone to anger or concupiscence, or some like
passion, by reason of the influence of heavenly bodies, just as by
reason of his natural complexion. But the majority of men are led by
the passions, which the wise alone resist. Consequently, in the
majority of cases predictions about human acts, gathered from the
observation of heavenly bodies, are fulfilled. Nevertheless, as
Ptolemy says (Centiloquium v), "the wise man governs the stars";
which is a though to say that by resisting his passions, he opposes
his will, which is free and nowise subject to the movement of the
heavens, to such like effects of the heavenly bodies.

Or, as Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. ii, 15): "We must confess that
when the truth is foretold by astrologers, this is due to some most
hidden inspiration, to which the human mind is subject without
knowing it. And since this is done in order to deceive man, it must
be the work of the lying spirits."
________________________

SIXTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 9, Art. 6]

Whether the Will Is Moved by God Alone, As Exterior Principle?

Objection 1: It would seem that the will is not moved by God alone as
exterior principle. For it is natural that the inferior be moved by
its superior: thus the lower bodies are moved by the heavenly bodies.
But there is something which is higher than the will of man and below
God, namely, the angel. Therefore man's will can be moved by an angel
also, as exterior principle.

Obj. 2: Further, the act of the will follows the act of the
intellect. But man's intellect is reduced to act, not by God alone,
but also by the angel who enlightens it, as Dionysius says (Coel.
Hier. iv). For the same reason, therefore, the will also is moved by
an angel.

Obj. 3: Further, God is not the cause of other than good things,
according to Gen. 1:31: "God saw all the things that He had made, and
they were very good." If, therefore man's will were moved by God
alone, it would never be moved to evil: and yet it is the will whereby
"we sin and whereby we do right," as Augustine says (Retract. i, 9).

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Phil. 2:13): "It is God Who worketh
in us" [Vulg.'you'] "both to will and to accomplish."

_I answer that,_ The movement of the will is from within, as also is
the movement of nature. Now although it is possible for something to
move a natural thing, without being the cause of the thing moved, yet
that alone, which is in some way the cause of a thing's nature, can
cause a natural movement in that thing. For a stone is moved upwards
by a man, who is not the cause of the stone's nature, but this
movement is not natural to the stone; but the natural movement of the
stone is caused by no other than the cause of its nature. Wherefore
it is said in _Phys._  vii, 4, that the generator moves locally heavy
and light things. Accordingly man endowed with a will is sometimes
moved by something that is not his cause; but that his voluntary
movement be from an exterior principle that is not the cause of his
will, is impossible.

Now the cause of the will can be none other than God. And this is
evident for two reasons. First, because the will is a power of the
rational soul, which is caused by God alone, by creation, as was
stated in the First Part (Q. 90, A. 2). Secondly, it is evident from
the fact that the will is ordained to the universal good. Wherefore
nothing else can be the cause of the will, except God Himself, Who is
the universal good: while every other good is good by participation,
and is some particular good, and a particular cause does not give a
universal inclination. Hence neither can primary matter, which is
potentiality to all forms, be created by some particular agent.

Reply Obj. 1: An angel is not above man in such a way as to be the
cause of his will, as the heavenly bodies are the causes of natural
forms, from which result the natural movements of natural bodies.

Reply Obj. 2: Man's intellect is moved by an angel, on the part of
the object, which by the power of the angelic light is proposed to
man's knowledge. And in this way the will also can be moved by a
creature from without, as stated above (A. 4).

Reply Obj. 3: God moves man's will, as the Universal Mover, to the
universal object of the will, which is good. And without this
universal motion, man cannot will anything. But man determines
himself by his reason to will this or that, which is true or apparent
good. Nevertheless, sometimes God moves some specially to the willing
of something determinate, which is good; as in the case of those whom
He moves by grace, as we shall state later on (Q. 109, A. 2).
________________________

QUESTION 10

OF THE MANNER IN WHICH THE WILL IS MOVED
(In Four Articles)

We must now consider the manner in which the will is moved. Under
this head there are four points of inquiry:

(1) Whether the will is moved to anything naturally?

(2) Whether it is moved of necessity by its object?

(3) Whether it is moved of necessity by the lower appetite?

(4) Whether it is moved of necessity by the exterior mover which is
God?
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 10, Art. 1]

Whether the Will Is Moved to Anything Naturally?

Objection 1: It would seem that the will is not moved to anything
naturally. For the natural agent is condivided with the voluntary
agent, as stated at the beginning of _Phys._ ii, 1. Therefore the will
is not moved to anything naturally.

Obj. 2: Further, that which is natural is in a thing always: as
"being hot" is in fire. But no movement is always in the will.
Therefore no movement is natural to the will.

Obj. 3: Further, nature is determinate to one thing: whereas the will
is referred to opposites. Therefore the will wills nothing naturally.

_On the contrary,_ The movement of the will follows the movement of
the intellect. But the intellect understands some things naturally.
Therefore the will, too, wills some things naturally.

_I answer that,_ As Boethius says (De Duabus Nat.) and the
Philosopher also (Metaph. v, 4) the word "nature" is used in a
manifold sense. For sometimes it stands for the intrinsic principle
in movable things. In this sense nature is either matter or the
material form, as stated in _Phys._  ii, 1. In another sense nature
stands for any substance, or even for any being. And in this sense,
that is said to be natural to a thing which befits it in respect of
its substance. And this is that which of itself is in a thing. Now
all things that do not of themselves belong to the thing in which
they are, are reduced to something which belongs of itself to that
thing, as to their principle. Wherefore, taking nature in this sense,
it is necessary that the principle of whatever belongs to a thing, be
a natural principle. This is evident in regard to the intellect: for
the principles of intellectual knowledge are naturally known. In like
manner the principle of voluntary movements must be something
naturally willed.

Now this is good in general, to which the will tends naturally, as
does each power to its object; and again it is the last end, which
stands in the same relation to things appetible, as the first
principles of demonstrations to things intelligible: and, speaking
generally, it is all those things which belong to the willer
according to his nature. For it is not only things pertaining to the
will that the will desires, but also that which pertains to each
power, and to the entire man. Wherefore man wills naturally not only
the object of the will, but also other things that are appropriate to
the other powers; such as the knowledge of truth, which befits the
intellect; and to be and to live and other like things which regard
the natural well-being; all of which are included in the object of
the will, as so many particular goods.

Reply Obj. 1: The will is distinguished from nature as one kind of
cause from another; for some things happen naturally and some are
done voluntarily. There is, however, another manner of causing that
is proper to the will, which is mistress of its act, besides the
manner proper to nature, which is determinate to one thing. But since
the will is founded on some nature, it is necessary that the movement
proper to nature be shared by the will, to some extent: just as what
belongs to a previous cause is shared by a subsequent cause. Because
in every thing, being itself, which is from nature, precedes
volition, which is from the will. And hence it is that the will wills
something naturally.

Reply Obj. 2: In the case of natural things, that which is natural,
as a result of the form only, is always in them actually, as heat is
in fire. But that which is natural as a result of matter, is not
always in them actually, but sometimes only in potentiality: because
form is act, whereas matter is potentiality. Now movement is "the act
of that which is in potentiality" (Aristotle, _Phys._ iii, 1).
Wherefore that which belongs to, or results from, movement, in regard
to natural things, is not always in them. Thus fire does not always
move upwards, but only when it is outside its own place. [*The
Aristotelian theory was that fire's proper place is the fiery heaven,
i.e. the Empyrean.] And in like manner it is not necessary that the
will (which is reduced from potentiality to act, when it wills
something), should always be in the act of volition; but only when it
is in a certain determinate disposition. But God's will, which is
pure act, is always in the act of volition.

Reply Obj. 3: To every nature there is one thing corresponding,
proportionate, however, to that nature. For to nature considered as a
genus, there corresponds something one generically; and to nature as
species there corresponds something one specifically; and to the
individualized nature there corresponds some one individual. Since,
therefore, the will is an immaterial power like the intellect, some
one general thing corresponds to it, naturally which is the good;
just as to the intellect there corresponds some one general thing,
which is the true, or being, or "what a thing is." And under good in
general are included many particular goods, to none of which is the
will determined.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 10, Art. 2]

Whether the Will Is Moved, of Necessity, by Its Object?

Objection 1: It seems that the will is moved, of necessity, by its
object. For the object of the will is compared to the will as mover
to movable, as stated in _De Anima_ iii, 10. But a mover, if it be
sufficient, moves the movable of necessity. Therefore the will can be
moved of necessity by its object.

Obj. 2: Further, just as the will is an immaterial power, so is the
intellect: and both powers are ordained to a universal object, as
stated above (A. 1, ad 3). But the intellect is moved, of necessity,
by its object: therefore the will also, by its object.

Obj. 3: Further, whatever one wills, is either the end, or something
ordained to an end. But, seemingly, one wills an end necessarily:
because it is like the principle in speculative matters, to which
principle one assents of necessity. Now the end is the reason for
willing the means; and so it seems that we will the means also
necessarily. Therefore the will is moved of necessity by its object.

_On the contrary,_ The rational powers, according to the Philosopher
(Metaph. ix, 2) are directed to opposites. But the will is a rational
power, since it is in the reason, as stated in _De Anima_ iii, 9.
Therefore the will is directed to opposites. Therefore it is not
moved, of necessity, to either of the opposites.

_I answer that,_ The will is moved in two ways: first, as to the
exercise of its act; secondly, as to the specification of its act,
derived from the object. As to the first way, no object moves the
will necessarily, for no matter what the object be, it is in man's
power not to think of it, and consequently not to will it actually.
But as to the second manner of motion, the will is moved by one
object necessarily, by another not. For in the movement of a power by
its object, we must consider under what aspect the object moves the
power. For the visible moves the sight, under the aspect of color
actually visible. Wherefore if color be offered to the sight, it
moves the sight necessarily: unless one turns one's eyes away; which
belongs to the exercise of the act. But if the sight were confronted
with something not in all respects colored actually, but only so in
some respects, and in other respects not, the sight would not of
necessity see such an object: for it might look at that part of the
object which is not actually colored, and thus it would not see it.
Now just as the actually colored is the object of sight, so is good
the object of the will. Wherefore if the will be offered an object
which is good universally and from every point of view, the will
tends to it of necessity, if it wills anything at all; since it
cannot will the opposite. If, on the other hand, the will is offered
an object that is not good from every point of view, it will not tend
to it of necessity. And since lack of any good whatever, is a
non-good, consequently, that good alone which is perfect and lacking
in nothing, is such a good that the will cannot not-will it: and this
is Happiness. Whereas any other particular goods, in so far as they
are lacking in some good, can be regarded as non-goods: and from this
point of view, they can be set aside or approved by the will, which
can tend to one and the same thing from various points of view.

Reply Obj. 1: The sufficient mover of a power is none but that object
that in every respect presents the aspect of the mover of that power.
If, on the other hand, it is lacking in any respect, it will not move
of necessity, as stated above.

Reply Obj. 2: The intellect is moved, of necessity, by an object
which is such as to be always and necessarily true: but not by that
which may be either true or false--viz. by that which is contingent:
as we have said of the good.

Reply Obj. 3: The last end moves the will necessarily, because it is
the perfect good. In like manner whatever is ordained to that end,
and without which the end cannot be attained, such as "to be" and "to
live," and the like. But other things without which the end can be
gained, are not necessarily willed by one who wills the end: just as
he who assents to the principle, does not necessarily assent to the
conclusions, without which the principles can still be true.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 10, Art. 3]

Whether the Will Is Moved, of Necessity, by the Lower Appetite?

Objection 1: It would seem that the will is moved of necessity by a
passion of the lower appetite. For the Apostle says (Rom. 7:19): "The
good which I will I do not; but the evil which I will not, that I do":
and this is said by reason of concupiscence, which is a passion.
Therefore the will is moved of necessity by a passion.

Obj. 2: Further, as stated in _Ethic._ iii, 5, "according as a man is,
such does the end seem to him." But it is not in man's power to cast
aside a passion at once. Therefore it is not in man's power not to
will that to which the passion inclines him.

Obj. 3: Further, a universal cause is not applied to a particular
effect, except by means of a particular cause: wherefore the
universal reason does not move save by means of a particular
estimation, as stated in _De Anima_ iii, 11. But as the universal
reason is to the particular estimation, so is the will to the
sensitive appetite. Therefore the will is not moved to will something
particular, except through the sensitive appetite. Therefore, if the
sensitive appetite happen to be disposed to something, by reason of a
passion, the will cannot be moved in a contrary sense.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Gen. 4:7): "Thy lust [Vulg. 'The
lust thereof'] shall be under thee, and thou shalt have dominion over
it." Therefore man's will is not moved of necessity by the lower
appetite.

_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 9, A. 2), the passion of the
sensitive appetite moves the will, in so far as the will is moved by
its object: inasmuch as, to wit, man through being disposed in such
and such a way by a passion, judges something to be fitting and good,
which he would not judge thus were it not for the passion. Now this
influence of a passion on man occurs in two ways. First, so that his
reason is wholly bound, so that he has not the use of reason: as
happens in those who through a violent access of anger or
concupiscence become furious or insane, just as they may from some
other bodily disorder; since such like passions do not take place
without some change in the body. And of such the same is to be said
as of irrational animals, which follow, of necessity, the impulse of
their passions: for in them there is neither movement of reason, nor,
consequently, of will.

Sometimes, however, the reason is not entirely engrossed by the
passion, so that the judgment of reason retains, to a certain extent,
its freedom: and thus the movement of the will remains in a certain
degree. Accordingly in so far as the reason remains free, and not
subject to the passion, the will's movement, which also remains, does
not tend of necessity to that whereto the passion inclines it.
Consequently, either there is no movement of the will in that man,
and the passion alone holds its sway: or if there be a movement of
the will, it does not necessarily follow the passion.

Reply Obj. 1: Although the will cannot prevent the movement of
concupiscence from arising, of which the Apostle says: "The evil
which I will not, that I do--i.e. I desire"; yet it is in the power
of the will not to will to desire or not to consent to concupiscence.
And thus it does not necessarily follow the movement of concupiscence.

Reply Obj. 2: Since there is in man a twofold nature, intellectual
and sensitive; sometimes man is such and such uniformly in respect of
his whole soul: either because the sensitive part is wholly subject
to his reason, as in the virtuous; or because reason is entirely
engrossed by passion, as in a madman. But sometimes, although reason
is clouded by passion, yet something of this reason remains free. And
in respect of this, man can either repel the passion entirely, or at
least hold himself in check so as not to be led away by the passion.
For when thus disposed, since man is variously disposed according to
the various parts of the soul, a thing appears to him otherwise
according to his reason, than it does according to a passion.

Reply Obj. 3: The will is moved not only by the universal good
apprehended by the reason, but also by good apprehended by sense.
Wherefore he can be moved to some particular good independently of a
passion of the sensitive appetite. For we will and do many things
without passion, and through choice alone; as is most evident in
those cases wherein reason resists passion.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 10, Art. 4]

Whether the Will Is Moved of Necessity by the Exterior Mover Which Is
God?

Objection 1: It would seem that the will is moved of necessity by
God. For every agent that cannot be resisted moves of necessity. But
God cannot be resisted, because His power is infinite; wherefore it
is written (Rom. 9:19): "Who resisteth His will?" Therefore God moves
the will of necessity.

Obj. 2: Further, the will is moved of necessity to whatever it wills
naturally, as stated above (A. 2, ad 3). But "whatever God does in a
thing is natural to it," as Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxvi, 3).
Therefore the will wills of necessity everything to which God moves
it.

Obj. 3: Further, a thing is possible, if nothing impossible follows
from its being supposed. But something impossible follows from the
supposition that the will does not will that to which God moves it:
because in that case God's operation would be ineffectual. Therefore
it is not possible for the will not to will that to which God moves
it. Therefore it wills it of necessity.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Ecclus. 15:14): "God made man from
the beginning, and left him in the hand of his own counsel."
Therefore He does not of necessity move man's will.

_I answer that,_ As Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv) "it belongs to
Divine providence, not to destroy but to preserve the nature of
things." Wherefore it moves all things in accordance with their
conditions; so that from necessary causes through the Divine motion,
effects follow of necessity; but from contingent causes, effects
follow contingently. Since, therefore, the will is an active
principle, not determinate to one thing, but having an indifferent
relation to many things, God so moves it, that He does not determine
it of necessity to one thing, but its movement remains contingent and
not necessary, except in those things to which it is moved naturally.

Reply Obj. 1: The Divine will extends not only to the doing of
something by the thing which He moves, but also to its being done in
a way which is fitting to the nature of that thing. And therefore it
would be more repugnant to the Divine motion, for the will to be
moved of necessity, which is not fitting to its nature; than for it
to be moved freely, which is becoming to its nature.

Reply Obj. 2: That is natural to a thing, which God so works in it
that it may be natural to it: for thus is something becoming to a
thing, according as God wishes it to be becoming. Now He does not
wish that whatever He works in things should be natural to them, for
instance, that the dead should rise again. But this He does wish to
be natural to each thing--that it be subject to the Divine power.

Reply Obj. 3: If God moves the will to anything, it is incompatible
with this supposition, that the will be not moved thereto. But it is
not impossible simply. Consequently it does not follow that the will
is moved by God necessarily.
________________________

QUESTION 11

OF ENJOYMENT [*Or, Fruition], WHICH IS AN ACT OF THE WILL
(In Four Articles)

We must now consider enjoyment: concerning which there are four
points of inquiry:

(1) Whether to enjoy is an act of the appetitive power?

(2) Whether it belongs to the rational creature alone, or also to
irrational animals?

(3) Whether enjoyment is only of the last end?

(4) Whether it is only of the end possessed?
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 11, Art. 1]

Whether to Enjoy Is an Act of the Appetitive Power?

Objection 1: It would seem that to enjoy belongs not only to the
appetitive power. For to enjoy seems nothing else than to receive the
fruit. But it is the intellect, in whose act Happiness consists, as
shown above (Q. 3, A. 4), that receives the fruit of human life,
which is Happiness. Therefore to enjoy is not an act of the
appetitive power, but of the intellect.

Obj. 2: Further, each power has its proper end, which is its
perfection: thus the end of sight is to know the visible; of the
hearing, to perceive sounds; and so forth. But the end of a thing is
its fruit. Therefore to enjoy belongs to each power, and not only to
the appetite.

Obj. 3: Further, enjoyment implies a certain delight. But sensible
delight belongs to sense, which delights in its object: and for the
same reason, intellectual delight belongs to the intellect. Therefore
enjoyment belongs to the apprehensive, and not to the appetitive
power.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Doctr. Christ. i, 4; and De
Trin. x, 10, 11): "To enjoy is to adhere lovingly to something for
its own sake." But love belongs to the appetitive power. Therefore
also to enjoy is an act of the appetitive power.

_I answer that,_ _Fruitio_ (enjoyment) and _fructus_ (fruit) seem to
refer to the same, one being derived from the other; which from
which, matters not for our purpose; though it seems probable that the
one which is more clearly known, was first named. Now those things
are most manifest to us which appeal most to the senses: wherefore it
seems that the word "fruition" is derived from sensible fruits. But
sensible fruit is that which we expect the tree to produce in the
last place, and in which a certain sweetness is to be perceived.
Hence fruition seems to have relation to love, or to the delight
which one has in realizing the longed-for term, which is the end. Now
the end and the good is the object of the appetitive power. Wherefore
it is evident that fruition is the act of the appetitive power.

Reply Obj. 1: Nothing hinders one and the same thing from belonging,
under different aspects, to different powers. Accordingly the vision
of God, as vision, is an act of the intellect, but as a good and an
end, is the object of the will. And as such is the fruition thereof:
so that the intellect attains this end, as the executive power, but
the will as the motive power, moving (the powers) towards the end and
enjoying the end attained.

Reply Obj. 2: The perfection and end of every other power is
contained in the object of the appetitive power, as the proper is
contained in the common, as stated above (Q. 9, A. 1). Hence the
perfection and end of each power, in so far as it is a good, belongs
to the appetitive power. Wherefore the appetitive power moves the
other powers to their ends; and itself realizes the end, when each of
them reaches the end.

Reply Obj. 3: In delight there are two things: perception of what is
becoming; and this belongs to the apprehensive power; and complacency
in that which is offered as becoming: and this belongs to the
appetitive power, in which power delight is formally completed.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 11, Art. 2]

Whether to Enjoy Belongs to the Rational Creature Alone, or Also to
Irrational Animals?

Objection 1: It would seem that to enjoy belongs to men alone. For
Augustine says (De Doctr. Christ. i, 22) that "it is given to us men
to enjoy and to use." Therefore other animals cannot enjoy.

Obj. 2: Further, to enjoy relates to the last end. But irrational
animals cannot obtain the last end. Therefore it is not for them to
enjoy.

Obj. 3: Further, just as the sensitive appetite is beneath the
intellectual appetite, so is the natural appetite beneath the
sensitive. If, therefore, to enjoy belongs to the sensitive appetite,
it seems that for the same reason it can belong to the natural
appetite. But this is evidently false, since the latter cannot
delight in anything. Therefore the sensitive appetite cannot enjoy:
and accordingly enjoyment is not possible for irrational animals.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (QQ. 83, qu. 30): "It is not so
absurd to suppose that even beasts enjoy their food and any bodily
pleasure."

_I answer that,_ As was stated above (A. 1) to enjoy is not the act
of the power that achieves the end as executor, but of the power that
commands the achievement; for it has been said to belong to the
appetitive power. Now things void of reason have indeed a power of
achieving an end by way of execution, as that by which a heavy body
has a downward tendency, whereas a light body has an upward tendency.
Yet the power of command in respect of the end is not in them, but in
some higher nature, which moves all nature by its command, just as in
things endowed with knowledge, the appetite moves the other powers to
their acts. Wherefore it is clear that things void of knowledge,
although they attain an end, have no enjoyment of the end: this is
only for those that are endowed with knowledge.

Now knowledge of the end is twofold: perfect and imperfect. Perfect
knowledge of the end, is that whereby not only is that known which is
the end and the good, but also the universal formality of the end and
the good; and such knowledge belongs to the rational nature alone. On
the other hand, imperfect knowledge is that by which the end and the
good are known in the particular. Such knowledge is in irrational
animals: whose appetitive powers do not command with freedom, but are
moved according to a natural instinct to whatever they apprehend.
Consequently, enjoyment belongs to the rational nature, in a perfect
degree; to irrational animals, imperfectly; to other creatures, not
at all.

Reply Obj. 1: Augustine is speaking there of perfect enjoyment.

Reply Obj. 2: Enjoyment need not be of the last end simply; but of
that which each one chooses for his last end.

Reply Obj. 3: The sensitive appetite follows some knowledge; not so
the natural appetite, especially in things void of knowledge.

Reply Obj. 4: Augustine is speaking there of imperfect enjoyment.
This is clear from his way of speaking: for he says that "it is not
so absurd to suppose that even beasts enjoy," that is, as it would
be, if one were to say that they "use."
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 11, Art. 3]

Whether Enjoyment Is Only of the Last End?

Objection 1: It would seem that enjoyment is not only of the last end.
For the Apostle says (Philem. 20): "Yea, brother, may I enjoy thee in
the Lord." But it is evident that Paul had not placed his last end in
a man. Therefore to enjoy is not only of the last end.

Obj. 2: Further, what we enjoy is the fruit. But the Apostle says
(Gal. 5:22): "The fruit of the Spirit is charity, joy, peace," and
other like things, which are not in the nature of the last end.
Therefore enjoyment is not only of the last end.

Obj. 3: Further, the acts of the will reflect on one another; for I
will to will, and I love to love. But to enjoy is an act of the will:
since "it is the will with which we enjoy," as Augustine says (De
Trin. x, 10). Therefore a man enjoys his enjoyment. But the last end
of man is not enjoyment, but the uncreated good alone, which is God.
Therefore enjoyment is not only of the last end.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Trin. x, 11): "A man does not
enjoy that which he desires for the sake of something else." But the
last end alone is that which man does not desire for the sake of
something else. Therefore enjoyment is of the last end alone.

_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1) the notion of fruit implies
two things: first that it should come last; second, that it should
calm the appetite with a certain sweetness and delight. Now a thing
is last either simply or relatively; simply, if it be referred to
nothing else; relatively, if it is the last in a particular series.
Therefore that which is last simply, and in which one delights as in
the last end, is properly called fruit; and this it is that one is
properly said to enjoy. But that which is delightful not in itself,
but is desired, only as referred to something else, e.g. a bitter
potion for the sake of health, can nowise be called fruit. And that
which has something delightful about it, to which a number of
preceding things are referred, may indeed be called fruit in a
certain manner; but we cannot be said to enjoy it properly or as
though it answered perfectly to the notion of fruit. Hence Augustine
says (De Trin. x, 10) that "we enjoy what we know, when the delighted
will is at rest therein." But its rest is not absolute save in the
possession of the last end: for as long as something is looked for,
the movement of the will remains in suspense, although it has reached
something. Thus in local movement, although any point between the two
terms is a beginning and an end, yet it is not considered as an
actual end, except when the movement stops there.

Reply Obj. 1: As Augustine says (De Doctr. Christ. i, 33), "if he had
said, 'May I enjoy thee,' without adding 'in the Lord,' he would seem
to have set the end of his love in him. But since he added that he
set his end in the Lord, he implied his desire to enjoy Him": as if
we were to say that he expressed his enjoyment of his brother not as
a term but as a means.

Reply Obj. 2: Fruit bears one relation to the tree that bore it, and
another to man that enjoys it. To the tree indeed that bore it, it is
compared as effect to cause; to the one enjoying it, as the final
object of his longing and the consummation of his delight.
Accordingly these fruits mentioned by the Apostle are so called
because they are certain effects of the Holy Ghost in us, wherefore
they are called "fruits of the spirit": but not as though we are to
enjoy them as our last end. Or we may say with Ambrose that they are
called fruits because "we should desire them for their own sake": not
indeed as though they were not ordained to the last end; but because
they are such that we ought to find pleasure in them.

Reply Obj. 3: As stated above (Q. 1, A. 8; Q. 2, A. 7), we speak of
an end in a twofold sense: first, as being the thing itself;
secondly, as the attainment thereof. These are not, of course, two
ends, but one end, considered in itself, and in its relation to
something else. Accordingly God is the last end, as that which is
ultimately sought for: while the enjoyment is as the attainment of
this last end. And so, just as God is not one end, and the enjoyment
of God, another: so it is the same enjoyment whereby we enjoy God,
and whereby we enjoy our enjoyment of God. And the same applies to
created happiness which consists in enjoyment.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 11, Art. 4]

Whether Enjoyment Is Only of the End Possessed?

Objection 1: It would seem that enjoyment is only of the end
possessed. For Augustine says (De Trin. x, 1) that "to enjoy is to
use joyfully, with the joy, not of hope, but of possession." But so
long as a thing is not had, there is joy, not of possession, but of
hope. Therefore enjoyment is only of the end possessed.

Obj. 2: Further, as stated above (A. 3), enjoyment is not properly
otherwise than of the last end: because this alone gives rest to the
appetite. But the appetite has no rest save in the possession of the
end. Therefore enjoyment, properly speaking, is only of the end
possessed.

Obj. 3: Further, to enjoy is to lay hold of the fruit. But one does
not lay hold of the fruit until one is in possession of the end.
Therefore enjoyment is only of the end possessed.

_On the contrary,_ "to enjoy is to adhere lovingly to something for
its own sake," as Augustine says (De Doctr. Christ. i, 4). But this
is possible, even in regard to a thing which is not in our
possession. Therefore it is possible to enjoy the end even though it
be not possessed.

_I answer that,_ To enjoy implies a certain relation of the will to
the last end, according as the will has something by way of last end.
Now an end is possessed in two ways; perfectly and imperfectly.
Perfectly, when it is possessed not only in intention but also in
reality; imperfectly, when it is possessed in intention only. Perfect
enjoyment, therefore, is of the end already possessed: but imperfect
enjoyment is also of the end possessed not really, but only in
intention.

Reply Obj. 1: Augustine speaks there of perfect enjoyment.

Reply Obj. 2: The will is hindered in two ways from being at rest.
First on the part of the object; by reason of its not being the last
end, but ordained to something else: secondly on the part of the one
who desires the end, by reason of his not being yet in possession of
it. Now it is the object that specifies an act: but on the agent
depends the manner of acting, so that the act be perfect or
imperfect, as compared with the actual circumstances of the agent.
Therefore enjoyment of anything but the last end is not enjoyment
properly speaking, as falling short of the nature of enjoyment. But
enjoyment of the last end, not yet possessed, is enjoyment properly
speaking, but imperfect, on account of the imperfect way in which it
is possessed.

Reply Obj. 3: One is said to lay hold of or to have an end, not only
in reality, but also in intention, as stated above.
________________________

QUESTION 12

OF INTENTION
(In Five Articles)

We must now consider Intention: concerning which there are five
points of inquiry:

(1) Whether intention is an act of intellect or of the will?

(2) Whether it is only of the last end?

(3) Whether one can intend two things at the same time?

(4) Whether intention of the end is the same act as volition of the
means?

(5) Whether intention is within the competency of irrational animals?
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 12, Art. 1]

Whether Intention Is an Act of the Intellect or of the Will?

Objection 1: It would seem that intention is an act of the intellect,
and not of the will. For it is written (Matt. 6:22): "If thy eye be
single, thy whole body shall be lightsome": where, according to
Augustine (De Serm. Dom. in Monte ii, 13) the eye signifies intention.
But since the eye is the organ of sight, it signifies the apprehensive
power. Therefore intention is not an act of the appetitive but of the
apprehensive power.

Obj. 2: Further, Augustine says (De Serm. Dom. in Monte ii, 13) that
Our Lord spoke of intention as a light, when He said (Matt. 6:23):
"If the light that is in thee be darkness," etc. But light pertains
to knowledge. Therefore intention does too.

Obj. 3: Further, intention implies a kind of ordaining to an end. But
to ordain is an act of reason. Therefore intention belongs not to the
will but to the reason.

Obj. 4: Further, an act of the will is either of the end or of the
means. But the act of the will in respect of the end is called
volition, or enjoyment; with regard to the means, it is choice, from
which intention is distinct. Therefore it is not an act of the will.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Trin. xi, 4, 8, 9) that "the
intention of the will unites the sight to the object seen; and the
images retained in the memory, to the penetrating gaze of the soul's
inner thought." Therefore intention is an act of the will.

_I answer that,_ Intention, as the very word denotes, signifies, "to
tend to something." Now both the action of the mover and the movement
of thing moved, tend to something. But that the movement of the thing
moved tends to anything, is due to the action of the mover.
Consequently intention belongs first and principally to that which
moves to the end: hence we say that an architect or anyone who is in
authority, by his command moves others to that which he intends. Now
the will moves all the other powers of the soul to the end, as shown
above (Q. 9, A. 1). Wherefore it is evident that intention, properly
speaking, is an act of the will.

Reply Obj. 1: The eye designates intention figuratively, not because
intention has reference to knowledge, but because it presupposes
knowledge, which proposes to the will the end to which the latter
moves; thus we foresee with the eye whither we should tend with our
bodies.

Reply Obj. 2: Intention is called a light because it is manifest to
him who intends. Wherefore works are called darkness because a man
knows what he intends, but knows not what the result may be, as
Augustine expounds (De Serm. Dom. in Monte ii, 13).

Reply Obj. 3: The will does not ordain, but tends to something
according to the order of reason. Consequently this word "intention"
indicates an act of the will, presupposing the act whereby the reason
orders something to the end.

Reply Obj. 4: Intention is an act of the will in regard to the end.
Now the will stands in a threefold relation to the end. First,
absolutely; and thus we have "volition," whereby we will absolutely
to have health, and so forth. Secondly, it considers the end, as its
place of rest; and thus "enjoyment" regards the end. Thirdly, it
considers the end as the term towards which something is ordained;
and thus "intention" regards the end. For when we speak of intending
to have health, we mean not only that we have it, but that we will
have it by means of something else.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 12, Art. 2]

Whether Intention Is Only of the Last End?

Objection 1: It would seem that intention is only of the last end.
For it is said in the book of Prosper's Sentences (Sent. 100): "The
intention of the heart is a cry to God." But God is the last end of
the human heart. Therefore intention is always regards the last end.

Obj. 2: Further, intention regards the end as the terminus, as stated
above (A. 1, ad 4). But a terminus is something last. Therefore
intention always regards the last end.

Obj. 3: Further, just as intention regards the end, so does
enjoyment. But enjoyment is always of the last end. Therefore
intention is too.

_On the contrary,_ There is but one last end of human wills, viz.
Happiness, as stated above (Q. 1, A. 7). If, therefore, intentions
were only of the last end, men would not have different intentions:
which is evidently false.

_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1, ad 4), intention regards the
end as a terminus of the movement of the will. Now a terminus of
movement may be taken in two ways. First, the very last terminus,
when the movement comes to a stop; this is the terminus of the whole
movement. Secondly, some point midway, which is the beginning of one
part of the movement, and the end or terminus of the other. Thus in
the movement from A to C through B, C is the last terminus, while B
is a terminus, but not the last. And intention can be both.
Consequently though intention is always of the end, it need not be
always of the last end.

Reply Obj. 1: The intention of the heart is called a cry to God, not
that God is always the object of intention, but because He sees our
intention. Or because, when we pray, we direct our intention to God,
which intention has the force of a cry.

Reply Obj. 2: A terminus is something last, not always in respect of
the whole, but sometimes in respect of a part.

Reply Obj. 3: Enjoyment implies rest in the end; and this belongs to
the last end alone. But intention implies movement towards an end,
not rest. Wherefore the comparison proves nothing.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 12, Art. 3]

Whether One Can Intend Two Things at the Same Time?

Objection 1: It would seem that one cannot intend several things at
the same time. For Augustine says (De Serm. Dom. in Monte ii, 14, 16,
17) that man's intention cannot be directed at the same time to God
and to bodily benefits. Therefore, for the same reason, neither to
any other two things.

Obj. 2: Further, intention designates a movement of the will towards
a terminus. Now there cannot be several termini in the same direction
of one movement. Therefore the will cannot intend several things at
the same time.

Obj. 3: Further, intention presupposes an act of reason or of the
intellect. But "it is not possible to understand several things at
the same time," according to the Philosopher (Topic. ii, 10).
Therefore neither is it possible to intend several things at the same
time.

_On the contrary,_ Art imitates nature. Now nature intends two
purposes by means of one instrument: thus "the tongue is for the
purpose of taste and speech" (De Anima ii, 8). Therefore, for the
same reason, art or reason can at the same time direct one thing to
two ends: so that one can intend several ends at the same time.

_I answer that,_ The expression "two things" may be taken in two
ways: they may be ordained to one another or not so ordained. And if
they be ordained to one another, it is evident, from what has been
said, that a man can intend several things at the same time. For
intention is not only of the last end, as stated above (A. 2), but
also of an intermediary end. Now a man intends at the same time, both
the proximate and the last end; as the mixing of a medicine and the
giving of health.

But if we take two things that are not ordained to one another, thus
also a man can intend several things at the same time. This is
evident from the fact that a man prefers one thing to another because
it is the better of the two. Now one of the reasons for which one
thing is better than another is that it is available for more
purposes: wherefore one thing can be chosen in preference to another,
because of the greater number of purposes for which it is available:
so that evidently a man can intend several things at the same time.

Reply Obj. 1: Augustine means to say that man cannot at the same time
direct his attention to God and to bodily benefits, as to two last
ends: since, as stated above (Q. 1, A. 5), one man cannot have
several last ends.

Reply Obj. 2: There can be several termini ordained to one another,
of the same movement and in the same direction; but not unless they
be ordained to one another. At the same time it must be observed that
what is not one in reality may be taken as one by the reason. Now
intention is a movement of the will to something already ordained by
the reason, as stated above (A. 1, ad 3). Wherefore where we have
many things in reality, we may take them as one term of intention, in
so far as the reason takes them as one: either because two things
concur in the integrity of one whole, as a proper measure of heat and
cold conduce to health; or because two things are included in one
which may be intended. For instance, the acquiring of wine and
clothing is included in wealth, as in something common to both;
wherefore nothing hinders the man who intends to acquire wealth, from
intending both the others.

Reply Obj. 3: As stated in the First Part (Q. 12, A. 10; Q. 58, A. 2;
Q. 85, A. 4), it is possible to understand several things at the same
time, in so far as, in some way, they are one.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 12, Art. 4]

Whether Intention of the End Is the Same Act As the Volition of the
Means?

Objection 1: It would seem that the intention of the end and the
volition of the means are not one and the same movement. For
Augustine says (De Trin. xi, 6) that "the will to see the window, has
for its end the seeing of the window; and is another act from the
will to see, through the window, the passersby." But that I should
will to see the passersby, through the window, belongs to intention;
whereas that I will to see the window, belongs to the volition of the
means. Therefore intention of the end and the willing of the means
are distinct movements of the will.

Obj. 2: Further, acts are distinct according to their objects. But
the end and the means are distinct objects. Therefore the intention
of the end and the willing of the means are distinct movements of the
will.

Obj. 3: Further, the willing of the means is called choice. But
choice and intention are not the same. Therefore intention of the end
and the willing of the means are not the same movement of the will.

_On the contrary,_ The means in relation to the end, are as the
mid-space to the terminus. Now it is all the same movement that
passes through the mid-space to the terminus, in natural things.
Therefore in things pertaining to the will, the intention of the end
is the same movement as the willing of the means.

_I answer that,_ The movement of the will to the end and to the means
can be considered in two ways. First, according as the will is moved
to each of the aforesaid absolutely and in itself. And thus there are
really two movements of the will to them. Secondly, it may be
considered accordingly as the will is moved to the means for the sake
of the end: and thus the movement of the will to the end and its
movement to the means are one and the same thing. For when I say: "I
wish to take medicine for the sake of health," I signify no more than
one movement of my will. And this is because the end is the reason
for willing the means. Now the object, and that by reason of which it
is an object, come under the same act; thus it is the same act of
sight that perceives color and light, as stated above (Q. 8, A. 3, ad
2). And the same applies to the intellect; for if it consider
principle and conclusion absolutely, it considers each by a distinct
act; but when it assents to the conclusion on account of the
principles, there is but one act of the intellect.

Reply Obj. 1: Augustine is speaking of seeing the window and of
seeing, through the window, the passersby, according as the will is
moved to either absolutely.

Reply Obj. 2: The end, considered as a thing, and the means to that
end, are distinct objects of the will. But in so far as the end is
the formal object in willing the means, they are one and the same
object.

Reply Obj. 3: A movement which is one as to the subject, may differ,
according to our way of looking at it, as to its beginning and end,
as in the case of ascent and descent (Phys. iii, 3). Accordingly, in
so far as the movement of the will is to the means, as ordained to
the end, it is called "choice": but the movement of the will to the
end as acquired by the means, is called "intention." A sign of
this is that we can have intention of the end without having
determined the means which are the object of choice.
________________________

FIFTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 12, Art. 5]

Whether Intention Is Within the Competency of Irrational Animals?

Objection 1: It would seem that irrational animals intend the end. For
in things void of reason nature stands further apart from the rational
nature, than does the sensitive nature in irrational animals. But
nature intends the end even in things void of reason, as is proved in
_Phys._  ii, 8. Much more, therefore, do irrational animals intend the
end.

Obj. 2: Further, just as intention is of the end, so is enjoyment.
But enjoyment is in irrational animals, as stated above (Q. 11, A.
2). Therefore intention is too.

Obj. 3: Further, to intend an end belongs to one who acts for an end;
since to intend is nothing else than to tend to something. But
irrational animals act for an end; for an animal is moved either to
seek food, or to do something of the kind. Therefore irrational
animals intend an end.

_On the contrary,_ Intention of an end implies ordaining something to
an end: which belongs to reason. Since therefore irrational animals
are void of reason, it seems that they do not intend an end.

_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1), to intend is to tend to
something; and this belongs to the mover and to the moved. According,
therefore, as that which is moved to an end by another is said to
intend the end, thus nature is said to intend an end, as being moved
to its end by God, as the arrow is moved by the archer. And in this
way, irrational animals intend an end, inasmuch as they are moved to
something by natural instinct. The other way of intending an end
belongs to the mover; according as he ordains the movement of
something, either his own or another's, to an end. This belongs to
reason alone. Wherefore irrational animals do not intend an end in
this way, which is to intend properly and principally, as stated
above (A. 1).

Reply Obj. 1: This argument takes intention in the sense of being
moved to an end.

Reply Obj. 2: Enjoyment does not imply the ordaining of one thing to
another, as intention does, but absolute repose in the end.

Reply Obj. 3: Irrational animals are moved to an end, not as though
they thought that they can gain the end by this movement; this
belongs to one that intends; but through desiring the end by natural
instinct, they are moved to an end, moved, as it were, by another,
like other things that are moved naturally.
________________________

QUESTION 13

OF CHOICE, WHICH IS AN ACT OF THE WILL WITH REGARD TO THE MEANS
(In Six Articles)

We must now consider the acts of the will with regard to the means.
There are three of them: to choose, to consent, and to use. And choice
is preceded by counsel. First of all, then, we must consider choice:
secondly, counsel; thirdly, consent; fourthly, use.

Concerning choice there are six points of inquiry:

(1) Of what power is it the act; of the will or of the reason?

(2) Whether choice is to be found in irrational animals?

(3) Whether choice is only the means, or sometimes also of the end?

(4) Whether choice is only of things that we do ourselves?

(5) Whether choice is only of possible things?

(6) Whether man chooses of necessity or freely?
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 13, Art. 1]

Whether Choice Is an Act of Will or of Reason?

Objection 1: It would seem that choice is an act, not of will but of
reason. For choice implies comparison, whereby one is given preference
to another. But to compare is an act of reason. Therefore choice is an
act of reason.

Obj. 2: Further, it is for the same faculty to form a syllogism, and
to draw the conclusion. But, in practical matters, it is the reason
that forms syllogisms. Since therefore choice is a kind of conclusion
in practical matters, as stated in _Ethic._ vii, 3, it seems that it
is an act of reason.

Obj. 3: Further, ignorance does not belong to the will but to the
cognitive power. Now there is an "ignorance of choice," as is stated
in _Ethic._ iii, 1. Therefore it seems that choice does not belong to
the will but to the reason.

_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher says (Ethic. iii, 3) that choice
is "the desire of things in our power." But desire is an act of will.
Therefore choice is too.

_I answer that,_ The word choice implies something belonging to the
reason or intellect, and something belonging to the will: for the
Philosopher says (Ethic. vi, 2) that choice is either "intellect
influenced by appetite or appetite influenced by intellect." Now
whenever two things concur to make one, one of them is formal in
regard to the other. Hence Gregory of Nyssa [*Nemesius, De Nat. Hom.
xxxiii.] says that choice "is neither desire only, nor counsel only,
but a combination of the two. For just as we say that an animal is
composed of soul and body, and that it is neither a mere body, nor a
mere soul, but both; so is it with choice."

Now we must observe, as regards the acts of the soul, that an act
belonging essentially to some power or habit, receives a form or
species from a higher power or habit, according as an inferior is
ordained by a superior: for if a man were to perform an act of
fortitude for the love of God, that act is materially an act of
fortitude, but formally, an act of charity. Now it is evident that, in
a sense, reason precedes the will and ordains its act: in so far as
the will tends to its object, according to the order of reason, since
the apprehensive power presents the object to the appetite.
Accordingly, that act whereby the will tends to something proposed to
it as being good, through being ordained to the end by the reason, is
materially an act of the will, but formally an act of the reason. Now
in such like matters the substance of the act is as the matter in
comparison to the order imposed by the higher power. Wherefore choice
is substantially not an act of the reason but of the will: for choice
is accomplished in a certain movement of the soul towards the good
which is chosen. Consequently it is evidently an act of the appetitive
power.

Reply Obj. 1: Choice implies a previous comparison; not that it
consists in the comparison itself.

Reply Obj. 2: It is quite true that it is for the reason to draw the
conclusion of a practical syllogism; and it is called "a decision" or
"judgment," to be followed by "choice." And for this reason the
conclusion seems to belong to the act of choice, as to that which
results from it.

Reply Obj. 3: In speaking "of ignorance of choice," we do not mean
that choice is a sort of knowledge, but that there is ignorance of
what ought to be chosen.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 13, Art. 2]

Whether Choice Is to Be Found in Irrational Animals?

Objection 1: It would seem that irrational animals are able to
choose. For choice "is the desire of certain things on account of an
end," as stated in _Ethic._ iii, 2, 3. But irrational animals desire
something on account of an end: since they act for an end, and from
desire. Therefore choice is in irrational animals.

Obj. 2: Further, the very word _electio_ (choice) seems to signify
the taking of something in preference to others. But irrational
animals take something in preference to others: thus we can easily
see for ourselves that a sheep will eat one grass and refuse another.
Therefore choice is in irrational animals.

Obj. 3: Further, according to _Ethic._ vi, 12, "it is from prudence
that a man makes a good choice of means." But prudence is found in
irrational animals: hence it is said in the beginning of _Metaph._ i,
1 that "those animals which, like bees, cannot hear sounds, are
prudent by instinct." We see this plainly, in wonderful cases of
sagacity manifested in the works of various animals, such as bees,
spiders, and dogs. For a hound in following a stag, on coming to a
crossroad, tries by scent whether the stag has passed by the first or
the second road: and if he find that the stag has not passed there,
being thus assured, takes to the third road without trying the scent;
as though he were reasoning by way of exclusion, arguing that the
stag must have passed by this way, since he did not pass by the
others, and there is no other road. Therefore it seems that
irrational animals are able to choose.

_On the contrary,_ Gregory of Nyssa [*Nemesius, De Nat. Hom. xxxiii.]
says that "children and irrational animals act willingly but not from
choice." Therefore choice is not in irrational animals.

_I answer that,_ Since choice is the taking of one thing in preference
to another it must of necessity be in respect of several things that
can be chosen. Consequently in those things which are altogether
determinate to one there is no place for choice. Now the difference
between the sensitive appetite and the will is that, as stated above
(Q. 1, A. 2, ad 3), the sensitive appetite is determinate to one
particular thing, according to the order of nature; whereas the will,
although determinate to one thing in general, viz. the good, according
to the order of nature, is nevertheless indeterminate in respect of
particular goods. Consequently choice belongs properly to the will,
and not to the sensitive appetite which is all that irrational animals
have. Wherefore irrational animals are not competent to choose.

Reply Obj. 1: Not every desire of one thing on account of an end is
called choice: there must be a certain discrimination of one thing
from another. And this cannot be except when the appetite can be
moved to several things.

Reply Obj. 2: An irrational animal takes one thing in preference to
another, because its appetite is naturally determinate to that thing.
Wherefore as soon as an animal, whether by its sense or by its
imagination, is offered something to which its appetite is naturally
inclined, it is moved to that alone, without making any choice. Just
as fire is moved upwards and not downwards, without its making any
choice.

Reply Obj. 3: As stated in _Phys._  iii, 3 "movement is the act of the
movable, caused by a mover." Wherefore the power of the mover appears
in the movement of that which it moves. Accordingly, in all things
moved by reason, the order of reason which moves them is evident,
although the things themselves are without reason: for an arrow
through the motion of the archer goes straight towards the target, as
though it were endowed with reason to direct its course. The same may
be seen in the movements of clocks and all engines put together by
the art of man. Now as artificial things are in comparison to human
art, so are all natural things in comparison to the Divine art. And
accordingly order is to be seen in things moved by nature, just as in
things moved by reason, as is stated in _Phys._  ii. And thus it is
that in the works of irrational animals we notice certain marks of
sagacity, in so far as they have a natural inclination to set about
their actions in a most orderly manner through being ordained by the
Supreme art. For which reason, too, certain animals are called
prudent or sagacious; and not because they reason or exercise any
choice about things. This is clear from the fact that all that share
in one nature, invariably act in the same way.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 13, Art. 3]

Whether Choice Is Only of the Means, or Sometimes Also of the End?

Objection 1: It would seem that choice is not only of the means. For
the Philosopher says (Ethic. vi, 12) that "virtue makes us choose
aright; but it is not the part of virtue, but of some other power to
direct aright those things which are to be done for its sake." But
that for the sake of which something is done is the end. Therefore
choice is of the end.

Obj. 2: Further, choice implies preference of one thing to another.
But just as there can be preference of means, so can there be
preference of ends. Therefore choice can be of ends, just as it can
be of means.

_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher says (Ethic. iii, 2) that
"volition is of the end, but choice of the means."

_I answer that,_ As already stated (A. 1, ad 2), choice results from
the decision or judgment which is, as it were, the conclusion of a
practical syllogism. Hence that which is the conclusion of a
practical syllogism, is the matter of choice. Now in practical things
the end stands in the position of a principle, not of a conclusion,
as the Philosopher says (Phys. ii, 9). Wherefore the end, as such, is
not a matter of choice.

But just as in speculative knowledge nothing hinders the principle of
one demonstration or of one science, from being the conclusion of
another demonstration or science; while the first indemonstrable
principle cannot be the conclusion of any demonstration or science;
so too that which is the end in one operation, may be ordained to
something as an end. And in this way it is a matter of choice. Thus
in the work of a physician health is the end: wherefore it is not a
matter of choice for a physician, but a matter of principle. Now the
health of the body is ordained to the good of the soul, consequently
with one who has charge of the soul's health, health or sickness may
be a matter of choice; for the Apostle says (2 Cor. 12:10): "For when
I am weak, then am I powerful." But the last end is nowise a matter
of choice.

Reply Obj. 1: The proper ends of virtues are ordained to Happiness as
to their last end. And thus it is that they can be a matter of choice.

Reply Obj. 2: As stated above (Q. 1, A. 5), there is but one last
end. Accordingly wherever there are several ends, they can be the
subject of choice, in so far as they are ordained to a further end.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 13, Art. 4]

Whether Choice Is of Those Things Only That Are Done by Us?

Objection 1: It would seem that choice is not only in respect of
human acts. For choice regards the means. Now, not only acts, but
also the organs, are means (Phys. ii, 3). Therefore choice is not
only concerned with human acts.

Obj. 2: Further, action is distinct from contemplation. But choice
has a place even in contemplation; in so far as one opinion is
preferred to another. Therefore choice is not concerned with human
acts alone.

Obj. 3: Further, men are chosen for certain posts, whether secular or
ecclesiastical, by those who exercise no action in their regard.
Therefore choice is not concerned with human acts alone.

_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher says (Ethic. iii, 2) that "no man
chooses save what he can do himself."

_I answer that,_ Just as intention regards the end, so does choice
regard the means. Now the end is either an action or a thing. And
when the end is a thing, some human action must intervene; either in
so far as man produces the thing which is the end, as the physician
produces health (wherefore the production of health is said to be the
end of the physician); or in so far as man, in some fashion, uses or
enjoys the thing which is the end; thus for the miser, money or the
possession of money is the end. The same is to be said of the means.
For the means must needs be either an action; or a thing, with some
action intervening whereby man either makes the thing which is the
means, or puts it to some use. And thus it is that choice is always
in regard to human acts.

Reply Obj. 1: The organs are ordained to the end, inasmuch as man
makes use of them for the sake of the end.

Reply Obj. 2: In contemplation itself there is the act of the
intellect assenting to this or that opinion. It is exterior action
that is put in contradistinction to contemplation.

Reply Obj. 3: When a man chooses someone for a bishopric or some high
position in the state, he chooses to name that man to that post.
Else, if he had no right to act in the appointment of the bishop or
official, he would have no right to choose. Likewise, whenever we
speak of one thing being chosen in preference to another, it is in
conjunction with some action of the chooser.
________________________

FIFTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 13, Art. 5]

Whether Choice Is Only of Possible Things?

Objection 1: It would seem that choice is not only of possible
things. For choice is an act of the will, as stated above (A. 1). Now
there is "a willing of impossibilities" (Ethic. iii, 2). Therefore
there is also a choice of impossibilities.

Obj. 2: Further, choice is of things done by us, as stated above (A.
4). Therefore it matters not, as far as the act of choosing is
concerned, whether one choose that which is impossible in itself, or
that which is impossible to the chooser. Now it often happens that we
are unable to accomplish what we choose: so that this proves to be
impossible to us. Therefore choice is of the impossible.

Obj. 3: Further, to try to do a thing is to choose to do it. But the
Blessed Benedict says (Regula lxviii) that if the superior command
what is impossible, it should be attempted. Therefore choice can be
of the impossible.

_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher says (Ethic. iii, 2) that "there
is no choice of impossibilities."

_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 4), our choice is always
concerned with our actions. Now whatever is done by us, is possible
to us. Therefore we must needs say that choice is only of possible
things.

Moreover, the reason for choosing a thing is that it conduces to an
end. But what is impossible cannot conduce to an end. A sign of this
is that when men in taking counsel together come to something that is
impossible to them, they depart, as being unable to proceed with the
business.

Again, this is evident if we examine the previous process of the
reason. For the means, which are the object of choice, are to the
end, as the conclusion is to the principle. Now it is clear that an
impossible conclusion does not follow from a possible principle.
Wherefore an end cannot be possible, unless the means be possible. Now
no one is moved to the impossible. Consequently no one would tend to
the end, save for the fact that the means appear to be possible.
Therefore the impossible is not the object of choice.

Reply Obj. 1: The will stands between the intellect and the external
action: for the intellect proposes to the will its object, and the
will causes the external action. Hence the principle of the movement
in the will is to be found in the intellect, which apprehends
something under the universal notion of good: but the term or
perfection of the will's act is to be observed in its relation to the
action whereby a man tends to the attainment of a thing; for the
movement of the will is from the soul to the thing. Consequently the
perfect act of the will is in respect of something that is good for
one to do. Now this cannot be something impossible. Wherefore the
complete act of the will is only in respect of what is possible and
good for him that wills. But the incomplete act of the will is in
respect of the impossible; and by some is called "velleity," because,
to wit, one would will (_vellet_) such a thing, were it possible. But
choice is an act of the will, fixed on something to be done by the
chooser. And therefore it is by no means of anything but what is
possible.

Reply Obj. 2: Since the object of the will is the apprehended good,
we must judge of the object of the will according as it is
apprehended. And so, just as sometimes the will tends to something
which is apprehended as good, and yet is not really good; so is
choice sometimes made of something apprehended as possible to the
chooser, and yet impossible to him.

Reply Obj. 3: The reason for this is that the subject should not rely
on his own judgment to decide whether a certain thing is possible;
but in each case should stand by his superior's judgment.
________________________

SIXTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 13, Art. 6]

Whether Man Chooses of Necessity or Freely?

Objection 1: It would seem that man chooses of necessity. For the end
stands in relation to the object of choice, as the principle of that
which follows from the principles, as declared in _Ethic._ vii, 8. But
conclusions follow of necessity from their principles. Therefore man
is moved of necessity from (willing) the end of the choice (of the
means).

Obj. 2: Further, as stated above (A. 1, ad 2), choice follows the
reason's judgment of what is to be done. But reason judges of
necessity about some things: on account of the necessity of the
premises. Therefore it seems that choice also follows of necessity.

Obj. 3: Further, if two things are absolutely equal, man is not moved
to one more than to the other; thus if a hungry man, as Plato says
(Cf. De Coelo ii, 13), be confronted on either side with two portions
of food equally appetizing and at an equal distance, he is not moved
towards one more than to the other; and he finds the reason of this
in the immobility of the earth in the middle of the world. Now, if
that which is equally (eligible) with something else cannot be
chosen, much less can that be chosen which appears as less
(eligible). Therefore if two or more things are available, of which
one appears to be more (eligible), it is impossible to choose any of
the others. Therefore that which appears to hold the first place is
chosen of necessity. But every act of choosing is in regard to
something that seems in some way better. Therefore every choice is
made necessarily.

_On the contrary,_ Choice is an act of a rational power; which
according to the Philosopher (Metaph. ix, 2) stands in relation to
opposites.

_I answer that,_ Man does not choose of necessity. And this is
because that which is possible not to be, is not of necessity. Now
the reason why it is possible not to choose, or to choose, may be
gathered from a twofold power in man. For man can will and not will,
act and not act; again, he can will this or that, and do this or
that. The reason of this is seated in the very power of the reason.
For the will can tend to whatever the reason can apprehend as good.
Now the reason can apprehend as good, not only this, viz. "to will"
or "to act," but also this, viz. "not to will" or "not to act."
Again, in all particular goods, the reason can consider an aspect of
some good, and the lack of some good, which has the aspect of evil:
and in this respect, it can apprehend any single one of such goods as
to be chosen or to be avoided. The perfect good alone, which is
Happiness, cannot be apprehended by the reason as an evil, or as
lacking in any way. Consequently man wills Happiness of necessity,
nor can he will not to be happy, or to be unhappy. Now since choice
is not of the end, but of the means, as stated above (A. 3); it is
not of the perfect good, which is Happiness, but of other particular
goods. Therefore man chooses not of necessity, but freely.

Reply Obj. 1: The conclusion does not always of necessity follow from
the principles, but only when the principles cannot be true if the
conclusion is not true. In like manner, the end does not always
necessitate in man the choosing of the means, because the means are
not always such that the end cannot be gained without them; or, if
they be such, they are not always considered in that light.

Reply Obj. 2: The reason's decision or judgment of what is to be done
is about things that are contingent and possible to us. In such
matters the conclusions do not follow of necessity from principles
that are absolutely necessary, but from such as are so conditionally;
as, for instance, "If he runs, he is in motion."

Reply Obj. 3: If two things be proposed as equal under one aspect,
nothing hinders us from considering in one of them some particular
point of superiority, so that the will has a bent towards that one
rather than towards the other.
________________________

QUESTION 14

OF COUNSEL, WHICH PRECEDES CHOICE
(In Six Articles)

We must now consider counsel; concerning which there are six points of
inquiry:

(1) Whether counsel is an inquiry?

(2) Whether counsel is of the end or of the means?

(3) Whether counsel is only of things that we do?

(4) Whether counsel is of all things that we do?

(5) Whether the process of counsel is one of analysis?

(6) Whether the process of counsel is indefinite?
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 14, Art. 1]

Whether Counsel Is an Inquiry?

Objection 1: It would seem that counsel is not an inquiry. For
Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii, 22) that counsel is "an act of
the appetite." But inquiry is not an act of the appetite. Therefore
counsel is not an inquiry.

Obj. 2: Further, inquiry is a discursive act of the intellect: for
which reason it is not found in God, Whose knowledge is not
discursive, as we have shown in the First Part (Q. 14, A. 7). But
counsel is ascribed to God: for it is written (Eph. 1:11) that "He
worketh all things according to the counsel of His will." Therefore
counsel is not inquiry.

Obj. 3: Further, inquiry is of doubtful matters. But counsel is given
in matters that are certainly good; thus the Apostle says (1 Cor.
7:25): "Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: but
I give counsel." Therefore counsel is not an inquiry.

_On the contrary,_ Gregory of Nyssa [*Nemesius, De Nat. Hom. xxxiv.]
says: "Every counsel is an inquiry; but not every inquiry is a
counsel."

_I answer that,_ Choice, as stated above (Q. 13, A. 1, ad 2; A. 3),
follows the judgment of the reason about what is to be done. Now
there is much uncertainty in things that have to be done; because
actions are concerned with contingent singulars, which by reason of
their vicissitude, are uncertain. Now in things doubtful and
uncertain the reason does not pronounce judgment, without previous
inquiry: wherefore the reason must of necessity institute an inquiry
before deciding on the objects of choice; and this inquiry is called
counsel. Hence the Philosopher says (Ethic. iii, 2) that choice is
the "desire of what has been already counselled."

Reply Obj. 1: When the acts of two powers are ordained to one
another, in each of them there is something belonging to the other
power: consequently each act can be denominated from either power.
Now it is evident that the act of the reason giving direction as to
the means, and the act of the will tending to these means according
to the reason's direction, are ordained to one another. Consequently
there is to be found something of the reason, viz. order, in that act
of the will, which is choice: and in counsel, which is an act of
reason, something of the will--both as matter (since counsel is of
what man wills to do)--and as motive (because it is from willing the
end, that man is moved to take counsel in regard to the means). And
therefore, just as the Philosopher says (Ethic. vi, 2) that choice
"is intellect influenced by appetite," thus pointing out that both
concur in the act of choosing; so Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii,
22) that counsel is "appetite based on inquiry," so as to show that
counsel belongs, in a way, both to the will, on whose behalf and by
whose impulsion the inquiry is made, and to the reason that executes
the inquiry.

Reply Obj. 2: The things that we say of God must be understood
without any of the defects which are to be found in us: thus in us
science is of conclusions derived by reasoning from causes to
effects: but science when said of God means sure knowledge of all
effects in the First Cause, without any reasoning process. In like
manner we ascribe counsel to God, as to the certainty of His
knowledge or judgment, which certainty in us arises from the inquiry
of counsel. But such inquiry has no place in God; wherefore in this
respect it is not ascribed to God: in which sense Damascene says (De
Fide Orth. ii, 22): "God takes not counsel: those only take counsel
who lack knowledge."

Reply Obj. 3: It may happen that things which are most certainly good
in the opinion of wise and spiritual men are not certainly good in
the opinion of many, or at least of carnal-minded men. Consequently
in such things counsel may be given.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 14, Art. 2]

Whether Counsel Is of the End, or Only of the Means?

Objection 1: It would seem that counsel is not only of the means but
also of the end. For whatever is doubtful, can be the subject of
inquiry. Now in things to be done by man there happens sometimes a
doubt as to the end and not only as to the means. Since therefore
inquiry as to what is to be done is counsel, it seems that counsel
can be of the end.

Obj. 2: Further, the matter of counsel is human actions. But some
human actions are ends, as stated in _Ethic._ i, 1. Therefore counsel
can be of the end.

_On the contrary,_ Gregory of Nyssa [*Nemesius, De Nat. Hom. xxxiv.]
says that "counsel is not of the end, but of the means."

_I answer that,_ The end is the principle in practical matters:
because the reason of the means is to be found in the end. Now the
principle cannot be called in question, but must be presupposed in
every inquiry. Since therefore counsel is an inquiry, it is not of
the end, but only of the means. Nevertheless it may happen that what
is the end in regard to some things, is ordained to something else;
just as also what is the principle of one demonstration, is the
conclusion of another: and consequently that which is looked upon as
the end in one inquiry, may be looked upon as the means in another;
and thus it will become an object of counsel.

Reply Obj. 1: That which is looked upon as an end, is already fixed:
consequently as long as there is any doubt about it, it is not looked
upon as an end. Wherefore if counsel is taken about it, it will be
counsel not about the end, but about the means.

Reply Obj. 2: Counsel is about operations, in so far as they are
ordained to some end. Consequently if any human act be an end, it
will not, as such, be the matter of counsel.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 14, Art. 3]

Whether Counsel Is Only of Things That We Do?

Objection 1: It would seem that counsel is not only of things that we
do. For counsel implies some kind of conference. But it is possible
for many to confer about things that are not subject to movement, and
are not the result of our actions, such as the nature of various
things. Therefore counsel is not only of things that we do.

Obj. 2: Further, men sometimes seek counsel about things that are
laid down by law; hence we speak of counsel at law. And yet those who
seek counsel thus, have nothing to do in making the laws. Therefore
counsel is not only of things that we do.

Obj. 3: Further, some are said to take consultation about future
events; which, however, are not in our power. Therefore counsel is
not only of things that we do.

Obj. 4: Further, if counsel were only of things that we do, no one
would take counsel about what another does. But this is clearly
untrue. Therefore counsel is not only of things that we do.

_On the contrary,_ Gregory of Nyssa [*Nemesius, De Nat. Hom. xxxiv.]
says: "We take counsel of things that are within our competency and
that we are able to do."

_I answer that,_ Counsel properly implies a conference held between
several; the very word (_consilium_) denotes this, for it means a
sitting together (_considium_), from the fact that many sit together in
order to confer with one another. Now we must take note that in
contingent particular cases, in order that anything be known for
certain, it is necessary to take several conditions or circumstances
into consideration, which it is not easy for one to consider, but are
considered by several with greater certainty, since what one takes
note of, escapes the notice of another; whereas in necessary and
universal things, our view is brought to bear on matters much more
absolute and simple, so that one man by himself may be sufficient to
consider these things. Wherefore the inquiry of counsel is concerned,
properly speaking, with contingent singulars. Now the knowledge of
the truth in such matters does not rank so high as to be desirable of
itself, as is the knowledge of things universal and necessary; but it
is desired as being useful towards action, because actions bear on
things singular and contingent. Consequently, properly speaking,
counsel is about things done by us.

Reply Obj. 1: Counsel implies conference, not of any kind, but about
what is to be done, for the reason given above.

Reply Obj. 2: Although that which is laid down by the law is not due
to the action of him who seeks counsel, nevertheless it directs him
in his action: since the mandate of the law is one reason for doing
something.

Reply Obj. 3: Counsel is not only about what is done, but also about
whatever has relation to what is done. And for this reason we speak
of consulting about future events, in so far as man is induced to do
or omit something, through the knowledge of future events.

Reply Obj. 4: We seek counsel about the actions of others, in so far
as they are, in some way, one with us; either by union of
affection--thus a man is solicitous about what concerns his friend,
as though it concerned himself; or after the manner of an instrument,
for the principal agent and the instrument are, in a way, one cause,
since one acts through the other; thus the master takes counsel about
what he would do through his servant.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 14, Art. 4]

Whether Counsel Is About All Things That We Do?

Objection 1: It would seem that counsel is about all things that we
have to do. For choice is the "desire of what is counselled" as
stated above (A. 1). But choice is about all things that we do.
Therefore counsel is too.

Obj. 2: Further, counsel implies the reason's inquiry. But, whenever
we do not act through the impulse of passion, we act in virtue of the
reason's inquiry. Therefore there is counsel about everything that we
do.

Obj. 3: Further, the Philosopher says (Ethic. iii, 3) that "if it
appears that something can be done by more means than one, we take
counsel by inquiring whereby it may be done most easily and best; but
if it can be accomplished by one means, how it can be done by this."
But whatever is done, is done by one means or by several. Therefore
counsel takes place in all things that we do.

_On the contrary,_ Gregory of Nyssa [*Nemesius, De Nat. Hom. xxxiv.]
says that "counsel has no place in things that are done according to
science or art."

_I answer that,_ Counsel is a kind of inquiry, as stated above
(A. 1). But we are wont to inquire about things that admit of doubt;
hence the process of inquiry, which is called an argument, "is a
reason that attests something that admitted of doubt" [*Cicero,
_Topic._ ad Trebat.]. Now, that something in relation to human acts
admits of no doubt, arises from a twofold source. First, because
certain determinate ends are gained by certain determinate means: as
happens in the arts which are governed by certain fixed rules of
action; thus a writer does not take counsel how to form his letters,
for this is determined by art. Secondly, from the fact that it little
matters whether it is done this or that way; this occurs in minute
matters, which help or hinder but little with regard to the end aimed
at; and reason looks upon small things as mere nothings. Consequently
there are two things of which we do not take counsel, although they
conduce to the end, as the Philosopher says (Ethic. iii, 3): namely,
minute things, and those which have a fixed way of being done, as in
works produced by art, with the exception of those arts that admit of
conjecture such as medicine, commerce, and the like, as Gregory of
Nyssa says [*Nemesius, De Nat. Hom. xxiv.].

Reply Obj. 1: Choice presupposes counsel by reason of its judgment or
decision. Consequently when the judgment or decision is evident
without inquiry, there is no need for the inquiry of counsel.

Reply Obj. 2: In matters that are evident, the reason makes no
inquiry, but judges at once. Consequently there is no need of counsel
in all that is done by reason.

Reply Obj. 3: When a thing can be accomplished by one means, but in
different ways, doubt may arise, just as when it can be accomplished
by several means: hence the need of counsel. But when not only the
means, but also the way of using the means, is fixed, then there is
no need of counsel.
________________________

FIFTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 14, Art. 5]

Whether the Process of Counsel Is One of Analysis?

Objection 1: It would seem that the process of counsel is not one of
analysis. For counsel is about things that we do. But the process of
our actions is not one of analysis, but rather one of synthesis, viz.
from the simple to the composite. Therefore counsel does not always
proceed by way of analysis.

Obj. 2: Further, counsel is an inquiry of the reason. But reason
proceeds from things that precede to things that follow, according to
the more appropriate order. Since then, the past precedes the present,
and the present precedes the future, it seems that in taking counsel
one should proceed from the past and present to the future: which is
not an analytical process. Therefore the process of counsel is not one
of analysis.

Obj. 3: Further, counsel is only of such things as are possible to
us, according to _Ethic._ iii, 3. But the question as to whether a
certain thing is possible to us, depends on what we are able or
unable to do, in order to gain such and such an end. Therefore the
inquiry of counsel should begin from things present.

_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher says (Ethic. iii, 3) that "he who
takes counsel seems to inquire and analyze."

_I answer that,_ In every inquiry one must begin from some principle.
And if this principle precedes both in knowledge and in being, the
process is not analytic, but synthetic: because to proceed from cause
to effect is to proceed synthetically, since causes are more simple
than effects. But if that which precedes in knowledge is later in the
order of being, the process is one of analysis, as when our judgment
deals with effects, which by analysis we trace to their simple
causes. Now the principle in the inquiry of counsel is the end, which
precedes indeed in intention, but comes afterwards into execution.
Hence the inquiry of counsel must needs be one of analysis, beginning
that is to say, from that which is intended in the future, and
continuing until it arrives at that which is to be done at once.

Reply Obj. 1: Counsel is indeed about action. But actions take their
reason from the end; and consequently the order of reasoning about
actions is contrary to the order of actions.

Reply Obj. 2: Reason begins with that which is first according to
reason; but not always with that which is first in point of time.

Reply Obj. 3: We should not want to know whether something to be done
for an end be possible, if it were not suitable for gaining that end.
Hence we must first inquire whether it be conducive to the end,
before considering whether it be possible.
________________________

SIXTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 14, Art. 6]

Whether the Process of Counsel Is Indefinite?

Objection 1: It would seem that the process of counsel is indefinite.
For counsel is an inquiry about the particular things with which
action is concerned. But singulars are infinite. Therefore the
process of counsel is indefinite.

Obj. 2: Further, the inquiry of counsel has to consider not only what
is to be done, but how to avoid obstacles. But every human action can
be hindered, and an obstacle can be removed by some human reason.
Therefore the inquiry about removing obstacles can go on indefinitely.

Obj. 3: Further, the inquiry of demonstrative science does not go on
indefinitely, because one can come to principles that are
self-evident, which are absolutely certain. But such like certainty
is not to be had in contingent singulars, which are variable and
uncertain. Therefore the inquiry of counsel goes on indefinitely.

_On the contrary,_ "No one is moved to that which he cannot possibly
reach" (De Coelo i, 7). But it is impossible to pass through the
infinite. If therefore the inquiry of counsel is infinite, no one
would begin to take counsel. Which is clearly untrue.

_I answer that,_ The inquiry of counsel is actually finite on both
sides, on that of its principle and on that of its term. For a
twofold principle is available in the inquiry of counsel. One is
proper to it, and belongs to the very genus of things pertaining to
operation: this is the end which is not the matter of counsel, but is
taken for granted as its principle, as stated above (A. 2). The other
principle is taken from another genus, so to speak; thus in
demonstrative sciences one science postulates certain things from
another, without inquiring into them. Now these principles which are
taken for granted in the inquiry of counsel are any facts received
through the senses--for instance, that this is bread or iron: and
also any general statements known either through speculative or
through practical science; for instance, that adultery is forbidden
by God, or that man cannot live without suitable nourishment. Of such
things counsel makes no inquiry. But the term of inquiry is that
which we are able to do at once. For just as the end is considered in
the light of a principle, so the means are considered in the light of
a conclusion. Wherefore that which presents itself as to be done
first, holds the position of an ultimate conclusion whereat the
inquiry comes to an end. Nothing however prevents counsel from being
infinite potentially, for as much as an infinite number of things may
present themselves to be inquired into by means of counsel.

Reply Obj. 1: Singulars are infinite; not actually, but only
potentially.

Reply Obj. 2: Although human action can be hindered, the hindrance is
not always at hand. Consequently it is not always necessary to take
counsel about removing the obstacle.

Reply Obj. 3: In contingent singulars, something may be taken for
certain, not simply, indeed, but for the time being, and as far as it
concerns the work to be done. Thus that Socrates is sitting is not a
necessary statement; but that he is sitting, as long as he continues
to sit, is necessary; and this can be taken for a certain fact.
________________________

QUESTION 15

OF CONSENT, WHICH IS AN ACT OF THE WILL IN REGARD TO THE MEANS
(In Four Articles)

We must now consider consent; concerning which there are four points
of inquiry:

(1) Whether consent is an act of the appetitive or of the apprehensive
power?

(2) Whether it is to be found in irrational animals?

(3) Whether it is directed to the end or to the means?

(4) Whether consent to an act belongs to the higher part of the soul
only?
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 15, Art. 1]

Whether Consent Is an Act of the Appetitive or of the Apprehensive
Power?

Objection 1: It would seem that consent belongs only to the
apprehensive part of the soul. For Augustine (De Trin. xii, 12)
ascribes consent to the higher reason. But the reason is an
apprehensive power. Therefore consent belongs to an apprehensive
power.

Obj. 2: Further, consent is "co-sense." But sense is an apprehensive
power. Therefore consent is the act of an apprehensive power.

Obj. 3: Further, just as assent is an application of the intellect to
something, so is consent. But assent belongs to the intellect, which
is an apprehensive power. Therefore consent also belongs to an
apprehensive power.

_On the contrary,_ Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii, 22) that "if a
man judge without affection for that of which he judges, there is no
sentence," i.e. consent. But affection belongs to the appetitive
power. Therefore consent does also.

_I answer that,_ Consent implies application of sense to something.
Now it is proper to sense to take cognizance of things present; for
the imagination apprehends the similitude of corporeal things, even
in the absence of the things of which they bear the likeness; while
the intellect apprehends universal ideas, which it can apprehend
indifferently, whether the singulars be present or absent. And since
the act of an appetitive power is a kind of inclination to the thing
itself, the application of the appetitive power to the thing, in so
far as it cleaves to it, gets by a kind of similitude, the name of
sense, since, as it were, it acquires direct knowledge of the thing
to which it cleaves, in so far as it takes complacency in it. Hence
it is written (Wis. 1:1): "Think of (_Sentite_) the Lord in goodness."
And on these grounds consent is an act of the appetitive power.

Reply Obj. 1: As stated in _De Anima_ iii, 9, "the will is in the
reason." Hence, when Augustine ascribes consent to the reason, he
takes reason as including the will.

Reply Obj. 2: Sense, properly speaking, belongs to the apprehensive
faculty; but by way of similitude, in so far as it implies seeking
acquaintance, it belongs to the appetitive power, as stated above.

Reply Obj. 3: _Assentire_ (to assent) is, to speak, _ad aliud
sentire_ (to feel towards something); and thus it implies a certain
distance from that to which assent is given. But _consentire_ (to
consent) is "to feel with," and this implies a certain union to the
object of consent. Hence the will, to which it belongs to tend to the
thing itself, is more properly said to consent: whereas the
intellect, whose act does not consist in a movement towards the
thing, but rather the reverse, as we have stated in the First Part
(Q. 16, A. 1; Q. 27, A. 4; Q. 59, A. 2), is more properly said to
assent: although one word is wont to be used for the other [*In Latin
rather than in English.]. We may also say that the intellect assents,
in so far as it is moved by the will.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 15, Art. 2]

Whether Consent Is to Be Found in Irrational Animals?

Objection 1: It would seem that consent is to be found in irrational
animals. For consent implies a determination of the appetite to one
thing. But the appetite of irrational animals is determinate to one
thing. Therefore consent is to be found in irrational animals.

Obj. 2: Further, if you remove what is first, you remove what
follows. But consent precedes the accomplished act. If therefore
there were no consent in irrational animals, there would be no act
accomplished; which is clearly false.

Obj. 3: Further, men are sometimes said to consent to do something,
through some passion; desire, for instance, or anger. But irrational
animals act through passion. Therefore they consent.

_On the contrary,_ Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii, 22) that "after
judging, man approves and embraces the judgment of his counselling,
and this is called the sentence," i.e. consent. But counsel is not in
irrational animals. Therefore neither is consent.

_I answer that,_ Consent, properly speaking, is not in irrational
animals. The reason of this is that consent implies an application of
the appetitive movement to something as to be done. Now to apply the
appetitive movement to the doing of something, belongs to the subject
in whose power it is to move the appetite: thus to touch a stone is
an action suitable to a stick, but to apply the stick so that it
touch the stone, belongs to one who has the power of moving the
stick. But irrational animals have not the command of the appetitive
movement; for this is in them through natural instinct. Hence in the
irrational animal, there is indeed the movement of the appetite, but
it does not apply that movement to some particular thing. And hence
it is that the irrational animal is not properly said to consent:
this is proper to the rational nature, which has the command of the
appetitive movement, and is able to apply or not to apply it to this
or that thing.

Reply Obj. 1: In irrational animals the determination of the appetite
to a particular thing is merely passive: whereas consent implies a
determination of the appetite, which is active rather than merely
passive.

Reply Obj. 2: If the first be removed, then what follows is removed,
provided that, properly speaking, it follow from that only. But if
something can follow from several things, it is not removed by the
fact that one of them is removed; thus if hardening is the effect of
heat and of cold (since bricks are hardened by the fire, and frozen
water is hardened by the cold), then by removing heat it does not
follow that there is no hardening. Now the accomplishment of an act
follows not only from consent, but also from the impulse of the
appetite, such as is found in irrational animals.

Reply Obj. 3: The man who acts through passion is able not to follow
the passion: whereas irrational animals have not that power. Hence
the comparison fails.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 15, Art. 3]

Whether Consent Is Directed to the End or to the Means?

Objection 1: It would seem that consent is directed to the end.
Because that on account of which a thing is such is still more such.
But it is on account of the end that we consent to the means.
Therefore, still more do we consent to the end.

Obj. 2: Further, the act of the intemperate man is his end, just as
the act of the virtuous man is his end. But the intemperate man
consents to his own act. Therefore consent can be directed to the end.

Obj. 3: Further, desire of the means is choice, as stated above (Q.
13, A. 1). If therefore consent were only directed to the means it
would nowise differ from choice. And this is proved to be false by
the authority of Damascene who says (De Fide Orth. ii, 22) that
"after the approval" which he calls "the sentence," "comes the
choice." Therefore consent is not only directed to the means.

_On the contrary,_ Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii, 22) that the
"sentence," i.e. the consent, takes place "when a man approves and
embraces the judgment of his counsel." But counsel is only about the
means. Therefore the same applies to consent.

_I answer that,_ Consent is the application of the appetitive movement
to something that is already in the power of him who causes the
application. Now the order of action is this: First there is the
apprehension of the end; then the desire of the end; then the counsel
about the means; then the desire of the means. Now the appetite tends
to the last end naturally: wherefore the application of the appetitive
movement to the apprehended end has not the nature of consent, but of
simple volition. But as to those things which come under consideration
after the last end, in so far as they are directed to the end, they
come under counsel: and so counsel can be applied to them, in so far
as the appetitive movement is applied to the judgment resulting from
counsel. But the appetitive movement to the end is not applied to
counsel: rather is counsel applied to it, because counsel presupposes
the desire of the end. On the other hand, the desire of the means
presupposes the decision of counsel. And therefore the application of
the appetitive movement to counsel's decision is consent, properly
speaking. Consequently, since counsel is only about the means, consent,
properly speaking, is of nothing else but the means.

Reply Obj. 1: Just as the knowledge of conclusions through the
principles is science, whereas the knowledge of the principles is not
science, but something higher, namely, understanding; so do we consent
to the means on account of the end, in respect of which our act is not
consent but something greater, namely, volition.

Reply Obj. 2: Delight in his act, rather than the act itself, is the
end of the intemperate man, and for sake of this delight he
consents to that act.

Reply Obj. 3: Choice includes something that consent has not, namely,
a certain relation to something to which something else is
preferred: and therefore after consent there still remains a choice.
For it may happen that by aid of counsel several means have been found
conducive to the end, and through each of these meeting with approval,
consent has been given to each: but after approving of many, we have
given our preference to one by choosing it. But if only one meets with
approval, then consent and choice do not differ in reality, but only
in our way of looking at them; so that we call it consent, according
as we approve of doing that thing; but choice according as we prefer
it to those that do not meet with our approval.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 15, Art. 4]

Whether Consent to the Act Belongs Only to the Higher Part of the
Soul?

Objection 1: It would seem that consent to the act does not always
belong to the higher reason. For "delight follows action, and
perfects it, just as beauty perfects youth" [*_oion tois akmaiois he
hora_--as youthful vigor perfects a man in his prime] (Ethic. x, 4).
But consent to delight belongs to the lower reason, as Augustine says
(De Trin. xii, 12). Therefore consent to the act does not belong only
to the higher reason.

Obj. 2: Further, an act to which we consent is said to be voluntary.
But it belongs to many powers to produce voluntary acts. Therefore
the higher reason is not alone in consenting to the act.

Obj. 3: Further, "the higher reason is that which is intent on the
contemplation and consultation of things eternal," as Augustine says
(De Trin. xii, 7). But man often consents to an act not for eternal,
but for temporal reasons, or even on account of some passion of the
soul. Therefore consent to an act does not belong to the higher
reason alone.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Trin. xii, 12): "It is
impossible for man to make up his mind to commit a sin, unless that
mental faculty which has the sovereign power of urging his members
to, or restraining them from, act, yield to the evil deed and become
its slave."

_I answer that,_ The final decision belongs to him who holds the
highest place, and to whom it belongs to judge of the others; for as
long as judgment about some matter remains to be pronounced, the
final decision has not been given. Now it is evident that it belongs
to the higher reason to judge of all: since it is by the reason that
we judge of sensible things; and of things pertaining to human
principles we judge according to Divine principles, which is the
function of the higher reason. Wherefore as long as a man is
uncertain whether he resists or not, according to Divine principles,
no judgment of the reason can be considered in the light of a final
decision. Now the final decision of what is to be done is consent to
the act. Therefore consent to the act belongs to the higher reason;
but in that sense in which the reason includes the will, as stated
above (A. 1, ad 1).

Reply Obj. 1: Consent to delight in the work done belongs to the
higher reason, as also does consent to the work; but consent to
delight in thought belongs to the lower reason, just as to the lower
reason it belongs to think. Nevertheless the higher reason exercises
judgment on the fact of thinking or not thinking, considered as an
action; and in like manner on the delight that results. But in so far
as the act of thinking is considered as ordained to a further act, it
belongs to the lower reason. For that which is ordained to something
else, belongs to a lower art or power than does the end to which it
is ordained: hence the art which is concerned with the end is called
the master or principal art.

Reply Obj. 2: Since actions are called voluntary from the fact that
we consent to them, it does not follow that consent is an act of each
power, but of the will which is in the reason, as stated above (A. 1,
ad 1), and from which the voluntary act is named.

Reply Obj. 3: The higher reason is said to consent not only because
it always moves to act, according to the eternal reasons; but also
because it fails to dissent according to those same reasons.
________________________

QUESTION 16

OF USE, WHICH IS AN ACT OF THE WILL IN REGARD TO THE MEANS
(In Four Articles)

We must now consider use; concerning which there are four points of
inquiry:

(1) Whether use is an act of the will?

(2) Whether it is to be found in irrational animals?

(3) Whether it regards the means only, or the end also?

(4) Of the relation of use to choice.
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 16, Art. 1]

Whether Use Is an Act of the Will?

Objection 1: It would seem that use is not an act of the will. For
Augustine says (De Doctr. Christ. i, 4) that "to use is to refer that
which is the object of use to the obtaining of something else." But
"to refer" something to another is an act of the reason to which it
belongs to compare and to direct. Therefore use is an act of the
reason and not of the will.

Obj. 2: Further, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii, 22) that man "goes
forward to the operation, and this is called impulse; then he makes
use (of the powers) and this is called use." But operation belongs to
the executive power; and the act of the will does not follow the act
of the executive power, on the contrary execution comes last.
Therefore use is not an act of the will.

Obj. 3: Further, Augustine says (QQ. 83, qu. 30): "All things that
were made were made for man's use, because reason with which man is
endowed uses all things by its judgment of them." But judgment of
things created by God belongs to the speculative reason; which seems
to be altogether distinct from the will, which is the principle of
human acts. Therefore use is not an act of the will.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Trin. x, 11): "To use is to
apply to something to purpose of the will."

_I answer that,_ The use of a thing implies the application of that
thing to an operation: hence the operation to which we apply a thing
is called its use; thus the use of a horse is to ride, and the use of
a stick is to strike. Now we apply to an operation not only the
interior principles of action, viz. the powers of the soul or the
members of the body; as the intellect, to understand; and the eye, to
see; but also external things, as a stick, to strike. But it is
evident that we do not apply external things to an operation save
through the interior principles which are either the powers of the
soul, or the habits of those powers, or the organs which are parts of
the body. Now it has been shown above (Q. 9, A. 1) that it is the
will which moves the soul's powers to their acts, and this is to
apply them to operation. Hence it is evident that first and
principally use belongs to the will as first mover; to the reason, as
directing; and to the other powers as executing the operation, which
powers are compared to the will which applies them to act, as the
instruments are compared to the principal agent. Now action is
properly ascribed, not to the instrument, but to the principal agent,
as building is ascribed to the builder, not to his tools. Hence it is
evident that use is, properly speaking, an act of the will.

Reply Obj. 1: Reason does indeed refer one thing to another; but the
will tends to that which is referred by the reason to something else.
And in this sense to use is to refer one thing to another.

Reply Obj. 2: Damascene is speaking of use in so far as it belongs to
the executive powers.

Reply Obj. 3: Even the speculative reason is applied by the will to
the act of understanding or judging. Consequently the speculative
reason is said to use, in so far as it is moved by the will, in the
same way as the other powers.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 16, Art. 2]

Whether Use Is to Be Found in Irrational Animals?

Objection 1: It would seem that use is to be found in irrational
animals. For it is better to enjoy than to use, because, as Augustine
says (De Trin. x, 10): "We use things by referring them to something
else which we are to enjoy." But enjoyment is to be found in
irrational animals, as stated above (Q. 11, A. 2). Much more,
therefore, is it possible for them to use.

Obj. 2: Further, to apply the members to action is to use them. But
irrational animals apply their members to action; for instance, their
feet, to walk; their horns, to strike. Therefore it is possible for
irrational animals to use.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (QQ. 83, qu. 30): "None but a
rational animal can make use of a thing."

_I answer that,_ as stated above (A. 1), to use is to apply an active
principle to action: thus to consent is to apply the appetitive
movement to the desire of something, as stated above (Q. 15, AA. 1,
2, 3). Now he alone who has the disposal of a thing, can apply it to
something else; and this belongs to him alone who knows how to refer
it to something else, which is an act of the reason. And therefore
none but a rational animal consents and uses.

Reply Obj. 1: To enjoy implies the absolute movement of the appetite
to the appetible: whereas to use implies a movement of the appetite
to something as directed to something else. If therefore we compare
use and enjoyment in respect of their objects, enjoyment is better
than use; because that which is appetible absolutely is better than
that which is appetible only as directed to something else. But if we
compare them in respect of the apprehensive power that precedes them,
greater excellence is required on the part of use: because to direct
one thing to another is an act of reason; whereas to apprehend
something absolutely is within the competency even of sense.

Reply Obj. 2: Animals by means of their members do something from
natural instinct; not through knowing the relation of their members
to these operations. Wherefore, properly speaking, they do not apply
their members to action, nor do they use them.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 16, Art. 3]

Whether Use Regards Also the Last End?

Objection 1: It would seem that use can regard also the last end. For
Augustine says (De Trin. x, 11): "Whoever enjoys, uses." But man
enjoys the last end. Therefore he uses the last end.

Obj. 2: Further, "to use is to apply something to the purpose of the
will" (De Trin. x, 11). But the last end, more than anything else, is
the object of the will's application. Therefore it can be the object
of use.

Obj. 3: Further, Hilary says (De Trin. ii) that "Eternity is in the
Father, Likeness in the Image," i.e. in the Son, "Use in the Gift,"
i.e. in the Holy Ghost. But the Holy Ghost, since He is God, is the
last end. Therefore the last end can be the object of use.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (QQ. 83, qu. 30): "No one rightly
uses God, but one enjoys Him." But God alone is the last end.
Therefore we cannot use the last end.

_I answer that,_ Use, as stated above (A. 1), implies the application
of one thing to another. Now that which is applied to another is
regarded in the light of means to an end; and consequently use always
regards the means. For this reason things that are adapted to a
certain end are said to be "useful"; in fact their very usefulness is
sometimes called use.

It must, however, be observed that the last end may be taken in two
ways: first, simply; secondly, in respect of an individual. For
since the end, as stated above (Q. 1, A. 8; Q. 2, A. 7), signifies
sometimes the thing itself, and sometimes the attainment or
possession of that thing (thus the miser's end is either money or
the possession of it); it is evident that, simply speaking, the last
end is the thing itself; for the possession of money is good only
inasmuch as there is some good in money. But in regard to the
individual, the obtaining of money is the last end; for the miser
would not seek for money, save that he might have it. Therefore,
simply and properly speaking, a man enjoys money, because he places
his last end therein; but in so far as he seeks to possess it, he
is said to use it.

Reply Obj. 1: Augustine is speaking of use in general, in so far as
it implies the relation of an end to the enjoyment which a man seeks
in that end.

Reply Obj. 2: The end is applied to the purpose of the will, that
the will may find rest in it. Consequently this rest in the end,
which is the enjoyment thereof, is in this sense called use of the
end. But the means are applied to the will's purpose, not only in
being used as means, but as ordained to something else in which the
will finds rest.

Reply Obj. 3: The words of Hilary refer to use as applicable
to rest in the last end; just as, speaking in a general sense, one may
be said to use the end for the purpose of attaining it, as stated
above. Hence Augustine says (De Trin. vi, 10) that "this love, delight,
felicity, or happiness, is called use by him."
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 16, Art. 4]

Whether Use Precedes Choice?

Objection 1: It would seem that use precedes choice. For nothing
follows after choice, except execution. But use, since it belongs to
the will, precedes execution. Therefore it precedes choice also.

Obj. 2: Further, the absolute precedes the relative. Therefore the
less relative precedes the more relative. But choice implies two
relations: one, of the thing chosen, in relation to the end; the
other, of the thing chosen, in respect of that to which it is
preferred; whereas use implies relation to the end only. Therefore
use precedes choice.

Obj. 3: Further, the will uses the other powers in so far as it
removes them. But the will moves itself, too, as stated above (Q. 9,
A. 3). Therefore it uses itself, by applying itself to act. But it
does this when it consents. Therefore there is use in consent. But
consent precedes choice as stated above (Q. 15, A. 3, ad 3).
Therefore use does also.

_On the contrary,_ Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii, 22) that "the
will after choosing has an impulse to the operation, and afterwards
it uses (the powers)." Therefore use follows choice.

_I answer that,_ The will has a twofold relation to the thing willed.
One, according as the thing willed is, in a way, in the willing
subject, by a kind of proportion or order to the thing willed.
Wherefore those things that are naturally proportionate to a certain
end, are said to desire that end naturally. Yet to have an end thus
is to have it imperfectly. Now every imperfect thing tends to
perfection. And therefore both the natural and the voluntary appetite
tend to have the end in reality; and this is to have it perfectly.
This is the second relation of the will to the thing willed.

Now the thing willed is not only the end, but also the means. And the
last act that belongs to the first relation of the will to the means,
is choice; for there the will becomes fully proportionate, by willing
the means fully. Use, on the other hand, belongs to the second
relation of the will, in respect of which it tends to the realization
of the thing willed. Wherefore it is evident that use follows choice;
provided that by use we mean the will's use of the executive power in
moving it. But since the will, in a way, moves the reason also, and
uses it, we may take the use of the means, as consisting in the
consideration of the reason, whereby it refers the means to the end.
In this sense use precedes choice.

Reply Obj. 1: The motion of the will to the execution of the
work, precedes execution, but follows choice. And so, since use
belongs to that very motion of the will, it stands between choice and
execution.

Reply Obj. 2: What is essentially relative is after the
absolute; but the thing to which relation is referred need not come
after. Indeed, the more a cause precedes, the more numerous the
effects to which it has relation.

Reply Obj. 3: Choice precedes use, if they be referred to the
same object. But nothing hinders the use of one thing preceding the
choice of another. And since the acts of the will react on one
another, in each act of the will we can find both consent and choice
and use; so that we may say that the will consents to choose, and
consents to consent, and uses itself in consenting and choosing. And
such acts as are ordained to that which precedes, precede also.
________________________

QUESTION 17

OF THE ACTS COMMANDED BY THE WILL (In Nine Articles)

We must now consider the acts commanded by the will; under which head
there are nine points of inquiry:

(1) Whether command is an act of the will or of the reason?

(2) Whether command belongs to irrational animals?

(3) Of the order between command and use;

(4) Whether command and the commanded act are one act or distinct?

(5) Whether the act of the will is commanded?

(6) Whether the act of the reason is commanded?

(7) Whether the act of the sensitive appetite is commanded?

(8) Whether the act of the vegetal soul is commanded?

(9) Whether the acts of the external members are commanded?
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 17, Art. 1]

Whether Command Is an Act of the Reason or of the Will?

Objection 1: It would seem that command is not an act of the reason
but of the will. For command is a kind of motion; because Avicenna
says that there are four ways of moving, "by perfecting, by
disposing, by commanding, and by counselling." But it belongs to the
will to move all the other powers of the soul, as stated above (Q. 9,
A. 1). Therefore command is an act of the will.

Obj. 2: Further, just as to be commanded belongs to that which is
subject, so, seemingly, to command belongs to that which is most
free. But the root of liberty is especially in the will. Therefore
to command belongs to the will.

Obj. 3: Further, command is followed at once by act. But the act of
the reason is not followed at once by act: for he who judges that a
thing should be done, does not do it at once. Therefore command is
not an act of the reason, but of the will.

_On the contrary,_ Gregory of Nyssa [*Nemesius, De Nat. Hom. xvi.]
and the Philosopher (Ethic. i, 13) say that "the appetite obeys
reason." Therefore command is an act of the reason.

_I answer that,_ Command is an act of the reason presupposing,
however, an act of the will. In proof of this, we must take note
that, since the acts of the reason and of the will can be brought to
bear on one another, in so far as the reason reasons about willing,
and the will wills to reason, the result is that the act of the
reason precedes the act of the will, and conversely. And since the
power of the preceding act continues in the act that follows, it
happens sometimes that there is an act of the will in so far as it
retains in itself something of an act of the reason, as we have
stated in reference to use and choice; and conversely, that there is
an act of the reason in so far as it retains in itself something of
an act of the will.

Now, command is essentially indeed an act of the reason: for the
commander orders the one commanded to do something, by way of
intimation or declaration; and to order thus by intimating or
declaring is an act of the reason. Now the reason can intimate or
declare something in two ways. First, absolutely: and this intimation
is expressed by a verb in the indicative mood, as when one person
says to another: "This is what you should do." Sometimes, however,
the reason intimates something to a man by moving him thereto; and
this intimation is expressed by a verb in the imperative mood; as
when it is said to someone: "Do this." Now the first mover, among the
powers of the soul, to the doing of an act is the will, as stated
above (Q. 9, A. 1). Since therefore the second mover does not move,
save in virtue of the first mover, it follows that the very fact that
the reason moves by commanding, is due to the power of the will.
Consequently it follows that command is an act of the reason,
presupposing an act of the will, in virtue of which the reason, by
its command, moves (the power) to the execution of the act.

Reply Obj. 1: To command is to move, not anyhow, but by intimating
and declaring to another; and this is an act of the reason.

Reply Obj. 2: The root of liberty is the will as the subject thereof;
but it is the reason as its cause. For the will can tend freely
towards various objects, precisely because the reason can have
various perceptions of good. Hence philosophers define the free-will
as being "a free judgment arising from reason," implying that reason
is the root of liberty.

Reply Obj. 3: This argument proves that command is an act of reason
not absolutely, but with a kind of motion as stated above.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 17, Art. 2]

Whether Command Belongs to Irrational Animals?

Objection 1: It would seem that command belongs to irrational
animals. Because, according to Avicenna, "the power that commands
movement is the appetite; and the power that executes movement is in
the muscles and nerves." But both powers are in irrational animals.
Therefore command is to be found in irrational animals.

Obj. 2: Further, the condition of a slave is that of one who receives
commands. But the body is compared to the soul as a slave to his
master, as the Philosopher says (Polit. i, 2). Therefore the body is
commanded by the soul, even in irrational animals, since they are
composed of soul and body.

Obj. 3: Further, by commanding, man has an impulse towards an action.
But impulse to action is to be found in irrational animals, as
Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii, 22). Therefore command is to be
found in irrational animals.

_On the contrary,_ Command is an act of reason, as stated above (A.
1). But in irrational animals there is no reason. Neither, therefore,
is there command.

_I answer that,_ To command is nothing else than to direct someone to
do something, by a certain motion of intimation. Now to direct is the
proper act of reason. Wherefore it is impossible that irrational
animals should command in any way, since they are devoid of reason.

Reply Obj. 1: The appetitive power is said to command movement, in so
far as it moves the commanding reason. But this is only in man. In
irrational animals the appetitive power is not, properly speaking, a
commanding faculty, unless command be taken loosely for motion.

Reply Obj. 2: The body of the irrational animal is competent to obey;
but its soul is not competent to command, because it is not competent
to direct. Consequently there is no ratio there of commander and
commanded; but only of mover and moved.

Reply Obj. 3: Impulse to action is in irrational animals otherwise
than in man. For the impulse of man to action arises from the
directing reason; wherefore his impulse is one of command. On the
other hand, the impulse of the irrational animal arises from natural
instinct; because as soon as they apprehend the fitting or the
unfitting, their appetite is moved naturally to pursue or to avoid.
Wherefore they are directed by another to act; and they themselves do
not direct themselves to act. Consequently in them is impulse but not
command.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 17, Art. 3]

Whether Use Precedes Command?

Objection 1: It would seem that use precedes command. For command is
an act of the reason presupposing an act of the will, as stated above
(A. 1). But, as we have already shown (Q. 16, A. 1), use is an act of
the will. Therefore use precedes command.

Obj. 2: Further, command is one of those things that are ordained to
the end. But use is of those things that are ordained to the end.
Therefore it seems that use precedes command.

Obj. 3: Further, every act of a power moved by the will is called
use; because the will uses the other powers, as stated above (Q. 16,
A. 1). But command is an act of the reason as moved by the will, as
stated above (A. 1). Therefore command is a kind of use. Now the
common precedes the proper. Therefore use precedes command.

_On the contrary,_ Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii, 22) that impulse
to action precedes use. But impulse to operation is given by command.
Therefore command precedes use.

_I answer that,_ use of that which is directed to the end, in so far
as it is in the reason referring this to the end, precedes choice, as
stated above (Q. 16, A. 4). Wherefore still more does it precede
command. On the other hand, use of that which is directed to the end,
in so far as it is subject to the executive power, follows command;
because use in the user is united to the act of the thing used; for
one does not use a stick before doing something with the stick. But
command is not simultaneous with the act of the thing to which the
command is given: for it naturally precedes its fulfilment,
sometimes, indeed, by priority of time. Consequently it is evident
that command precedes use.

Reply Obj. 1: Not every act of the will precedes this act of the
reason which is command; but an act of the will precedes, viz.
choice; and an act of the will follows, viz. use. Because after
counsel's decision, which is reason's judgment, the will chooses; and
after choice, the reason commands that power which has to do what was
chosen; and then, last of all, someone's will begins to use, by
executing the command of reason; sometimes it is another's will, when
one commands another; sometimes the will of the one that commands,
when he commands himself to do something.

Reply Obj. 2: Just as act ranks before power, so does the object rank
before the act. Now the object of use is that which is directed to
the end. Consequently, from the fact that command [itself is directed
to the end, it may be concluded that command] precedes, rather than
that it follows use.

Reply Obj. 3: Just as the act of the will in using the reason for the
purpose of command, precedes the command; so also we may say that
this act whereby the will uses the reason, is preceded by a command
of reason; since the acts of these powers react on one another.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 17, Art. 4]

Whether Command and the Commanded Act Are One Act, or Distinct?

Objection 1: It would seem that the commanded act is not one with the
command itself. For the acts of different powers are themselves
distinct. But the commanded act belongs to one power, and the command
to another; since one is the power that commands, and the other is
the power that receives the command. Therefore the commanded act is
not one with the command.

Obj. 2: Further, whatever things can be separate from one another,
are distinct: for nothing is severed from itself. But sometimes the
commanded act is separate from the command: for sometimes the command
is given, and the commanded act follows not. Therefore command is a
distinct act from the act commanded.

Obj. 3: Further, whatever things are related to one another as
precedent and consequent, are distinct. But command naturally
precedes the commanded act. Therefore they are distinct.

_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher says (Topic. iii, 2) that "where
one thing is by reason of another, there is but one." But there is no
commanded act unless by reason of the command. Therefore they are one.

_I answer that,_ Nothing prevents certain things being distinct in
one respect, and one in another respect. Indeed, every multitude is
one in some respect, as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. xiii). But a
difference is to be observed in this, that some are simply many, and
one in a particular aspect: while with others it is the reverse. Now
"one" is predicated in the same way as "being." And substance is
being simply, whereas accident or being "of reason" is a being only
in a certain respect. Wherefore those things that are one in
substance are one simply, though many in a certain respect. Thus, in
the genus substance, the whole composed of its integral or essential
parts, is one simply: because the whole is being and substance
simply, and the parts are being and substances in the whole. But
those things which are distinct in substance, and one according to an
accident, are distinct simply, and one in a certain respect: thus
many men are one people, and many stones are one heap; which is unity
of composition or order. In like manner also many individuals that
are one in genus or species are many simply, and one in a certain
respect: since to be one in genus or species is to be one according
to the consideration of the reason.

Now just as in the genus of natural things, a whole is composed of
matter and form (e.g. man, who is one natural being, though he has
many parts, is composed of soul and body); so, in human acts, the act
of a lower power is in the position of matter in regard to the act of
a higher power, in so far as the lower power acts in virtue of the
higher power moving it: for thus also the act of the first mover is
as the form in regard to the act of its instrument. Hence it is
evident that command and the commanded act are one human act, just as
a whole is one, yet in its parts, many.

Reply Obj. 1: If the distinct powers are not ordained to one another,
their acts are diverse simply. But when one power is the mover of the
other, then their acts are, in a way, one: since "the act of the
mover and the act of the thing moved are one act" (Phys. iii, 3).

Reply Obj. 2: The fact that command and the commanded act can be
separated from one another shows that they are different parts.
Because the parts of a man can be separated from one another, and yet
they form one whole.

Reply Obj. 3: In those things that are many in parts, but one as a
whole, nothing hinders one part from preceding another. Thus the
soul, in a way, precedes the body; and the heart, the other members.
________________________

FIFTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 17, Art. 5]

Whether the Act of the Will Is Commanded?

Objection 1: It would seem that the act of the will is not commanded.
For Augustine says (Confess. viii, 9): "The mind commands the mind to
will, and yet it does not." But to will is the act of the will.
Therefore the act of the will is not commanded.

Obj. 2: Further, to receive a command belongs to one who can
understand the command. But the will cannot understand the command;
for the will differs from the intellect, to which it belongs to
understand. Therefore the act of the will is not commanded.

Obj. 3: Further, if one act of the will is commanded, for the same
reason all are commanded. But if all the acts of the will are
commanded, we must needs proceed to infinity; because the act of the
will precedes the act of reason commanding, as stated above (A. 1);
for if that act of the will be also commanded, this command will be
preceded by another act of the reason, and so on to infinity. But to
proceed to infinity is not possible. Therefore the act of the will
is not commanded.

_On the contrary,_ Whatever is in our power, is subject to our
command. But the acts of the will, most of all, are in our power;
since all our acts are said to be in our power, in so far as they are
voluntary. Therefore the acts of the will are commanded by us.

_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1), command is nothing else than
the act of the reason directing, with a certain motion, something to
act. Now it is evident that the reason can direct the act of the
will: for just as it can judge it to be good to will something, so it
can direct by commanding man to will. From this it is evident that an
act of the will can be commanded.

Reply Obj. 1: As Augustine says (Confess. viii, 9) when the mind
commands itself perfectly to will, then already it wills: but that
sometimes it commands and wills not, is due to the fact that it
commands imperfectly. Now imperfect command arises from the fact that
the reason is moved by opposite motives to command or not to command:
wherefore it fluctuates between the two, and fails to command
perfectly.

Reply Obj. 2: Just as each of the members of the body works not for
itself alone but for the whole body; thus it is for the whole body
that the eye sees; so is it with the powers of the soul. For the
intellect understands, not for itself alone, but for all the powers;
and the will wills not only for itself, but for all the powers too.
Wherefore man, in so far as he is endowed with intellect and will,
commands the act of the will for himself.

Reply Obj. 3: Since command is an act of reason, that act is
commanded which is subject to reason. Now the first act of the will
is not due to the direction of the reason but to the instigation of
nature, or of a higher cause, as stated above (Q. 9, A. 4).
Therefore there is no need to proceed to infinity.
________________________

SIXTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 17, Art. 6]

Whether the Act of the Reason Is Commanded?

Objection 1: It would seem that the act of the reason cannot be
commanded. For it seems impossible for a thing to command itself. But
it is the reason that commands, as stated above (A. 1). Therefore the
act of the reason is not commanded.

Obj. 2: Further, that which is essential is different from that which
is by participation. But the power whose act is commanded by reason,
is rational by participation, as stated in _Ethic._ i, 13. Therefore
the act of that power, which is essentially rational, is not
commanded.

Obj. 3: Further, that act is commanded, which is in our power. But to
know and judge the truth, which is the act of reason, is not always
in our power. Therefore the act of the reason cannot be commanded.

_On the contrary,_ That which we do of our free-will, can be done by
our command. But the acts of the reason are accomplished through the
free-will: for Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii, 22) that "by his
free-will man inquires, considers, judges, approves." Therefore the
acts of the reason can be commanded.

_I answer that,_ Since the reason reacts on itself, just as it
directs the acts of other powers, so can it direct its own act.
Consequently its act can be commanded.

But we must take note that the act of the reason may be considered in
two ways. First, as to the exercise of the act. And considered thus,
the act of the reason can always be commanded: as when one is told to
be attentive, and to use one's reason. Secondly, as to the object; in
respect of which two acts of the reason have to be noticed. One is
the act whereby it apprehends the truth about something. This act is
not in our power: because it happens in virtue of a natural or
supernatural light. Consequently in this respect, the act of the
reason is not in our power, and cannot be commanded. The other act of
the reason is that whereby it assents to what it apprehends. If,
therefore, that which the reason apprehends is such that it naturally
assents thereto, e.g. the first principles, it is not in our power to
assent or dissent to the like: assent follows naturally, and
consequently, properly speaking, is not subject to our command. But
some things which are apprehended do not convince the intellect to
such an extent as not to leave it free to assent or dissent, or at
least suspend its assent or dissent, on account of some cause or
other; and in such things assent or dissent is in our power, and is
subject to our command.

Reply Obj. 1: Reason commands itself, just as the will moves itself,
as stated above (Q. 9, A. 3), that is to say, in so far as each power
reacts on its own acts, and from one thing tends to another.

Reply Obj. 2: On account of the diversity of objects subject to the
act of the reason, nothing prevents the reason from participating in
itself: thus the knowledge of principles is participated in the
knowledge of the conclusions.

The reply to the third object is evident from what has been said.
________________________

SEVENTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 17, Art. 7]

Whether the Act of the Sensitive Appetite Is Commanded?

Objection 1: It would seem that the act of the sensitive appetite is
not commanded. For the Apostle says (Rom. 7:15): "For I do not that
good which I will": and a gloss explains this by saying that man
lusts, although he wills not to lust. But to lust is an act of the
sensitive appetite. Therefore the act of the sensitive appetite is
not subject to our command.

Obj. 2: Further, corporeal matter obeys God alone, to the effect of
formal transmutation, as was shown in the First Part (Q. 65, A. 4; Q.
91, A. 2; Q. 110, A. 2). But the act of the sensitive appetite is
accompanied by a formal transmutation of the body, consisting in heat
or cold. Therefore the act of the sensitive appetite is not subject
to man's command.

Obj. 3: Further, the proper motive principle of the sensitive
appetite is something apprehended by sense or imagination. But it is
not always in our power to apprehend something by sense or
imagination. Therefore the act of the sensitive appetite is not
subject to our command.

_On the contrary,_ Gregory of Nyssa [*Nemesius, De Nat. Hom. xvi.]
says: "That which obeys reason is twofold, the concupiscible and the
irascible," which belong to the sensitive appetite. Therefore the act
of the sensitive appetite is subject to the command of reason.

_I answer that,_ An act is subject to our command, in so far as it is
in our power, as stated above (A. 5). Consequently in order to
understand in what manner the act of the sensitive appetite is
subject to the command of reason, we must consider in what manner it
is in our power. Now it must be observed that the sensitive appetite
differs from the intellective appetite, which is called the will, in
the fact that the sensitive appetite is a power of a corporeal organ,
whereas the will is not. Again, every act of a power that uses a
corporeal organ, depends not only on a power of the soul, but also on
the disposition of that corporeal organ: thus the act of vision
depends on the power of sight, and on the condition of the eye, which
condition is a help or a hindrance to that act. Consequently the act
of the sensitive appetite depends not only on the appetitive power,
but also on the disposition of the body.

Now whatever part the power of the soul takes in the act, follows
apprehension. And the apprehension of the imagination, being a
particular apprehension, is regulated by the apprehension of reason,
which is universal; just as a particular active power is regulated by
a universal active power. Consequently in this respect the act of the
sensitive appetite is subject to the command of reason. On the other
hand, condition or disposition of the body is not subject to the
command of reason: and consequently in this respect, the movement of
the sensitive appetite is hindered from being wholly subject to the
command of reason.

Moreover it happens sometimes that the movement of the sensitive
appetite is aroused suddenly in consequence of an apprehension of the
imagination of sense. And then such movement occurs without the
command of reason: although reason could have prevented it, had it
foreseen. Hence the Philosopher says (Polit. i, 2) that the reason
governs the irascible and concupiscible not by a "despotic
supremacy," which is that of a master over his slave; but by a
"politic and royal supremacy," whereby the free are governed, who are
not wholly subject to command.

Reply Obj. 1: That man lusts, although he wills not to lust, is due
to a disposition of the body, whereby the sensitive appetite is
hindered from perfect compliance with the command of reason. Hence
the Apostle adds (Rom. 7:15): "I see another law in my members,
fighting against the law of my mind." This may also happen through a
sudden movement of concupiscence, as stated above.

Reply Obj. 2: The condition of the body stands in a twofold relation
to the act of the sensitive appetite. First, as preceding it: thus a
man may be disposed in one way or another, in respect of his body, to
this or that passion. Secondly, as consequent to it: thus a man
becomes heated through anger. Now the condition that precedes, is not
subject to the command of reason: since it is due either to nature,
or to some previous movement, which cannot cease at once. But the
condition that is consequent, follows the command of reason: since it
results from the local movement of the heart, which has various
movements according to the various acts of the sensitive appetite.

Reply Obj. 3: Since the external sensible is necessary for the
apprehension of the senses, it is not in our power to apprehend
anything by the senses, unless the sensible be present; which
presence of the sensible is not always in our power. For it is then
that man can use his senses if he will so to do; unless there be some
obstacle on the part of the organ. On the other hand, the
apprehension of the imagination is subject to the ordering of reason,
in proportion to the strength or weakness of the imaginative power.
For that man is unable to imagine the things that reason considers,
is either because they cannot be imagined, such as incorporeal
things; or because of the weakness of the imaginative power, due to
some organic indisposition.
________________________

EIGHTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 17, Art. 8]

Whether the Act of the Vegetal Soul Is Commanded?

Objection 1: It would seem that the acts of the vegetal soul are
subject to the command of reason. For the sensitive powers are of
higher rank than the vegetal powers. But the powers of the sensitive
soul are subject to the command of reason. Much more, therefore, are
the powers of the vegetal soul.

Obj. 2: Further, man is called a "little world" [*Aristotle,
_Phys._ viii. 2], because the soul is in the body, as God is in the
world. But God is in the world in such a way, that everything in the
world obeys His command. Therefore all that is in man, even the
powers of the vegetal soul, obey the command of reason.

Obj. 3: Further, praise and blame are awarded only to such acts as
are subject to the command of reason. But in the acts of the
nutritive and generative power, there is room for praise and blame,
virtue and vice: as in the case of gluttony and lust, and their
contrary virtues. Therefore the acts of these powers are subject to
the command of reason.

_On the contrary,_ Gregory of Nyssa [*Nemesius, De Nat. Hom. xxii.]
says that "the nutritive and generative power is one over which the
reason has no control."

_I answer that,_ Some acts proceed from the natural appetite, others
from the animal, or from the intellectual appetite: for every agent
desires an end in some way. Now the natural appetite does not follow
from some apprehension, as [d]o the animal and the intellectual
appetite. But the reason commands by way of apprehensive power.
Wherefore those acts that proceed from the intellective or the animal
appetite, can be commanded by reason: but not those acts that proceed
from the natural appetite. And such are the acts of the vegetal soul;
wherefore Gregory of Nyssa (Nemesius, De Nat. Hom. xxii) says "that
generation and nutrition belong to what are called natural powers."
Consequently the acts of the vegetal soul are not subject to the
command of reason.

Reply Obj. 1: The more immaterial an act is, the more noble it is,
and the more is it subject to the command of reason. Hence the very
fact that the acts of the vegetal soul do not obey reason, shows that
they rank lowest.

Reply Obj. 2: The comparison holds in a certain respect: because, to
wit, as God moves the world, so the soul moves the body. But it does
not hold in every respect: for the soul did not create the body out
of nothing, as God created the world; for which reason the world is
wholly subject to His command.

Reply Obj. 3: Virtue and vice, praise and blame do not affect the
acts themselves of the nutritive and generative power, i.e.
digestion, and formation of the human body; but they affect the acts
of the sensitive part, that are ordained to the acts of generation
and nutrition; for example the desire for pleasure in the act of
taking food or in the act of generation, and the right or wrong use
thereof. ________________________

NINTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 17, Art. 9]

Whether the Acts of the External Members Are Commanded?

Objection 1: It would seem that the members of the body do not obey
reason as to their acts. For it is evident that the members of the
body are more distant from the reason, than the powers of the vegetal
soul. But the powers of the vegetal soul do not obey reason, as
stated above (A. 8). Therefore much less do the members of the body
obey.

Obj. 2: Further, the heart is the principle of animal movement. But
the movement of the heart is not subject to the command of reason:
for Gregory of Nyssa [*Nemesius, De Nat. Hom. xxii.] says that "the
pulse is not controlled by reason." Therefore the movement of the
bodily members is not subject to the command of reason.

Obj. 3: Further, Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xiv, 16) that "the
movement of the genital members is sometimes inopportune and not
desired; sometimes when sought it fails, and whereas the heart is
warm with desire, the body remains cold." Therefore the movements of
the members are not obedient to reason.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (Confess. viii, 9): "The mind
commands a movement of the hand, and so ready is the hand to obey,
that scarcely can one discern obedience from command."

_I answer that,_ The members of the body are organs of the soul's
powers. Consequently according as the powers of the soul stand in
respect of obedience to reason, so do the members of the body stand
in respect thereof. Since then the sensitive powers are subject to
the command of reason, whereas the natural powers are not; therefore
all movements of members, that are moved by the sensitive powers, are
subject to the command of reason; whereas those movements of members,
that arise from the natural powers, are not subject to the command of
reason.

Reply Obj. 1: The members do not move themselves, but are moved
through the powers of the soul; of which powers, some are in closer
contact with the reason than are the powers of the vegetal soul.

Reply Obj. 2: In things pertaining to intellect and will, that which
is according to nature stands first, whence all other things are
derived: thus from the knowledge of principles that are naturally
known, is derived knowledge of the conclusions; and from volition of
the end naturally desired, is derived the choice of the means. So
also in bodily movements the principle is according to nature. Now
the principle of bodily movements begins with the movement of the
heart. Consequently the movement of the heart is according to nature,
and not according to the will: for like a proper accident, it results
from life, which follows from the union of soul and body. Thus the
movement of heavy and light things results from their substantial
form: for which reason they are said to be moved by their generator,
as the Philosopher states (Phys. viii, 4). Wherefore this movement is
called "vital." For which reason Gregory of Nyssa (Nemesius, De Nat.
Hom. xxii) says that, just as the movement of generation and
nutrition does not obey reason, so neither does the pulse which is a
vital movement. By the pulse he means the movement of the heart which
is indicated by the pulse veins.

Reply Obj. 3: As Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xiv, 17, 20) it is in
punishment of sin that the movement of these members does not obey
reason: in this sense, that the soul is punished for its rebellion
against God, by the insubmission of that member whereby original sin
is transmitted to posterity.

But because, as we shall state later on, the effect of the sin of our
first parent was that his nature was left to itself, through the
withdrawal of the supernatural gift which God had bestowed on man, we
must consider the natural cause of this particular member's
insubmission to reason. This is stated by Aristotle (De Causis Mot.
Animal.) who says that "the movements of the heart and of the organs
of generation are involuntary," and that the reason of this is as
follows. These members are stirred at the occasion of some
apprehension; in so far as the intellect and imagination represent
such things as arouse the passions of the soul, of which passions
these movements are a consequence. But they are not moved at the
command of the reason or intellect, because these movements are
conditioned by a certain natural change of heat and cold, which
change is not subject to the command of reason. This is the case with
these two organs in particular, because each is as it were a separate
animal being, in so far as it is a principle of life; and the
principle is virtually the whole. For the heart is the principle of
the senses; and from the organ of generation proceeds the seminal
virtue, which is virtually the entire animal. Consequently they have
their proper movements naturally: because principles must needs be
natural, as stated above (Reply Obj. 2).
________________________

QUESTION 18

OF THE GOOD AND EVIL OF HUMAN ACTS, IN GENERAL (In Eleven Articles)

We must now consider the good and evil of human acts. First, how a
human act is good or evil; secondly, what results from the good or
evil of a human act, as merit or demerit, sin and guilt.

Under the first head there will be a threefold consideration: the
first will be of the good and evil of human acts, in general; the
second, of the good and evil of internal acts; the third, of the good
and evil of external acts.

Concerning the first there are eleven points of inquiry:

(1) Whether every human action is good, or are there evil actions?

(2) Whether the good or evil of a human action is derived from its
object?

(3) Whether it is derived from a circumstance?

(4) Whether it is derived from the end?

(5) Whether a human action is good or evil in its species?

(6) Whether an action has the species of good or evil from its end?

(7) Whether the species derived from the end is contained under the
species derived from the object, as under its genus, or conversely?

(8) Whether any action is indifferent in its species?

(9) Whether an individual action can be indifferent?

(10) Whether a circumstance places a moral action in the species of
good or evil?

(11) Whether every circumstance that makes an action better or worse,
places the moral action in the species of good or evil?
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 18, Art. 1]

Whether Every Human Action Is Good, or Are There Evil Actions?

Objection 1: It would seem that every human action is good, and that
none is evil. For Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv) that evil acts not,
save in virtue of the good. But no evil is done in virtue of the
good. Therefore no action is evil.

Obj. 2: Further, nothing acts except in so far as it is in act. Now a
thing is evil, not according as it is in act, but according as its
potentiality is void of act; whereas in so far as its potentiality is
perfected by act, it is good, as stated in _Metaph._ ix, 9. Therefore
nothing acts in so far as it is evil, but only according as it is
good. Therefore every action is good, and none is evil.

Obj. 3: Further, evil cannot be a cause, save accidentally, as
Dionysius declares (Div. Nom. iv). But every action has some effect
which is proper to it. Therefore no action is evil, but every action
is good.

_On the contrary,_ Our Lord said (John 3:20): "Every one that doth
evil, hateth the light." Therefore some actions of man are evil.

_I answer that,_ We must speak of good and evil in actions as of good
and evil in things: because such as everything is, such is the act
that it produces. Now in things, each one has so much good as it has
being: since good and being are convertible, as was stated in the
First Part (Q. 5, AA. 1, 3). But God alone has the whole plenitude of
His Being in a certain unity: whereas every other thing has its
proper fulness of being in a certain multiplicity. Wherefore it
happens with some things, that they have being in some respect, and
yet they are lacking in the fulness of being due to them. Thus the
fulness of human being requires a compound of soul and body, having
all the powers and instruments of knowledge and movement: wherefore
if any man be lacking in any of these, he is lacking in something due
to the fulness of his being. So that as much as he has of being, so
much has he of goodness: while so far as he is lacking in goodness,
and is said to be evil: thus a blind man is possessed of goodness
inasmuch as he lives; and of evil, inasmuch as he lacks sight. That,
however, which has nothing of being or goodness, could not be said to
be either evil or good. But since this same fulness of being is of
the very essence of good, if a thing be lacking in its due fulness of
being, it is not said to be good simply, but in a certain respect,
inasmuch as it is a being; although it can be called a being simply,
and a non-being in a certain respect, as was stated in the First Part
(Q. 5, A. 1, ad 1). We must therefore say that every action has
goodness, in so far as it has being; whereas it is lacking in
goodness, in so far as it is lacking in something that is due to its
fulness of being; and thus it is said to be evil: for instance if it
lacks the quantity determined by reason, or its due place, or
something of the kind.

Reply Obj. 1: Evil acts in virtue of deficient goodness. For if there
were nothing of good there, there would be neither being nor
possibility of action. On the other hand if good were not deficient,
there would be no evil. Consequently the action done is a deficient
good, which is good in a certain respect, but simply evil.

Reply Obj. 2: Nothing hinders a thing from being in act in a certain
respect, so that it can act; and in a certain respect deficient in
act, so as to cause a deficient act. Thus a blind man has in act the
power of walking, whereby he is able to walk; but inasmuch as he is
deprived of sight he suffers a defect in walking by stumbling when he
walks.

Reply Obj. 3: An evil action can have a proper effect, according to
the goodness and being that it has. Thus adultery is the cause of
human generation, inasmuch as it implies union of male and female,
but not inasmuch as it lacks the order of reason.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 18, Art. 2]

Whether the Good or Evil of a Man's Action Is Derived from Its Object?

Objection 1: It would seem that the good or evil of an action is not
derived from its object. For the object of any action is a thing. But
"evil is not in things, but in the sinner's use of them," as
Augustine says (De Doctr. Christ. iii, 12). Therefore the good or
evil of a human action is not derived from their object.

Obj. 2: Further, the object is compared to the action as its matter.
But the goodness of a thing is not from its matter, but rather from
the form, which is an act. Therefore good and evil in actions is not
derived from their object.

Obj. 3: Further, the object of an active power is compared to the
action as effect to cause. But the goodness of a cause does not
depend on its effect; rather is it the reverse. Therefore good or
evil in actions is not derived from their object.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Osee 9:10): "They became abominable
as those things which they loved." Now man becomes abominable to God
on account of the malice of his action. Therefore the malice of his
action is according to the evil objects that man loves. And the same
applies to the goodness of his action.

_I answer that,_ as stated above (A. 1) the good or evil of an
action, as of other things, depends on its fulness of being or its
lack of that fulness. Now the first thing that belongs to the fulness
of being seems to be that which gives a thing its species. And just
as a natural thing has its species from its form, so an action has
its species from its object, as movement from its term. And therefore
just as the primary goodness of a natural thing is derived from its
form, which gives it its species, so the primary goodness of a moral
action is derived from its suitable object: hence some call such an
action "good in its genus"; for instance, "to make use of what is
one's own." And just as, in natural things, the primary evil is when
a generated thing does not realize its specific form (for instance,
if instead of a man, something else be generated); so the primary
evil in moral actions is that which is from the object, for instance,
"to take what belongs to another." And this action is said to be
"evil in its genus," genus here standing for species, just as we
apply the term "mankind" to the whole human species.

Reply Obj. 1: Although external things are good in themselves,
nevertheless they have not always a due proportion to this or that
action. And so, inasmuch as they are considered as objects of such
actions, they have not the quality of goodness.

Reply Obj. 2: The object is not the matter "of which" (a thing is
made), but the matter "about which" (something is done); and stands
in relation to the act as its form, as it were, through giving it its
species.

Reply Obj. 3: The object of the human action is not always the object
of an active power. For the appetitive power is, in a way, passive;
in so far as it is moved by the appetible object; and yet it is a
principle of human actions. Nor again have the objects of the active
powers always the nature of an effect, but only when they are already
transformed: thus food when transformed is the effect of the
nutritive power; whereas food before being transformed stands in
relation to the nutritive power as the matter about which it
exercises its operation. Now since the object is in some way the
effect of the active power, it follows that it is the term of its
action, and consequently that it gives it its form and species, since
movement derives its species from its term. Moreover, although the
goodness of an action is not caused by the goodness of its effect,
yet an action is said to be good from the fact that it can produce a
good effect. Consequently the very proportion of an action to its
effect is the measure of its goodness.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 18, Art. 3]

Whether Man's Action Is Good or Evil from a Circumstance?

Objection 1: It would seem that an action is not good or evil from a
circumstance. For circumstances stand around (_circumstant_) an action,
as being outside it, as stated above (Q. 7, A. 1). But "good and evil
are in things themselves," as is stated in _Metaph._ vi, 4. Therefore
an action does not derive goodness or malice from a circumstance.

Obj. 2: Further, the goodness or malice of an action is considered
principally in the doctrine of morals. But since circumstances are
accidents of actions, it seems that they are outside the scope of
art: because "no art takes notice of what is accidental" (Metaph. vi,
2). Therefore the goodness or malice of an action is not taken from a
circumstance.

Obj. 3: Further, that which belongs to a thing, in respect of its
substance, is not ascribed to it in respect of an accident. But good
and evil belong to an action in respect of its substance; because an
action can be good or evil in its genus as stated above (A. 2).
Therefore an action is not good or bad from a circumstance.

_On the contrary,_ the Philosopher says (Ethic. ii, 3) that a
virtuous man acts as he should, and when he should, and so on in
respect of the other circumstances. Therefore, on the other hand, the
vicious man, in the matter of each vice, acts when he should not, or
where he should not, and so on with the other circumstances.
Therefore human actions are good or evil according to circumstances.

_I answer that,_ In natural things, it is to be noted that the whole
fulness of perfection due to a thing, is not from the mere
substantial form, that gives it its species; since a thing derives
much from supervening accidents, as man does from shape, color, and
the like; and if any one of these accidents be out of due proportion,
evil is the result. So it is with action. For the plenitude of its
goodness does not consist wholly in its species, but also in certain
additions which accrue to it by reason of certain accidents: and such
are its due circumstances. Wherefore if something be wanting that is
requisite as a due circumstance the action will be evil.

Reply Obj. 1: Circumstances are outside an action, inasmuch as they
are not part of its essence; but they are in an action as accidents
thereof. Thus, too, accidents in natural substances are outside the
essence.

Reply Obj. 2: Every accident is not accidentally in its subject; for
some are proper accidents; and of these every art takes notice. And
thus it is that the circumstances of actions are considered in the
doctrine of morals.

Reply Obj. 3: Since good and being are convertible; according as
being is predicated of substance and of accident, so is good
predicated of a thing both in respect of its essential being, and in
respect of its accidental being; and this, both in natural things and
in moral actions.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 18, Art. 4]

Whether a Human Action Is Good or Evil from Its End?

Objection 1: It would seem that the good and evil in human actions
are not from the end. For Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv) that "nothing
acts with a view to evil." If therefore an action were good or evil
from its end, no action would be evil. Which is clearly false.

Obj. 2: Further, the goodness of an action is something in the
action. But the end is an extrinsic cause. Therefore an action is not
said to be good or bad according to its end.

Obj. 3: Further, a good action may happen to be ordained to an evil
end, as when a man gives an alms from vainglory; and conversely, an
evil action may happen to be ordained to a good end, as a theft
committed in order to give something to the poor. Therefore an action
is not good or evil from its end.

_On the contrary,_ Boethius says (De Differ. _Topic._ ii) that "if the
end is good, the thing is good, and if the end be evil, the thing
also is evil."

_I answer that,_ The disposition of things as to goodness is the same
as their disposition as to being. Now in some things the being does
not depend on another, and in these it suffices to consider their
being absolutely. But there are things the being of which depends on
something else, and hence in their regard we must consider their
being in its relation to the cause on which it depends. Now just as
the being of a thing depends on the agent, and the form, so the
goodness of a thing depends on its end. Hence in the Divine Persons,
Whose goodness does not depend on another, the measure of goodness is
not taken from the end. Whereas human actions, and other things, the
goodness of which depends on something else, have a measure of
goodness from the end on which they depend, besides that goodness
which is in them absolutely.

Accordingly a fourfold goodness may be considered in a human action.
First, that which, as an action, it derives from its genus; because
as much as it has of action and being so much has it of goodness, as
stated above (A. 1). Secondly, it has goodness according to its
species; which is derived from its suitable object. Thirdly, it has
goodness from its circumstances, in respect, as it were, of its
accidents. Fourthly, it has goodness from its end, to which it is
compared as to the cause of its goodness.

Reply Obj. 1: The good in view of which one acts is not always a true
good; but sometimes it is a true good, sometimes an apparent good.
And in the latter event, an evil action results from the end in view.

Reply Obj. 2: Although the end is an extrinsic cause, nevertheless
due proportion to the end, and relation to the end, are inherent to
the action.

Reply Obj. 3: Nothing hinders an action that is good in one of the
ways mentioned above, from lacking goodness in another way. And thus
it may happen that an action which is good in its species or in its
circumstances is ordained to an evil end, or vice versa. However, an
action is not good simply, unless it is good in all those ways: since
"evil results from any single defect, but good from the complete
cause," as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv).
________________________

FIFTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 18, Art. 5]

Whether a Human Action Is Good or Evil in Its Species?

Objection 1: It would seem that good and evil in moral actions do not
make a difference of species. For the existence of good and evil in
actions is in conformity with their existence in things, as stated
above (A. 1). But good and evil do not make a specific difference in
things; for a good man is specifically the same as a bad man.
Therefore neither do they make a specific difference in actions.

Obj. 2: Further, since evil is a privation, it is a non-being. But
non-being cannot be a difference, according to the Philosopher
(Metaph. iii, 3). Since therefore the difference constitutes the
species, it seems that an action is not constituted in a species
through being evil. Consequently good and evil do not diversify the
species of human actions.

Obj. 3: Further, acts that differ in species produce different
effects. But the same specific effect results from a good and from an
evil action: thus a man is born of adulterous or of lawful wedlock.
Therefore good and evil actions do not differ in species.

Obj. 4: Further, actions are sometimes said to be good or bad from a
circumstance, as stated above (A. 3). But since a circumstance is an
accident, it does not give an action its species. Therefore human
actions do not differ in species on account of their goodness or
malice.

_On the contrary,_ According to the Philosopher (Ethic ii. 1) "like
habits produce like actions." But a good and a bad habit differ in
species, as liberality and prodigality. Therefore also good and bad
actions differ in species.

_I answer that,_ Every action derives its species from its object, as
stated above (A. 2). Hence it follows that a difference of object
causes a difference of species in actions. Now, it must be observed
that a difference of objects causes a difference of species in
actions, according as the latter are referred to one active
principle, which does not cause a difference in actions, according as
they are referred to another active principle. Because nothing
accidental constitutes a species, but only that which is essential;
and a difference of object may be essential in reference to one
active principle, and accidental in reference to another. Thus to
know color and to know sound, differ essentially in reference to
sense, but not in reference to the intellect.

Now in human actions, good and evil are predicated in reference to
the reason; because as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv), "the good of
man is to be in accordance with reason," and evil is "to be against
reason." For that is good for a thing which suits it in regard to its
form; and evil, that which is against the order of its form. It is
therefore evident that the difference of good and evil considered in
reference to the object is an essential difference in relation to
reason; that is to say, according as the object is suitable or
unsuitable to reason. Now certain actions are called human or moral,
inasmuch as they proceed from the reason. Consequently it is evident
that good and evil diversify the species in human actions; since
essential differences cause a difference of species.

Reply Obj. 1: Even in natural things, good and evil, inasmuch as
something is according to nature, and something against nature,
diversify the natural species; for a dead body and a living body are
not of the same species. In like manner, good, inasmuch as it is in
accord with reason, and evil, inasmuch as it is against
reason, inasmuch as it is against reason, diversify the moral species.

Reply Obj. 2: Evil implies privation, not absolute, but affecting
some potentiality. For an action is said to be evil in its species,
not because it has no object at all; but because it has an object in
disaccord with reason, for instance, to appropriate another's
property. Wherefore in so far as the object is something positive, it
can constitute the species of an evil act.

Reply Obj. 3: The conjugal act and adultery, as compared to reason,
differ specifically and have effects specifically different; because
the other deserves praise and reward, the other, blame and
punishment. But as compared to the generative power, they do not
differ in species; and thus they have one specific effect.

Reply Obj. 4: A circumstance is sometimes taken as the essential
difference of the object, as compared to reason; and then it can
specify a moral act. And it must needs be so whenever a circumstance
transforms an action from good to evil; for a circumstance would not
make an action evil, except through being repugnant to reason.
________________________

SIXTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 18, Art. 6]

Whether an Action Has the Species of Good or Evil from Its End?

Objection 1: It would seem that the good and evil which are from the
end do not diversify the species of actions. For actions derive their
species from the object. But the end is altogether apart from the
object. Therefore the good and evil which are from the end do not
diversify the species of an action.

Obj. 2: Further, that which is accidental does not constitute the
species, as stated above (A. 5). But it is accidental to an action to
be ordained to some particular end; for instance, to give alms from
vainglory. Therefore actions are not diversified as to species,
according to the good and evil which are from the end.

Obj. 3: Further, acts that differ in species, can be ordained to the
same end: thus to the end of vainglory, actions of various virtues
and vices can be ordained. Therefore the good and evil which are
taken from the end, do not diversify the species of action.

_On the contrary,_ It has been shown above (Q. 1, A. 3) that human
actions derive their species from the end. Therefore good and evil in
respect of the end diversify the species of actions.

_I answer that,_ Certain actions are called human, inasmuch as they
are voluntary, as stated above (Q. 1, A. 1). Now, in a voluntary
action, there is a twofold action, viz. the interior action of the
will, and the external action: and each of these actions has its
object. The end is properly the object of the interior act of the
will: while the object of the external action, is that on which the
action is brought to bear. Therefore just as the external action
takes its species from the object on which it bears; so the interior
act of the will takes its species from the end, as from its own
proper object.

Now that which is on the part of the will is formal in regard to that
which is on the part of the external action: because the will uses
the limbs to act as instruments; nor have external actions any
measure of morality, save in so far as they are voluntary.
Consequently the species of a human act is considered formally with
regard to the end, but materially with regard to the object of the
external action. Hence the Philosopher says (Ethic. v, 2) that "he
who steals that he may commit adultery, is strictly speaking, more
adulterer than thief."

Reply Obj. 1: The end also has the character of an object, as stated
above.

Reply Obj. 2: Although it is accidental to the external action to be
ordained to some particular end, it is not accidental to the interior
act of the will, which act is compared to the external act, as form
to matter.

Reply Obj. 3: When many actions, differing in species, are ordained
to the same end, there is indeed a diversity of species on the part
of the external actions; but unity of species on the part of the
internal action.
________________________

SEVENTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 18, Art. 7]

Whether the Species Derived from the End Is Contained Under the
Species Derived from the Object, As Under Its Genus, or Conversely?

Objection 1: It would seem that the species of goodness derived from
the end is contained under the species of goodness derived from the
object, as a species is contained under its genus; for instance, when
a man commits a theft in order to give alms. For an action takes its
species from its object, as stated above (AA. 2, 6). But it is
impossible for a thing to be contained under another species, if this
species be not contained under the proper species of that thing;
because the same thing cannot be contained in different species that
are not subordinate to one another. Therefore the species which is
taken from the end, is contained under the species which is taken
from the object.

Obj. 2: Further, the last difference always constitutes the most
specific species. But the difference derived from the end seems to
come after the difference derived from the object: because the end is
something last. Therefore the species derived from the end, is
contained under the species derived from the object, as its most
specific species.

Obj. 3: Further, the more formal a difference is, the more specific
it is: because difference is compared to genus, as form to matter.
But the species derived from the end, is more formal than that which
is derived from the object, as stated above (A. 6). Therefore the
species derived from the end is contained under the species derived
from the object, as the most specific species is contained under the
subaltern genus.

_On the contrary,_ Each genus has its determinate differences. But an
action of one same species on the part of its object, can be ordained
to an infinite number of ends: for instance, theft can be ordained to
an infinite number of good and bad ends. Therefore the species
derived from the end is not contained under the species derived from
the object, as under its genus.

_I answer that,_ The object of the external act can stand in a
twofold relation to the end of the will: first, as being of itself
ordained thereto; thus to fight well is of itself ordained to
victory; secondly, as being ordained thereto accidentally; thus to
take what belongs to another is ordained accidentally to the giving
of alms. Now the differences that divide a genus, and constitute the
species of that genus, must, as the Philosopher says (Metaph. vii,
12), divide that genus essentially: and if they divide it
accidentally, the division is incorrect: as, if one were to say:
"Animals are divided into rational and irrational; and the irrational
into animals with wings, and animals without wings"; for "winged" and
"wingless" are not essential determinations of the irrational being.
But the following division would be correct: "Some animals have feet,
some have no feet: and of those that have feet, some have two feet,
some four, some many": because the latter division is an essential
determination of the former. Accordingly when the object is not of
itself ordained to the end, the specific difference derived from the
object is not an essential determination of the species derived from
the end, nor is the reverse the case. Wherefore one of these species
is not under the other; but then the moral action is contained under
two species that are disparate, as it were. Consequently we say that
he that commits theft for the sake of adultery, is guilty of a
twofold malice in one action. On the other hand, if the object be of
itself ordained to the end, one of these differences is an essential
determination of the other. Wherefore one of these species will be
contained under the other.

It remains to be considered which of the two is contained under the
other. In order to make this clear, we must first of all observe that
the more particular the form is from which a difference is taken, the
more specific is the difference. Secondly, that the more universal an
agent is, the more universal a form does it cause. Thirdly, that the
more remote an end is, the more universal the agent to which it
corresponds; thus victory, which is the last end of the army, is the
end intended by the commander in chief; while the right ordering of
this or that regiment is the end intended by one of the lower
officers. From all this it follows that the specific difference
derived from the end, is more general; and that the difference
derived from an object which of itself is ordained to that end, is a
specific difference in relation to the former. For the will, the
proper object of which is the end, is the universal mover in respect
of all the powers of the soul, the proper objects of which are the
objects of their particular acts.

Reply Obj. 1: One and the same thing, considered in its substance,
cannot be in two species, one of which is not subordinate to the
other. But in respect of those things which are superadded to the
substance, one thing can be contained under different species. Thus
one and the same fruit, as to its color, is contained under one
species, i.e. a white thing: and, as to its perfume, under the
species of sweet-smelling things. In like manner an action which, as
to its substance, is in one natural species, considered in respect to
the moral conditions that are added to it, can belong to two species,
as stated above (Q. 1, A. 3, ad 3).

Reply Obj. 2: The end is last in execution; but first in the
intention of the reason, in regard to which moral actions receive
their species.

Reply Obj. 3: Difference is compared to genus as form to matter,
inasmuch as it actualizes the genus. On the other hand, the genus is
considered as more formal than the species, inasmuch as it is
something more absolute and less contracted. Wherefore also the parts
of a definition are reduced to the genus of formal cause, as is
stated in _Phys._  ii, 3. And in this sense the genus is the formal
cause of the species; and so much the more formal, as it is more
universal.
________________________

EIGHTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 18, Art. 8]

Whether Any Action Is Indifferent in Its Species?

Objection 1: It would seem that no action is indifferent in its
species. For evil is the privation of good, according to Augustine
(Enchiridion xi). But privation and habit are immediate contraries,
according to the Philosopher (Categor. viii). Therefore there is not
such thing as an action that is indifferent in its species, as though
it were between good and evil.

Obj. 2: Further, human actions derive their species from their end or
object, as stated above (A. 6; Q. 1, A. 3). But every end and every
object is either good or bad. Therefore every human action is good or
evil according to its species. None, therefore, is indifferent in its
species.

Obj. 3: Further, as stated above (A. 1), an action is said to be
good, when it has its due complement of goodness; and evil, when it
lacks that complement. But every action must needs either have the
entire plenitude of its goodness, or lack it in some respect.
Therefore every action must needs be either good or bad in its
species, and none is indifferent.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Serm. Dom. in Monte ii, 18)
that "there are certain deeds of a middle kind, which can be done
with a good or evil mind, of which it is rash to form a judgment."
Therefore some actions are indifferent according to their species.

_I answer that,_ As stated above (AA. 2, 5), every action takes its
species from its object; while human action, which is called moral,
takes its species from the object, in relation to the principle of
human actions, which is the reason. Wherefore if the object of an
action includes something in accord with the order of reason, it will
be a good action according to its species; for instance, to give alms
to a person in want. On the other hand, if it includes something
repugnant to the order of reason, it will be an evil act according to
its species; for instance, to steal, which is to appropriate what
belongs to another. But it may happen that the object of an action
does not include something pertaining to the order of reason; for
instance, to pick up a straw from the ground, to walk in the fields,
and the like: and such actions are indifferent according to their
species.

Reply Obj. 1: Privation is twofold. One is privation "as a result"
(_privatum esse_), and this leaves nothing, but takes all away: thus
blindness takes away sight altogether; darkness, light; and death,
life. Between this privation and the contrary habit, there can be no
medium in respect of the proper subject. The other is privation "in
process" (_privari_): thus sickness is privation of health; not that it
takes health away altogether, but that it is a kind of road to the
entire loss of health, occasioned by death. And since this sort of
privation leaves something, it is not always the immediate contrary
of the opposite habit. In this way evil is a privation of good, as
Simplicius says in his commentary on the Categories: because it does
not take away all good, but leaves some. Consequently there can be
something between good and evil.

Reply Obj. 2: Every object or end has some goodness or malice, at
least natural to it: but this does not imply moral goodness or
malice, which is considered in relation to the reason, as stated
above. And it is of this that we are here treating.

Reply Obj. 3: Not everything belonging to an action belongs also to
its species. Wherefore although an action's specific nature may not
contain all that belongs to the full complement of its goodness, it
is not therefore an action specifically bad; nor is it specifically
good. Thus a man in regard to his species is neither virtuous nor
wicked.
________________________

NINTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 18, Art. 9]

Whether an Individual Action Can Be Indifferent?

Objection 1: It would seem that an individual action can be
indifferent. For there is no species that does not, or cannot,
contain an individual. But an action can be indifferent in its
species, as stated above (A. 8). Therefore an individual action can
be indifferent.

Obj. 2: Further, individual actions cause like habits, as stated in
_Ethic._ ii, 1. But a habit can be indifferent: for the Philosopher
says (Ethic. iv, 1) that those who are of an even temper and prodigal
disposition are not evil; and yet it is evident that they are not
good, since they depart from virtue; and thus they are indifferent in
respect of a habit. Therefore some individual actions are indifferent.

Obj. 3: Further, moral good belongs to virtue, while moral evil
belongs to vice. But it happens sometimes that a man fails to ordain
a specifically indifferent action to a vicious or virtuous end.
Therefore an individual action may happen to be indifferent.

_On the contrary,_ Gregory says in a homily (vi in Evang.): "An idle
word is one that lacks either the usefulness of rectitude or the
motive of just necessity or pious utility." But an idle word is an
evil, because "men . . . shall render an account of it in the day of
judgment" (Matt. 12:36): while if it does not lack the motive of just
necessity or pious utility, it is good. Therefore every word is
either good or bad. For the same reason every other action is either
good or bad. Therefore no individual action is indifferent.

_I answer that,_ It sometimes happens that an action is indifferent
in its species, but considered in the individual it is good or evil.
And the reason of this is because a moral action, as stated above (A.
3), derives its goodness not only from its object, whence it takes
its species; but also from the circumstances, which are its
accidents, as it were; just as something belongs to a man by reason
of his individual accidents, which does not belong to him by reason
of his species. And every individual action must needs have some
circumstance that makes it good or bad, at least in respect of the
intention of the end. For since it belongs to the reason to direct;
if an action that proceeds from deliberate reason be not directed to
the due end, it is, by that fact alone, repugnant to reason, and has
the character of evil. But if it be directed to a due end, it is in
accord with reason; wherefore it has the character of good. Now it
must needs be either directed or not directed to a due end.
Consequently every human action that proceeds from deliberate reason,
if it be considered in the individual, must be good or bad.

If, however, it does not proceed from deliberate reason, but from
some act of the imagination, as when a man strokes his beard, or
moves his hand or foot; such an action, properly speaking, is not
moral or human; since this depends on the reason. Hence it will be
indifferent, as standing apart from the genus of moral actions.

Reply Obj. 1: For an action to be indifferent in its species can be
understood in several ways. First in such a way that its species
demands that it remain indifferent; and the objection proceeds along
this line. But no action can be specifically indifferent thus: since
no object of human action is such that it cannot be directed to good
or evil, either through its end or through a circumstance. Secondly,
specific indifference of an action may be due to the fact that as far
as its species is concerned, it is neither good nor bad. Wherefore it
can be made good or bad by something else. Thus man, as far as his
species is concerned, is neither white nor black; nor is it a
condition of his species that he should not be black or white; but
blackness or whiteness is superadded to man by other principles than
those of his species.

Reply Obj. 2: The Philosopher states that a man is evil, properly
speaking, if he be hurtful to others. And accordingly, he says that
the prodigal is not evil, because he hurts none save himself. And the
same applies to all others who are not hurtful to other men. But we
say here that evil, in general, is all that is repugnant to right
reason. And in this sense every individual action is either good or
bad, as stated above.

Reply Obj. 3: Whenever an end is intended by deliberate reason, it
belongs either to the good of some virtue, or to the evil of some
vice. Thus, if a man's action is directed to the support or repose
of his body, it is also directed to the good of virtue, provided he
direct his body itself to the good of virtue. The same clearly
applies to other actions.
________________________

TENTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 18, Art. 10]

Whether a Circumstance Places a Moral Action in the Species of Good
or Evil?

Objection 1: It would seem that a circumstance cannot place a moral
action in the species of good or evil. For the species of an action
is taken from its object. But circumstances differ from the object.
Therefore circumstances do not give an action its species.

Obj. 2: Further, circumstances are as accidents in relation to the
moral action, as stated above (Q. 7, A. 1). But an accident does not
constitute the species. Therefore a circumstance does not constitute
a species of good or evil.

Obj. 3: Further, one thing is not in several species. But one action
has several circumstances. Therefore a circumstance does not place a
moral action in a species of good or evil.

_On the contrary,_ Place is a circumstance. But place makes a moral
action to be in a certain species of evil; for theft of a thing from
a holy place is a sacrilege. Therefore a circumstance makes a moral
action to be specifically good or bad.

_I answer that,_ Just as the species of natural things are
constituted by their natural forms, so the species of moral actions
are constituted by forms as conceived by the reason, as is evident
from what was said above (A. 5). But since nature is determinate to
one thing, nor can a process of nature go on to infinity, there must
needs be some ultimate form, giving a specific difference, after
which no further specific difference is possible. Hence it is that in
natural things, that which is accidental to a thing, cannot be taken
as a difference constituting the species. But the process of reason
is not fixed to one particular term, for at any point it can still
proceed further. And consequently that which, in one action, is taken
as a circumstance added to the object that specifies the action, can
again be taken by the directing reason, as the principal condition of
the object that determines the action's species. Thus to appropriate
another's property is specified by reason of the property being
"another's," and in this respect it is placed in the species of
theft; and if we consider that action also in its bearing on place or
time, then this will be an additional circumstance. But since the
reason can direct as to place, time, and the like, it may happen that
the condition as to place, in relation to the object, is considered
as being in disaccord with reason: for instance, reason forbids
damage to be done to a holy place. Consequently to steal from a holy
place has an additional repugnance to the order of reason. And thus
place, which was first of all considered as a circumstance, is
considered here as the principal condition of the object, and as
itself repugnant to reason. And in this way, whenever a circumstance
has a special relation to reason, either for or against, it must
needs specify the moral action whether good or bad.

Reply Obj. 1: A circumstance, in so far as it specifies an action, is
considered as a condition of the object, as stated above, and as
being, as it were, a specific difference thereof.

Reply Obj. 2: A circumstance, so long as it is but a circumstance,
does not specify an action, since thus it is a mere accident: but
when it becomes a principal condition of the object, then it does
specify the action.

Reply Obj. 3: It is not every circumstance that places the moral
action in the species of good or evil; since not every circumstance
implies accord or disaccord with reason. Consequently, although one
action may have many circumstances, it does not follow that it is in
many species. Nevertheless there is no reason why one action should
not be in several, even disparate, moral species, as said above (A.
7, ad 1; Q. 1, A. 3, ad 3).
________________________

ELEVENTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 18, Art. 11]

Whether Every Circumstance That Makes an Action Better or Worse,
Places a Moral Action in a Species of Good or Evil?

Objection 1: It would seem that every circumstance relating to
good or evil, specifies an action. For good and evil are specific
differences of moral actions. Therefore that which causes a
difference in the goodness or malice of a moral action, causes a
specific difference, which is the same as to make it differ in
species. Now that which makes an action better or worse, makes it
differ in goodness and malice. Therefore it causes it to differ in
species. Therefore every circumstance that makes an action better
or worse, constitutes a species.

Obj. 2: Further, an additional circumstance either has in itself the
character of goodness or malice, or it has not. If not, it cannot
make the action better or worse; because what is not good, cannot
make a greater good; and what is not evil, cannot make a greater
evil. But if it has in itself the character of good or evil, for this
very reason it has a certain species of good or evil. Therefore every
circumstance that makes an action better or worse, constitutes a new
species of good or evil.

Obj. 3: Further, according to Dionysius (Div. Nom. iv), "evil is
caused by each single defect." Now every circumstance that increases
malice, has a special defect. Therefore every such circumstance adds
a new species of sin. And for the same reason, every circumstance
that increases goodness, seems to add a new species of goodness: just
as every unity added to a number makes a new species of number; since
the good consists in "number, weight, and measure" (I, Q. 5, A. 5).

_On the contrary,_ More and less do not change a species. But more
and less is a circumstance of additional goodness or malice.
Therefore not every circumstance that makes a moral action better or
worse, places it in a species of good or evil.

_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 10), a circumstance gives the
species of good or evil to a moral action, in so far as it regards a
special order of reason. Now it happens sometimes that a circumstance
does not regard a special order of reason in respect of good or evil,
except on the supposition of another previous circumstance, from
which the moral action takes its species of good or evil. Thus to
take something in a large or small quantity, does not regard the
order of reason in respect of good or evil, except a certain other
condition be presupposed, from which the action takes its malice or
goodness; for instance, if what is taken belongs to another, which
makes the action to be discordant with reason. Wherefore to take what
belongs to another in a large or small quantity, does not change the
species of the sin. Nevertheless it can aggravate or diminish the
sin. The same applies to other evil or good actions. Consequently not
every circumstance that makes a moral action better or worse, changes
its species.

Reply Obj. 1: In things which can be more or less intense, the
difference of more or less does not change the species: thus by
differing in whiteness through being more or less white a thing is
not changed in regard to its species of color. In like manner that
which makes an action to be more or less good or evil, does not make
the action differ in species.

Reply Obj. 2: A circumstance that aggravates a sin, or adds to the
goodness of an action, sometimes has no goodness or malice in itself,
but in regard to some other condition of the action, as stated above.
Consequently it does not add a new species, but adds to the goodness
or malice derived from this other condition of the action.

Reply Obj. 3: A circumstance does not always involve a distinct
defect of its own; sometimes it causes a defect in reference to
something else. In like manner a circumstance does not always add
further perfection, except in reference to something else. And, for
as much as it does, although it may add to the goodness or malice,
it does not always change the species of good or evil.
________________________

QUESTION 19

OF THE GOODNESS AND MALICE OF THE INTERIOR ACT OF THE WILL
(In Ten Articles)

We must now consider the goodness of the interior act of the will;
under which head there are ten points of inquiry:

(1) Whether the goodness of the will depends on the object?

(2) Whether it depends on the object alone?

(3) Whether it depends on reason?

(4) Whether it depends on the eternal law?

(5) Whether erring reason binds?

(6) Whether the will is evil if it follows the erring reason against
the law of God?

(7) Whether the goodness of the will in regard to the means, depends
on the intention of the end?

(8) Whether the degree of goodness or malice in the will depends on
the degree of good or evil in the intention?

(9) Whether the goodness of the will depends on its conformity to the
Divine Will?

(10) Whether it is necessary for the human will, in order to be good,
to be conformed to the Divine Will, as regards the thing willed?
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 19, Art. 1]

Whether the Goodness of the Will Depends on the Object?

Objection 1: It would seem that the goodness of the will does not
depend on the object. For the will cannot be directed otherwise than
to what is good: since "evil is outside the scope of the will," as
Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv). If therefore the goodness of the will
depended on the object, it would follow that every act of the will
is good, and none bad.

Obj. 2: Further, good is first of all in the end: wherefore the
goodness of the end, as such, does not depend on any other. But,
according to the Philosopher (Ethic. vi, 5), "goodness of action is
the end, but goodness of making is never the end": because the latter
is always ordained to the thing made, as to its end. Therefore the
goodness of the act of the will does not depend on any object.

Obj. 3: Further, such as a thing is, such does it make a thing to be.
But the object of the will is good, by reason of the goodness of
nature. Therefore it cannot give moral goodness to the will.
Therefore the moral goodness of the will does not depend on the
object.

_On the contrary,_ the Philosopher says (Ethic. v, 1) that justice is
that habit "from which men wish for just things": and accordingly,
virtue is a habit from which men wish for good things. But a good
will is one which is in accordance with virtue. Therefore the
goodness of the will is from the fact that a man wills that which is
good.

_I answer that,_ Good and evil are essential differences of the act
of the will. Because good and evil of themselves regard the will;
just as truth and falsehood regard reason; the act of which is
divided essentially by the difference of truth and falsehood, for as
much as an opinion is said to be true or false. Consequently good and
evil will are acts differing in species. Now the specific difference
in acts is according to objects, as stated above (Q. 18, A. 5).
Therefore good and evil in the acts of the will is derived properly
from the objects.

Reply Obj. 1: The will is not always directed to what is truly good,
but sometimes to the apparent good; which has indeed some measure of
good, but not of a good that is simply suitable to be desired. Hence
it is that the act of the will is not always good, but sometimes evil.

Reply Obj. 2: Although an action can, in a certain way, be man's last
end; nevertheless such action is not an act of the will, as stated
above (Q. 1, A. 1, ad 2).

Reply Obj. 3: Good is presented to the will as its object by the
reason: and in so far as it is in accord with reason, it enters the
moral order, and causes moral goodness in the act of the will:
because the reason is the principle of human and moral acts, as
stated above (Q. 18, A. 5).
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 19, Art. 2]

Whether the goodness of the will depends on the object alone?

Objection 1: It would seem that the goodness of the will does not
depend on the object alone. For the end has a closer relationship to
the will than to any other power. But the acts of the other powers
derive goodness not only from the object but also from the end, as
we have shown above (Q. 18, A. 4). Therefore the act also of the
will derives goodness not only from the object but also from the end.

Obj. 2: Further, the goodness of an action is derived not only from
the object but also from the circumstances, as stated above (Q. 18,
A. 3). But according to the diversity of circumstances there may be
diversity of goodness and malice in the act of the will: for
instance, if a man will, when he ought, where he ought, as much as he
ought, and how he ought, or if he will as he ought not. Therefore the
goodness of the will depends not only on the object, but also on the
circumstances.

Obj. 3: Further, ignorance of circumstances excuses malice of the
will, as stated above (Q. 6, A. 8). But it would not be so, unless
the goodness or malice of the will depended on the circumstances.
Therefore the goodness and malice of the will depend on the
circumstances, and not only on the object.

_On the contrary,_ An action does not take its species from the
circumstances as such, as stated above (Q. 18, A. 10, ad 2). But good
and evil are specific differences of the act of the will, as stated
above (A. 1). Therefore the goodness and malice of the will depend,
not on the circumstances, but on the object alone.

_I answer that,_ In every genus, the more a thing is first, the more
simple it is, and the fewer the principles of which it consists: thus
primary bodies are simple. Hence it is to be observed that the first
things in every genus, are, in some way, simple and consist of one
principle. Now the principle of the goodness and malice of human
actions is taken from the act of the will. Consequently the goodness
and malice of the act of the will depend on some one thing; while the
goodness and malice of other acts may depend on several things.

Now that one thing which is the principle in each genus, is not
something accidental to that genus, but something essential thereto:
because whatever is accidental is reduced to something essential, as
to its principle. Therefore the goodness of the will's act depends on
that one thing alone, which of itself causes goodness in the act; and
that one thing is the object, and not the circumstances, which are
accidents, as it were, of the act.

Reply Obj. 1: The end is the object of the will, but not of the other
powers. Hence, in regard to the act of the will, the goodness derived
from the object, does not differ from that which is derived from the
end, as they differ in the acts of the other powers; except perhaps
accidentally, in so far as one end depends on another, and one act of
the will on another.

Reply Obj. 2: Given that the act of the will is fixed on some good,
no circumstances can make that act bad. Consequently when it is said
that a man wills a good when he ought not, or where he ought not,
this can be understood in two ways. First, so that this circumstance
is referred to the thing willed. And thus the act of the will is not
fixed on something good: since to will to do something when it ought
not to be done, is not to will something good. Secondly, so that the
circumstance is referred to the act of willing. And thus, it is
impossible to will something good when one ought not to, because one
ought always to will what is good: except, perhaps, accidentally, in
so far as a man by willing some particular good, is prevented from
willing at the same time another good which he ought to will at that
time. And then evil results, not from his willing that particular
good, but from his not willing the other. The same applies to the
other circumstances.

Reply Obj. 3: Ignorance of circumstances excuses malice of the will,
in so far as the circumstance affects the thing willed: that is to
say, in so far as a man ignores the circumstances of the act which
he wills.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 19, Art. 3]

Whether the Goodness of the Will Depends on Reason?

Objection 1: It would seem that the goodness of the will does not
depend on reason. For what comes first does not depend on what
follows. But the good belongs to the will before it belongs to
reason, as is clear from what has been said above (Q. 9, A. 1).
Therefore the goodness of the will does not depend on reason.

Obj. 2: Further, the Philosopher says (Ethic. vi, 2) that the
goodness of the practical intellect is "a truth that is in conformity
with right desire." But right desire is a good will. Therefore the
goodness of the practical reason depends on the goodness of the will,
rather than conversely.

Obj. 3: Further, the mover does not depend on that which is moved,
but vice versa. But the will moves the reason and the other powers,
as stated above (Q. 9, A. 1). Therefore the goodness of the will
does not depend on reason.

_On the contrary,_ Hilary says (De Trin. x): "It is an unruly will
that persists in its desires in opposition to reason." But the
goodness of the will consists in not being unruly. Therefore the
goodness of the will depends on its being subject to reason.

_I answer that,_ As stated above (AA. 1, 2), the goodness of the will
depends properly on the object. Now the will's object is proposed to
it by reason. Because the good understood is the proportionate object
of the will; while sensitive or imaginary good is proportionate not
to the will but to the sensitive appetite: since the will can tend to
the universal good, which reason apprehends; whereas the sensitive
appetite tends only to the particular good, apprehended by the
sensitive power. Therefore the goodness of the will depends on
reason, in the same way as it depends on the object.

Reply Obj. 1: The good considered as such, i.e. as appetible,
pertains to the will before pertaining to the reason. But considered
as true it pertains to the reason, before, under the aspect of
goodness, pertaining to the will: because the will cannot desire a
good that is not previously apprehended by reason.

Reply Obj. 2: The Philosopher speaks here of the practical intellect,
in so far as it counsels and reasons about the means: for in this
respect it is perfected by prudence. Now in regard to the means, the
rectitude of the reason depends on its conformity with the desire of
a due end: nevertheless the very desire of the due end presupposes on
the part of reason a right apprehension of the end.

Reply Obj. 3: The will moves the reason in one way: the reason moves
the will in another, viz. on the part of the object, as stated above
(Q. 9, A. 1).
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 19, Art. 4]

Whether the Goodness of the Will Depends on the Eternal Law?

Objection 1: It would seem that the goodness of the human will does
not depend on the eternal law. Because to one thing there is one rule
and one measure. But the rule of the human will, on which its
goodness depends, is right reason. Therefore the goodness of the will
does not depend on the eternal law.

Obj. 2: Further, "a measure is homogeneous with the thing measured"
(Metaph. x, 1). But the eternal law is not homogeneous with the human
will. Therefore the eternal law cannot be the measure on which the
goodness of the human will depends.

Obj. 3: Further, a measure should be most certain. But the eternal
law is unknown to us. Therefore it cannot be the measure on which the
goodness of our will depends.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxii, 27) that "sin
is a deed, word or desire against the eternal law." But malice of the
will is the root of sin. Therefore, since malice is contrary to
goodness, the goodness of the will depends on the eternal law.

_I answer that,_ Wherever a number of causes are subordinate to one
another, the effect depends more on the first than on the second
cause: since the second cause acts only in virtue of the first. Now
it is from the eternal law, which is the Divine Reason, that human
reason is the rule of the human will, from which the human derives
its goodness. Hence it is written (Ps. 4:6, 7): "Many say: Who
showeth us good things? The light of Thy countenance, O Lord, is
signed upon us": as though to say: "The light of our reason is able
to show us good things, and guide our will, in so far as it is the
light (i.e. derived from) Thy countenance." It is therefore evident
that the goodness of the human will depends on the eternal law much
more than on human reason: and when human reason fails we must have
recourse to the Eternal Reason.

Reply Obj. 1: To one thing there are not several proximate measures;
but there can be several measures if one is subordinate to the other.

Reply Obj. 2: A proximate measure is homogeneous with the thing
measured; a remote measure is not.

Reply Obj. 3: Although the eternal law is unknown to us according as
it is in the Divine Mind: nevertheless, it becomes known to us
somewhat, either by natural reason which is derived therefrom as its
proper image; or by some sort of additional revelation.
________________________

FIFTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 19, Art. 5]

Whether the Will Is Evil When It Is at Variance with Erring Reason?

Objection 1: It would seem that the will is not evil when it is at
variance with erring reason. Because the reason is the rule of the
human will, in so far as it is derived from the eternal law, as
stated above (A. 4). But erring reason is not derived from the
eternal law. Therefore erring reason is not the rule of the human
will. Therefore the will is not evil, if it be at variance with
erring reason.

Obj. 2: Further, according to Augustine, the command of a lower
authority does not bind if it be contrary to the command of a higher
authority: for instance, if a provincial governor command something
that is forbidden by the emperor. But erring reason sometimes
proposes what is against the command of a higher power, namely, God
Whose power is supreme. Therefore the decision of an erring reason
does not bind. Consequently the will is not evil if it be at variance
with erring reason.

Obj. 3: Further, every evil will is reducible to some species of
malice. But the will that is at variance with erring reason is not
reducible to some species of malice. For instance, if a man's reason
err in telling him to commit fornication, his will in not willing to
do so, cannot be reduced to any species of malice. Therefore the will
is not evil when it is at variance with erring reason.

_On the contrary,_ As stated in the First Part (Q. 79, A. 13),
conscience is nothing else than the application of knowledge to some
action. Now knowledge is in the reason. Therefore when the will is at
variance with erring reason, it is against conscience. But every such
will is evil; for it is written (Rom. 14:23): "All that is not of
faith"--i.e. all that is against conscience--"is sin." Therefore the
will is evil when it is at variance with erring reason.

_I answer that,_ Since conscience is a kind of dictate of the reason,
for it is an application of knowledge to action, as was stated in
the First Part (Q. 19, A. 13), to inquire whether the will is evil
when it is at variance with erring reason, is the same as to inquire
"whether an erring conscience binds." On this matter, some
distinguished three kinds of actions: for some are good generically;
some are indifferent; some are evil generically. And they say that if
reason or conscience tell us to do something which is good
generically, there is no error: and in like manner if it tell us not
to do something which is evil generically; since it is the same
reason that prescribes what is good and forbids what is evil. On the
other hand if a man's reason or conscience tells him that he is bound
by precept to do what is evil in itself; or that what is good in
itself, is forbidden, then his reason or conscience errs. In like
manner if a man's reason or conscience tell him, that what is
indifferent in itself, for instance to raise a straw from the ground,
is forbidden or commanded, his reason or conscience errs. They say,
therefore, that reason or conscience when erring in matters of
indifference, either by commanding or by forbidding them, binds: so
that the will which is at variance with that erring reason is evil
and sinful. But they say that when reason or conscience errs in
commanding what is evil in itself, or in forbidding what is good in
itself and necessary for salvation, it does not bind; wherefore in
such cases the will which is at variance with erring reason or
conscience is not evil.

But this is unreasonable. For in matters of indifference, the will
that is at variance with erring reason or conscience, is evil in some
way on account of the object, on which the goodness or malice of the
will depends; not indeed on account of the object according as it is
in its own nature; but according as it is accidentally apprehended by
reason as something evil to do or to avoid. And since the object of
the will is that which is proposed by the reason, as stated above (A.
3), from the very fact that a thing is proposed by the reason as
being evil, the will by tending thereto becomes evil. And this is the
case not only in indifferent matters, but also in those that are good
or evil in themselves. For not only indifferent matters can receive
the character of goodness or malice accidentally; but also that which
is good, can receive the character of evil, or that which is evil,
can receive the character of goodness, on account of the reason
apprehending it as such. For instance, to refrain from fornication is
good: yet the will does not tend to this good except in so far as it
is proposed by the reason. If, therefore, the erring reason propose
it as an evil, the will tends to it as to something evil.
Consequently the will is evil, because it wills evil, not indeed that
which is evil in itself, but that which is evil accidentally, through
being apprehended as such by the reason. In like manner, to believe
in Christ is good in itself, and necessary for salvation: but the
will does not tend thereto, except inasmuch as it is proposed by the
reason. Consequently if it be proposed by the reason as something
evil, the will tends to it as to something evil: not as if it were
evil in itself, but because it is evil accidentally, through the
apprehension of the reason. Hence the Philosopher says (Ethic. vii,
9) that "properly speaking the incontinent man is one who does not
follow right reason; but accidentally, he is also one who does not
follow false reason." We must therefore conclude that, absolutely
speaking, every will at variance with reason, whether right or
erring, is always evil.

Reply Obj. 1: Although the judgment of an erring reason is not
derived from God, yet the erring reason puts forward its judgment as
being true, and consequently as being derived from God, from Whom is
all truth.

Reply Obj. 2: The saying of Augustine holds good when it is known
that the inferior authority prescribes something contrary to the
command of the higher authority. But if a man were to believe the
command of the proconsul to be the command of the emperor, in
scorning the command of the proconsul he would scorn the command of
the emperor. In like manner if a man were to know that human reason
was dictating something contrary to God's commandment, he would not
be bound to abide by reason: but then reason would not be entirely
erroneous. But when erring reason proposes something as being
commanded by God, then to scorn the dictate of reason is to scorn
the commandment of God.

Reply Obj. 3: Whenever reason apprehends something as evil, it
apprehends it under some species of evil; for instance, as being
something contrary to a divine precept, or as giving scandal, or for
some such like reason. And then that evil is reduced to that species
of malice.
________________________

SIXTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 19, Art. 6]

Whether the Will Is Good When It Abides by Erring Reason?

Objection 1: It would seem that the will is good when it abides by
erring reason. For just as the will, when at variance with the reason,
tends to that which reason judges to be evil; so, when in accord with
reason, it tends to what reason judges to be good. But the will is
evil when it is at variance with reason, even when erring. Therefore
even when it abides by erring reason, the will is good.

Obj. 2: Further, the will is always good, when it abides by the
commandment of God and the eternal law. But the eternal law and God's
commandment are proposed to us by the apprehension of the reason,
even when it errs. Therefore the will is good, even when it abides by
erring reason.

Obj. 3: Further, the will is evil when it is at variance with erring
reason. If, therefore, the will is evil also when it abides by erring
reason, it seems that the will is always evil when in conjunction
with erring reason: so that in such a case a man would be in a
dilemma, and, of necessity, would sin: which is unreasonable.
Therefore the will is good when it abides by erring reason.

_On the contrary,_ The will of those who slew the apostles was evil.
And yet it was in accord with the erring reason, according to John
16:2: "The hour cometh, that whosoever killeth you, will think that
he doth a service to God." Therefore the will can be evil, when it
abides by erring reason.

_I answer that,_ Whereas the previous question is the same as
inquiring "whether an erring conscience binds"; so this question is
the same as inquiring "whether an erring conscience excuses." Now
this question depends on what has been said above about ignorance.
For it was said (Q. 6, A. 8) that ignorance sometimes causes an act
to be involuntary, and sometimes not. And since moral good and evil
consist in action in so far as it is voluntary, as was stated above
(A. 2); it is evident that when ignorance causes an act to be
involuntary, it takes away the character of moral good and evil; but
not, when it does not cause the act to be involuntary. Again, it has
been stated above (Q. 6, A. 8) that when ignorance is in any way
willed, either directly or indirectly, it does not cause the act to
be involuntary. And I call that ignorance "directly" voluntary, to
which the act of the will tends: and that, "indirectly" voluntary,
which is due to negligence, by reason of a man not wishing to know
what he ought to know, as stated above (Q. 6, A. 8).

If then reason or conscience err with an error that is voluntary,
either directly, or through negligence, so that one errs about what
one ought to know; then such an error of reason or conscience does
not excuse the will, that abides by that erring reason or conscience,
from being evil. But if the error arise from ignorance of some
circumstance, and without any negligence, so that it cause the act to
be involuntary, then that error of reason or conscience excuses the
will, that abides by that erring reason, from being evil. For
instance, if erring reason tell a man that he should go to another
man's wife, the will that abides by that erring reason is evil; since
this error arises from ignorance of the Divine Law, which he is bound
to know. But if a man's reason, errs in mistaking another for his
wife, and if he wish to give her her right when she asks for it, his
will is excused from being evil: because this error arises from
ignorance of a circumstance, which ignorance excuses, and causes the
act to be involuntary.

Reply Obj. 1: As Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv), "good results from
the entire cause, evil from each particular defect." Consequently in
order that the thing to which the will tends be called evil, it
suffices, either that it be evil in itself, or that it be apprehended
as evil. But in order for it to be good, it must be good in both ways.

Reply Obj. 2: The eternal law cannot err, but human reason can.
Consequently the will that abides by human reason, is not always
right, nor is it always in accord with the eternal law.

Reply Obj. 3: Just as in syllogistic arguments, granted one
absurdity, others must needs follow; so in moral matters, given one
absurdity, others must follow too. Thus suppose a man to seek
vainglory, he will sin, whether he does his duty for vainglory or
whether he omit to do it. Nor is he in a dilemma about the matter:
because he can put aside his evil intention. In like manner, suppose
a man's reason or conscience to err through inexcusable ignorance,
then evil must needs result in the will. Nor is this man in a
dilemma: because he can lay aside his error, since his ignorance is
vincible and voluntary.
________________________

SEVENTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 19, Art. 7]

Whether the Goodness of the Will, As Regards the Means, Depends on
the Intention of the End?

Objection 1: It would seem that the goodness of the will does not
depend on the intention of the end. For it has been stated above (A.
2) that the goodness of the will depends on the object alone. But as
regards the means, the object of the will is one thing, and the end
intended is another. Therefore in such matters the goodness of the
will does not depend on the intention of the end.

Obj. 2: Further, to wish to keep God's commandment, belongs to a good
will. But this can be referred to an evil end, for instance, to
vainglory or covetousness, by willing to obey God for the sake of
temporal gain. Therefore the goodness of the will does not depend on
the intention of the end.

Obj. 3: Further, just as good and evil diversify the will, so do they
diversify the end. But malice of the will does not depend on the
malice of the end intended; since a man who wills to steal in order
to give alms, has an evil will, although he intends a good end.
Therefore neither does the goodness of the will depend on the
goodness of the end intended.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (Confess. ix, 3) that God rewards
the intention. But God rewards a thing because it is good. Therefore
the goodness of the will depends on the intention of the end.

_I answer that,_ The intention may stand in a twofold relation to the
act of the will; first, as preceding it, secondly as following
[*Leonine edn.: 'accompanying'] it. The intention precedes the act of
the will causally, when we will something because we intend a certain
end. And then the order to the end is considered as the reason of the
goodness of the thing willed: for instance, when a man wills to fast
for God's sake; because the act of fasting is specifically good from
the very fact that it is done for God's sake. Wherefore, since the
goodness of the will depends on the goodness of the thing willed, as
stated above (AA. 1, 2), it must, of necessity, depend on the
intention of the end.

On the other hand, intention follows the act of the will, when it is
added to a preceding act of the will; for instance, a man may will to
do something, and may afterwards refer it to God. And then the
goodness of the previous act of the will does not depend on the
subsequent intention, except in so far as that act is repeated with
the subsequent intention.

Reply Obj. 1: When the intention is the cause of the act of willing,
the order to the end is considered as the reason of the goodness of
the object, as stated above.

Reply Obj. 2: The act of the will cannot be said to be good, if an
evil intention is the cause of willing. For when a man wills to give
an alms for the sake of vainglory, he wills that which is good in
itself, under a species of evil; and therefore, as willed by him, it
is evil. Wherefore his will is evil. If, however, the intention is
subsequent to the act of the will, then the latter may be good: and
the intention does not spoil that act of the will which preceded, but
that which is repeated.

Reply Obj. 3: As we have already stated (A. 6, ad 1), "evil results
from each particular defect, but good from the whole and entire
cause." Hence, whether the will tend to what is evil in itself, even
under the species of good; or to the good under the species of evil,
it will be evil in either case. But in order for the will to be good,
it must tend to the good under the species of good; in other words,
it must will the good for the sake of the good.
________________________

EIGHTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 19, Art. 8]

Whether the Degree of Goodness or Malice in the Will Depends on the
Degree of Good or Evil in the Intention?

Objection 1: It would seem that the degree of goodness in the will
depends on the degree of good in the intention. Because on Matt.
12:35, "A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth
forth that which is good," a gloss says: "A man does as much good as
he intends." But the intention gives goodness not only to the
external action, but also to the act of the will, as stated above (A.
7). Therefore the goodness of a man's will is according to the
goodness of his intention.

Obj. 2: Further, if you add to the cause, you add to the effect. But
the goodness of the intention is the cause of the good will.
Therefore a man's will is good, according as his intention is good.

Obj. 3: Further, in evil actions, a man sins in proportion to his
intention: for if a man were to throw a stone with a murderous
intention, he would be guilty of murder. Therefore, for the same
reason, in good actions, the will is good in proportion to the good
intended.

_On the contrary,_ The intention can be good, while the will is evil.
Therefore, for the same reason, the intention can be better, and the
will less good.

_I answer that,_ In regard to both the act, and the intention of the
end, we may consider a twofold quantity: one, on the part of the
object, by reason of a man willing or doing a good that is greater;
the other, taken from the intensity of the act, according as a man
wills or acts intensely; and this is more on the part of the agent.

If then we speak of these respective quantities from the point of
view of the object, it is evident that the quantity in the act does
not depend on the quantity in the intention. With regard to the
external act this may happen in two ways. First, through the object
that is ordained to the intended end not being proportionate to that
end; for instance, if a man were to give ten pounds, he could not
realize his intention, if he intended to buy a thing worth a hundred
pounds. Secondly, on account of the obstacles that may supervene in
regard to the exterior action, which obstacles we are unable to
remove: for instance, a man intends to go to Rome, and encounters
obstacles, which prevent him from going. On the other hand, with
regard to the interior act of the will, this happens in only one way:
because the interior acts of the will are in our power, whereas the
external actions are not. But the will can will an object that is not
proportionate to the intended end: and thus the will that tends to
that object considered absolutely, is not so good as the intention.
Yet because the intention also belongs, in a way, to the act of the
will, inasmuch, to wit, as it is the reason thereof; it comes to pass
that the quantity of goodness in the intention redounds upon the act
of the will; that is to say, in so far as the will wills some great
good for an end, although that by which it wills to gain so great a
good, is not proportionate to that good.

But if we consider the quantity in the intention and in the act,
according to their respective intensity, then the intensity of the
intention redounds upon the interior act and the exterior act of the
will: since the intention stands in relation to them as a kind of
form, as is clear from what has been said above (Q. 12, A. 4; Q. 18,
A. 6). And yet considered materially, while the intention is intense,
the interior or exterior act may be not so intense, materially
speaking: for instance, when a man does not will with as much
intensity to take medicine as he wills to regain health. Nevertheless
the very fact of intending health intensely, redounds, as a formal
principle, upon the intense volition of medicine.

We must observe, however, that the intensity of the interior or
exterior act, may be referred to the intention as its object: as when
a man intends to will intensely, or to do something intensely. And
yet it does not follow that he wills or acts intensely; because the
quantity of goodness in the interior or exterior act does not depend
on the quantity of the good intended, as is shown above. And hence it
is that a man does not merit as much as he intends to merit: because
the quantity of merit is measured by the intensity of the act, as we
shall show later on (Q. 20, A. 4; Q. 114, A. 4).

Reply Obj. 1: This gloss speaks of good as in the estimation of God,
Who considers principally the intention of the end. Wherefore another
gloss says on the same passage that "the treasure of the heart is the
intention, according to which God judges our works." For the goodness
of the intention, as stated above, redounds, so to speak, upon the
goodness of the will, which makes even the external act to be
meritorious in God's sight.

Reply Obj. 2: The goodness of the intention is not the whole cause of
a good will. Hence the argument does not prove.

Reply Obj. 3: The mere malice of the intention suffices to make the
will evil: and therefore too, the will is as evil as the intention is
evil. But the same reasoning does not apply to goodness, as stated
above (ad 2).
________________________

NINTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 19, Art. 9]

Whether the Goodness of the Will Depends on Its Conformity to the
Divine Will?

Objection 1: It would seem that the goodness of the human will does
not depend on its conformity to the Divine will. Because it is
impossible for man's will to be conformed to the Divine will; as
appears from the word of Isa. 55:9: "As the heavens are exalted above
the earth, so are My ways exalted above your ways, and My thoughts
above your thoughts." If therefore goodness of the will depended on
its conformity to the Divine will, it would follow that it is
impossible for man's will to be good. Which is inadmissible.

Obj. 2: Further, just as our wills arise from the Divine will, so
does our knowledge flow from the Divine knowledge. But our knowledge
does not require to be conformed to God's knowledge; since God knows
many things that we know not. Therefore there is no need for our will
to be conformed to the Divine will.

Obj. 3: Further, the will is a principle of action. But our action
cannot be conformed to God's. Therefore neither can our will be
conformed to His.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Matt. 26:39): "Not as I will, but
as Thou wilt": which words He said, because "He wishes man to be
upright and to tend to God," as Augustine expounds in the Enchiridion
[*Enarr. in Ps. 32, serm. i.]. But the rectitude of the will is its
goodness. Therefore the goodness of the will depends on its
conformity to the Divine will.

_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 7), the goodness of the will
depends on the intention of the end. Now the last end of the human
will is the Sovereign Good, namely, God, as stated above (Q. 1, A. 8;
Q. 3, A. 1). Therefore the goodness of the human will requires it to
be ordained to the Sovereign Good, that is, to God.

Now this Good is primarily and essentially compared to the Divine
will, as its proper object. Again, that which is first in any genus
is the measure and rule of all that belongs to that genus. Moreover,
everything attains to rectitude and goodness, in so far as it is in
accord with its proper measure. Therefore, in order that man's will
be good it needs to be conformed to the Divine will.

Reply Obj. 1: The human will cannot be conformed to the will of God
so as to equal it, but only so as to imitate it. In like manner human
knowledge is conformed to the Divine knowledge, in so far as it knows
truth: and human action is conformed to the Divine, in so far as it
is becoming to the agent: and this by way of imitation, not by way of
equality.

From the above may be gathered the replies to the Second and Third
Objections.
________________________

TENTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 19, Art. 10]

Whether It Is Necessary for the Human Will, in Order to Be Good, to
Be Conformed to the Divine Will, As Regards the Thing Willed?

Objection 1: It would seem that the human will need not always be
conformed to the Divine will, as regards the thing willed. For we
cannot will what we know not: since the apprehended good is the object
of the will. But in many things we know not what God wills. Therefore
the human will cannot be conformed to the Divine will as to the thing
willed.

Obj. 2: Further, God wills to damn the man whom He foresees about
to die in mortal sin. If therefore man were bound to conform his will
to the Divine will, in the point of the thing willed, it would follow
that a man is bound to will his own damnation. Which is inadmissible.

Obj. 3: Further, no one is bound to will what is against filial
piety. But if man were to will what God wills, this would sometimes
be contrary to filial piety: for instance, when God wills the death
of a father: if his son were to will it also, it would be against
filial piety. Therefore man is not bound to conform his will to the
Divine will, as to the thing willed.

_On the contrary,_ (1) On Ps. 32:1, "Praise becometh the upright," a
gloss says: "That man has an upright heart, who wills what God wills."
But everyone is bound to have an upright heart. Therefore everyone is
bound to will what God wills.

(2) Moreover, the will takes its form from the object, as does every
act. If therefore man is bound to conform his will to the Divine will,
it follows that he is bound to conform it, as to the thing willed.

(3) Moreover, opposition of wills arises from men willing different
things. But whoever has a will in opposition to the Divine will, has
an evil will. Therefore whoever does not conform his will to the
Divine will, as to the thing willed, has an evil will.

_I answer that,_ As is evident from what has been said above (AA. 3,
5), the will tends to its object, according as it is proposed by the
reason. Now a thing may be considered in various ways by the reason,
so as to appear good from one point of view, and not good from
another point of view. And therefore if a man's will wills a thing to
be, according as it appears to be good, his will is good: and the
will of another man, who wills that thing not to be, according as it
appears evil, is also good. Thus a judge has a good will, in willing
a thief to be put to death, because this is just: while the will of
another--e.g. the thief's wife or son, who wishes him not to be put
to death, inasmuch as killing is a natural evil, is also good.

Now since the will follows the apprehension of the reason or
intellect; the more universal the aspect of the apprehended good, the
more universal the good to which the will tends. This is evident in
the example given above: because the judge has care of the common
good, which is justice, and therefore he wishes the thief's death,
which has the aspect of good in relation to the common estate;
whereas the thief's wife has to consider the private good of the
family, and from this point of view she wishes her husband, the
thief, not to be put to death. Now the good of the whole universe is
that which is apprehended by God, Who is the Maker and Governor of
all things: hence whatever He wills, He wills it under the aspect of
the common good; this is His own Goodness, which is the good of the
whole universe. On the other hand, the apprehension of a creature,
according to its nature, is of some particular good, proportionate to
that nature. Now a thing may happen to be good under a particular
aspect, and yet not good under a universal aspect, or vice versa, as
stated above. And therefore it comes to pass that a certain will is
good from willing something considered under a particular aspect,
which thing God wills not, under a universal aspect, and vice versa.
And hence too it is, that various wills of various men can be good in
respect of opposite things, for as much as, under various aspects,
they wish a particular thing to be or not to be.

But a man's will is not right in willing a particular good, unless he
refer it to the common good as an end: since even the natural appetite
of each part is ordained to the common good of the whole. Now it is
the end that supplies the formal reason, as it were, of willing
whatever is directed to the end. Consequently, in order that a man
will some particular good with a right will, he must will that
particular good materially, and the Divine and universal good,
formally. Therefore the human will is bound to be conformed to the
Divine will, as to that which is willed formally, for it is bound to
will the Divine and universal good; but not as to that which is willed
materially, for the reason given above.

At the same time in both these respects, the human will is conformed
to the Divine, in a certain degree. Because inasmuch as it is
conformed to the Divine will in the common aspect of the thing willed,
it is conformed thereto in the point of the last end. While, inasmuch
as it is not conformed to the Divine will in the thing willed
materially, it is conformed to that will considered as efficient
cause; since the proper inclination consequent to nature, or to the
particular apprehension of some particular thing, comes to a thing
from God as its efficient cause. Hence it is customary to say that a
man's will, in this respect, is conformed to the Divine will, because
it wills what God wishes him to will.

There is yet another kind of conformity in respect of the formal
cause, consisting in man's willing something from charity, as God
wills it. And this conformity is also reduced to the formal
conformity, that is in respect of the last end, which is the proper
object of charity.

Reply Obj. 1: We can know in a general way what God wills. For we
know that whatever God wills, He wills it under the aspect of good.
Consequently whoever wills a thing under any aspect of good, has a
will conformed to the Divine will, as to the reason of the thing
willed. But we know not what God wills in particular: and in this
respect we are not bound to conform our will to the Divine will.

But in the state of glory, every one will see in each thing that he
wills, the relation of that thing to what God wills in that
particular matter. Consequently he will conform his will to God in
all things not only formally, but also materially.

Reply Obj. 2: God does not will the damnation of a man, considered
precisely as damnation, nor a man's death, considered precisely as
death, because, "He wills all men to be saved" (1 Tim. 2:4); but He
wills such things under the aspect of justice. Wherefore in regard to
such things it suffices for man to will the upholding of God's
justice and of the natural order.

Wherefore the reply to the Third Objection is evident.

To the first argument advanced in a contrary sense, it should be said
that a man who conforms his will to God's, in the aspect of reason of
the thing willed, wills what God wills, more than the man, who
conforms his will to God's, in the point of the very thing willed;
because the will tends more to the end, than to that which is on
account of the end.

To the second, it must be replied that the species and form of an act
are taken from the object considered formally, rather than from the
object considered materially.

To the third, it must be said that there is no opposition of wills
when several people desire different things, but not under the same
aspect: but there is opposition of wills, when under one and the same
aspect, one man wills a thing which another wills not. But there is
no question of this here.
________________________

QUESTION 20

OF GOODNESS AND MALICE IN EXTERNAL HUMAN ACTIONS
(In Six Articles)

We must next consider goodness and malice as to external actions:
under which head there are six points of inquiry:

(1) Whether goodness and malice is first in the act of the will, or
in the external action?

(2) Whether the whole goodness or malice of the external action
depends on the goodness of the will?

(3) Whether the goodness and malice of the interior act are the same
as those of the external action?

(4) Whether the external action adds any goodness or malice to that
of the interior act?

(5) Whether the consequences of an external action increase its
goodness or malice?

(6) Whether one and the same external action can be both good and
evil?
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 20, Art. 1]

Whether Goodness or Malice Is First in the Action of the Will, or in
the External Action?

Objection 1: It would seem that good and evil are in the external
action prior to being in the act of the will. For the will derives
goodness from its object, as stated above (Q. 19, AA. 1, 2). But the
external action is the object of the interior act of the will: for a
man is said to will to commit a theft, or to will to give an alms.
Therefore good and evil are in the external action, prior to being in
the act of the will.

Obj. 2: Further, the aspect of good belongs first to the end: since
what is directed to the end receives the aspect of good from its
relation to the end. Now whereas the act of the will cannot be an
end, as stated above (Q. 1, A. 1, ad 2), the act of another power can
be an end. Therefore good is in the act of some other power prior to
being in the act of the will.

Obj. 3: Further, the act of the will stands in a formal relation to
the external action, as stated above (Q. 18, A. 6). But that which is
formal is subsequent; since form is something added to matter.
Therefore good and evil are in the external action, prior to being in
the act of the will.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (Retract. i, 9) that "it is by the
will that we sin, and that we behave aright." Therefore moral good
and evil are first in the will.

_I answer that,_ External actions may be said to be good or bad in
two ways. First, in regard to their genus, and the circumstances
connected with them: thus the giving of alms, if the required
conditions be observed, is said to be good. Secondly, a thing is said
to be good or evil, from its relation to the end: thus the giving of
alms for vainglory is said to be evil. Now, since the end is the
will's proper object, it is evident that this aspect of good or evil,
which the external action derives from its relation to the end, is to
be found first of all in the act of the will, whence it passes to the
external action. On the other hand, the goodness or malice which the
external action has of itself, on account of its being about due
matter and its being attended by due circumstances, is not derived
from the will, but rather from the reason. Consequently, if we
consider the goodness of the external action, in so far as it comes
from reason's ordination and apprehension, it is prior to the
goodness of the act of the will: but if we consider it in so far as
it is in the execution of the action done, it is subsequent to the
goodness of the will, which is its principle.

Reply Obj. 1: The exterior action is the object of the will, inasmuch
as it is proposed to the will by the reason, as good apprehended and
ordained by the reason: and thus it is prior to the good in the act
of the will. But inasmuch as it is found in the execution of the
action, it is an effect of the will, and is subsequent to the will.

Reply Obj. 2: The end precedes in the order of intention, but follows
in the order of execution.

Reply Obj. 3: A form as received into matter, is subsequent to matter
in the order of generation, although it precedes it in the order of
nature: but inasmuch as it is in the active cause, it precedes in
every way. Now the will is compared to the exterior action, as its
efficient cause. Wherefore the goodness of the act of the will, as
existing in the active cause, is the form of the exterior action.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 20, Art. 2]

Whether the Whole Goodness and Malice of the External Action Depends
on the Goodness of the Will?

Objection 1: It would seem that the whole goodness and malice of the
external action depend on the goodness of the will. For it is written
(Matt. 7:18): "A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can
an evil tree bring forth good fruit." But, according to the gloss,
the tree signifies the will, and fruit signifies works. Therefore, it
is impossible for the interior act of the will to be good, and the
external action evil, or vice versa.

Obj. 2: Further, Augustine says (Retract. i, 9) that there is no sin
without the will. If therefore there is no sin in the will, there
will be none in the external action. And so the whole goodness or
malice of the external action depends on the will.

Obj. 3: Further, the good and evil of which we are speaking now are
differences of the moral act. Now differences make an essential
division in a genus, according to the Philosopher (Metaph. vii, 12).
Since therefore an act is moral from being voluntary, it seems that
goodness and malice in an act are derived from the will alone.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (Contra Mendac. vii), that "there
are some actions which neither a good end nor a good will can make
good."

_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1), we may consider a twofold
goodness or malice in the external action: one in respect of due
matter and circumstances; the other in respect of the order to the
end. And that which is in respect of the order to the end, depends
entirely on the will: while that which is in respect of due matter or
circumstances, depends on the reason: and on this goodness depends
the goodness of the will, in so far as the will tends towards it.

Now it must be observed, as was noted above (Q. 19, A. 6, ad 1), that
for a thing to be evil, one single defect suffices, whereas, for it
to be good simply, it is not enough for it to be good in one point
only, it must be good in every respect. If therefore the will be
good, both from its proper object and from its end, if follows that
the external action is good. But if the will be good from its
intention of the end, this is not enough to make the external action
good: and if the will be evil either by reason of its intention of
the end, or by reason of the act willed, it follows that the external
action is evil.

Reply Obj. 1: If the good tree be taken to signify the good will, it
must be in so far as the will derives goodness from the act willed
and from the end intended.

Reply Obj. 2: A man sins by his will, not only when he wills an evil
end; but also when he wills an evil act.

Reply Obj. 3: Voluntariness applies not only to the interior act of
the will, but also to external actions, inasmuch as they proceed from
the will and the reason. Consequently the difference of good and evil
is applicable to both the interior and external act.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 20, Art. 3]

Whether the Goodness and Malice of the External Action Are the Same
As Those of the Interior Act?

Objection 1: It would seem that the goodness and malice of the
interior act of the will are not the same as those of the external
action. For the principle of the interior act is the interior
apprehensive or appetitive power of the soul; whereas the principle
of the external action is the power that accomplishes the movement.
Now where the principles of action are different, the actions
themselves are different. Moreover, it is the action which is the
subject of goodness or malice: and the same accident cannot be in
different subjects. Therefore the goodness of the interior act cannot
be the same as that of the external action.

Obj. 2: Further, "A virtue makes that, which has it, good, and
renders its action good also" (Ethic. ii, 6). But the intellective
virtue in the commanding power is distinct from the moral virtue in
the power commanded, as is declared in _Ethic._ i, 13. Therefore the
goodness of the interior act, which belongs to the commanding power,
is distinct from the goodness of the external action, which belongs
to the power commanded.

Obj. 3: Further, the same thing cannot be cause and effect; since
nothing is its own cause. But the goodness of the interior act is the
cause of the goodness of the external action, or vice versa, as
stated above (AA. 1, 2). Therefore it is not the same goodness in
each.

_On the contrary,_ It was shown above (Q. 18, A. 6) that the act of
the will is the form, as it were, of the external action. Now that
which results from the material and formal element is one thing.
Therefore there is but one goodness of the internal and external act.

_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 17, A. 4), the interior act of
the will, and the external action, considered morally, are one act.
Now it happens sometimes that one and the same individual act has
several aspects of goodness or malice, and sometimes that it has but
one. Hence we must say that sometimes the goodness or malice of the
interior act is the same as that of the external action, and
sometimes not. For as we have already said (AA. 1, 2), these two
goodnesses or malices, of the internal and external acts, are
ordained to one another. Now it may happen, in things that are
subordinate to something else, that a thing is good merely from being
subordinate; thus a bitter draught is good merely because it procures
health. Wherefore there are not two goodnesses, one the goodness of
health, and the other the goodness of the draught; but one and the
same. On the other hand it happens sometimes that that which is
subordinate to something else, has some aspect of goodness in itself,
besides the fact of its being subordinate to some other good: thus a
palatable medicine can be considered in the light of a pleasurable
good, besides being conducive to health.

We must therefore say that when the external action derives goodness
or malice from its relation to the end only, then there is but one
and the same goodness of the act of the will which of itself regards
the end, and of the external action, which regards the end through
the medium of the act of the will. But when the external action has
goodness or malice of itself, i.e. in regard to its matter and
circumstances, then the goodness of the external action is distinct
from the goodness of the will in regarding the end; yet so that the
goodness of the end passes into the external action, and the goodness
of the matter and circumstances passes into the act of the will, as
stated above (AA. 1, 2).

Reply Obj. 1: This argument proves that the internal and external
actions are different in the physical order: yet distinct as they are
in that respect, they combine to form one thing in the moral order,
as stated above (Q. 17, A. 4).

Reply Obj. 2: As stated in _Ethic._ vi, 12, a moral virtue is
ordained to the act of that virtue, which act is the end, as it were,
of that virtue; whereas prudence, which is in the reason, is ordained
to things directed to the end. For this reason various virtues are
necessary. But right reason in regard to the very end of a virtue has
no other goodness than the goodness of that virtue, in so far as the
goodness of the reason is participated in each virtue.

Reply Obj. 3: When a thing is derived by one thing from another, as
from a univocal efficient cause, then it is not the same in both:
thus when a hot thing heats, the heat of the heater is distinct from
the heat of the thing heated, although it be the same specifically.
But when a thing is derived from one thing from another, according to
analogy or proportion, then it is one and the same in both: thus the
healthiness which is in medicine or urine is derived from the
healthiness of the animal's body; nor is health as applied to urine
and medicine, distinct from health as applied to the body of an
animal, of which health medicine is the cause, and urine the sign. It
is in this way that the goodness of the external action is derived
from the goodness of the will, and vice versa; viz. according to the
order of one to the other.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 20, Art. 4]

Whether the External Action Adds Any Goodness or Malice to That of
the Interior Act?

Objection 1: It would seem that the external action does not add any
goodness or malice to that of the interior action. For Chrysostom
says (Hom. xix in Matt.): "It is the will that is rewarded for doing
good, or punished for doing evil." Now works are the witnesses of the
will. Therefore God seeks for works not on His own account, in order
to know how to judge; but for the sake of others, that all may
understand how just He is. But good or evil is to be estimated
according to God's judgment rather than according to the judgment of
man. Therefore the external action adds no goodness or malice to that
of the interior act.

Obj. 2: Further, the goodness and malice of the interior and external
acts are one and the same, as stated above (A. 3). But increase is
the addition of one thing to another. Therefore the external action
does not add to the goodness or malice of the interior act.

Obj. 3: Further, the entire goodness of created things does not add
to the Divine Goodness, because it is entirely derived therefrom. But
sometimes the entire goodness of the external action is derived from
the goodness of the interior act, and sometimes conversely, as stated
above (AA. 1, 2). Therefore neither of them adds to the goodness or
malice of the other.

_On the contrary,_ Every agent intends to attain good and avoid evil.
If therefore by the external action no further goodness or malice be
added, it is to no purpose that he who has a good or an evil will,
does a good deed or refrains from an evil deed. Which is unreasonable.

_I answer that,_ If we speak of the goodness which the external
action derives from the will tending to the end, then the external
action adds nothing to this goodness, unless it happens that the will
in itself is made better in good things, or worse in evil things.
This, seemingly, may happen in three ways. First in point of number;
if, for instance, a man wishes to do something with a good or an evil
end in view, and does not do it then, but afterwards wills and does
it, the act of his will is doubled and a double good, or a double
evil is the result. Secondly, in point of extension: when, for
instance, a man wishes to do something for a good or an evil end, and
is hindered by some obstacle, whereas another man perseveres in the
movement of the will until he accomplish it in deed; it is evident
that the will of the latter is more lasting in good or evil, and in
this respect, is better or worse. Thirdly, in point of intensity: for
there are certain external actions, which, in so far as they are
pleasurable, or painful, are such as naturally to make the will more
intense or more remiss; and it is evident that the more intensely the
will tends to good or evil, the better or worse it is.

On the other hand, if we speak of the goodness which the external
action derives from its matter and due circumstances, thus it stands
in relation to the will as its term and end. And in this way it adds
to the goodness or malice of the will; because every inclination or
movement is perfected by attaining its end or reaching its term.
Wherefore the will is not perfect, unless it be such that, given the
opportunity, it realizes the operation. But if this prove impossible,
as long as the will is perfect, so as to realize the operation if it
could; the lack of perfection derived from the external action, is
simply involuntary. Now just as the involuntary deserves neither
punishment nor reward in the accomplishment of good or evil deeds, so
neither does it lessen reward or punishment, if a man through simple
involuntariness fail to do good or evil.

Reply Obj. 1: Chrysostom is speaking of the case where a man's will
is complete, and does not refrain from the deed save through the
impossibility of achievement.

Reply Obj. 2: This argument applies to that goodness which the
external action derives from the will as tending to the end. But
the goodness which the external action takes from its matter and
circumstances, is distinct from that which it derives from the end;
but it is not distinct from that which it has from the very act
willed, to which it stands in the relation of measure and cause,
as stated above (AA. 1, 2).

From this the reply to the Third Objection is evident.
________________________

FIFTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 20, Art. 5]

Whether the Consequences of the External Action Increase Its Goodness
or Malice?

Objection 1: It would seem that the consequences of the external
action increase its goodness or malice. For the effect pre-exists
virtually in its cause. But the consequences result from the action
as an effect from its cause. Therefore they pre-exist virtually in
actions. Now a thing is judged to be good or bad according to its
virtue, since a virtue "makes that which has it to be good" (Ethic.
ii, 6). Therefore the consequences increase the goodness or malice of
an action.

Obj. 2: Further, the good actions of his hearers are consequences
resulting from the words of a preacher. But such goods as these
redound to the merit of the preacher, as is evident from Phil. 4:1:
"My dearly beloved brethren, my joy and my crown." Therefore the
consequences of an action increase its goodness or malice.

Obj. 3: Further, punishment is not increased, unless the fault
increases: wherefore it is written (Deut. 25:2): "According to the
measure of the sin shall the measure also of the stripes be." But the
punishment is increased on account of the consequences; for it is
written (Ex. 21:29): "But if the ox was wont to push with his horn
yesterday and the day before, and they warned his master, and he did
not shut him up, and he shall kill a man or a woman, then the ox
shall be stoned, and his owner also shall be put to death." But he
would not have been put to death, if the ox, although he had not been
shut up, had not killed a man. Therefore the consequences increase
the goodness or malice of an action.

Obj. 4: Further, if a man do something which may cause death, by
striking, or by sentencing, and if death does not ensue, he does not
contract irregularity: but he would if death were to ensue. Therefore
the consequence of an action increase its goodness or malice.

_On the contrary,_ The consequences do not make an action that was
evil, to be good; nor one that was good, to be evil. For instance, if
a man give an alms to a poor man who makes bad use of the alms by
committing a sin, this does not undo the good done by the giver; and,
in like manner, if a man bear patiently a wrong done to him, the
wrongdoer is not thereby excused. Therefore the consequences of an
action doe not increase its goodness or malice.

_I answer that,_ The consequences of an action are either foreseen or
not. If they are foreseen, it is evident that they increase the
goodness or malice. For when a man foresees that many evils may
follow from his action, and yet does not therefore desist therefrom,
this shows his will to be all the more inordinate.

But if the consequences are not foreseen, we must make a distinction.
Because if they follow from the nature of the action and in the
majority of cases, in this respect, the consequences increase the
goodness or malice of that action: for it is evident that an action
is specifically better, if better results can follow from it; and
specifically worse, if it is of a nature to produce worse results. On
the other hand, if the consequences follow by accident and seldom,
then they do not increase the goodness or malice of the action:
because we do not judge of a thing according to that which belongs to
it by accident, but only according to that which belongs to it of
itself.

Reply Obj. 1: The virtue of a cause is measured by the effect that
flows from the nature of the cause, not by that which results by
accident.

Reply Obj. 2: The good actions done by the hearers, result from the
preacher's words, as an effect that flows from their very nature.
Hence they redound to the merit of the preacher: especially when such
is his intention.

Reply Obj. 3: The consequences for which that man is ordered to be
punished, both follow from the nature of the cause, and are supposed
to be foreseen. For this reason they are reckoned as punishable.

Reply Obj. 4: This argument would prove if irregularity were the
result of the fault. But it is not the result of the fault, but of
the fact, and of the obstacle to the reception of a sacrament.
________________________

SIXTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 20, Art. 6]

Whether One and the Same External Action Can Be Both Good and Evil?

Objection 1: It would seem that one and the same external action can
be both good and evil. For "movement, if continuous, is one and the
same" (Phys. v, 4). But one continuous movement can be both good and
bad: for instance, a man may go to church continuously, intending at
first vainglory, and afterwards the service of God. Therefore one and
the same action can be both good and bad.

Obj. 2: Further, according to the Philosopher (Phys. iii, 3), action
and passion are one act. But the passion may be good, as Christ's
was; and the action evil, as that of the Jews. Therefore one and the
same act can be both good and evil.

Obj. 3: Further, since a servant is an instrument, as it were, of his
master, the servant's action is his master's, just as the action of a
tool is the workman's action. But it may happen that the servant's
action result from his master's good will, and is therefore good: and
from the evil will of the servant, and is therefore evil. Therefore
the same action can be both good and evil.

_On the contrary,_ The same thing cannot be the subject of
contraries. But good and evil are contraries. Therefore the same
action cannot be both good and evil.

_On the contrary,_ The same thing cannot be the subject of
contraries. But good and evil are contraries. Therefore the same
action cannot be both good and evil.

_I answer that,_ Nothing hinders a thing from being one, in so far as
it is in one genus, and manifold, in so far as it is referred to
another genus. Thus a continuous surface is one, considered as in the
genus of quantity; and yet it is manifold, considered as to the genus
of color, if it be partly white, and partly black. And accordingly,
nothing hinders an action from being one, considered in the natural
order; whereas it is not one, considered in the moral order; and vice
versa, as we have stated above (A. 3, ad 1; Q. 18, A. 7, ad 1). For
continuous walking is one action, considered in the natural order:
but it may resolve itself into many actions, considered in the moral
order, if a change take place in the walker's will, for the will is
the principle of moral actions. If therefore we consider one action
in the moral order, it is impossible for it to be morally both good
and evil. Whereas if it be one as to natural and not moral unity, it
can be both good and evil.

Reply Obj. 1: This continual movement which proceeds from various
intentions, although it is one in the natural order, is not one in
the point of moral unity.

Reply Obj. 2: Action and passion belong to the moral order, in so far
as they are voluntary. And therefore in so far as they are voluntary
in respect of wills that differ, they are two distinct things, and
good can be in one of them while evil is in the other.

Reply Obj. 3: The action of the servant, in so far as it proceeds
from the will of the servant, is not the master's action: but only in
so far as it proceeds from the master's command. Wherefore the evil
will of the servant does not make the action evil in this respect.
________________________

QUESTION 21

OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF HUMAN ACTIONS BY REASON OF THEIR GOODNESS
AND MALICE (In Four Articles)

We have now to consider the consequences of human actions by reason
of their goodness and malice: and under this head there are four
points of inquiry:

(1) Whether a human action is right or sinful by reason of its being
good or evil?

(2) Whether it thereby deserves praise or blame?

(3) Whether accordingly, it is meritorious or demeritorious?

(4) Whether it is accordingly meritorious or demeritorious before God?
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 21, Art. 1]

Whether a Human Action Is Right or Sinful, in So Far As It Is Good or
Evil?

Objection 1: It seems that a human action is not right or sinful, in
so far as it is good or evil. For "monsters are the sins of nature"
(Phys. ii, 8). But monsters are not actions, but things engendered
outside the order of nature. Now things that are produced according
to art and reason imitate those that are produced according to nature
(Phys. ii, 8). Therefore an action is not sinful by reason of its
being inordinate and evil.

Obj. 2: Further, sin, as stated in _Phys._  ii, 8 occurs in nature and
art, when the end intended by nature or art is not attained. But the
goodness or malice of a human action depends, before all, on the
intention of the end, and on its achievement. Therefore it seems that
the malice of an action does not make it sinful.

Obj. 3: Further, if the malice of an action makes it sinful, it
follows that wherever there is evil, there is sin. But this is false:
since punishment is not a sin, although it is an evil. Therefore an
action is not sinful by reason of its being evil.

_On the contrary,_ As shown above (Q. 19, A. 4), the goodness of a
human action depends principally on the Eternal Law: and consequently
its malice consists in its being in disaccord with the Eternal Law.
But this is the very nature of sin; for Augustine says (Contra Faust.
xxii, 27) that "sin is a word, deed, or desire, in opposition to the
Eternal Law." Therefore a human action is sinful by reason of its
being evil.

_I answer that,_ Evil is more comprehensive than sin, as also is good
than right. For every privation of good, in whatever subject, is an
evil: whereas sin consists properly in an action done for a certain
end, and lacking due order to that end. Now the due order to an end
is measured by some rule. In things that act according to nature,
this rule is the natural force that inclines them to that end. When
therefore an action proceeds from a natural force, in accord with the
natural inclination to an end, then the action is said to be right:
since the mean does not exceed its limits, viz. the action does not
swerve from the order of its active principle to the end. But when an
action strays from this rectitude, it comes under the notion of sin.

Now in those things that are done by the will, the proximate rule is
the human reason, while the supreme rule is the Eternal Law. When,
therefore, a human action tends to the end, according to the order of
reason and of the Eternal Law, then that action is right: but when it
turns aside from that rectitude, then it is said to be a sin. Now it
is evident from what has been said (Q. 19, AA. 3, 4) that every
voluntary action that turns aside from the order of reason and of the
Eternal Law, is evil, and that every good action is in accord with
reason and the Eternal Law. Hence it follows that a human action is
right or sinful by reason of its being good or evil.

Reply Obj. 1: Monsters are called sins, inasmuch as they result from
a sin in nature's action.

Reply Obj. 2: The end is twofold; the last end, and the proximate
end. In the sin of nature, the action does indeed fail in respect of
the last end, which is the perfection of the thing generated; but it
does not fail in respect of any proximate end whatever; since when
nature works it forms something. In like manner, the sin of the will
always fails as regards the last end intended, because no voluntary
evil action can be ordained to happiness, which is the last end: and
yet it does not fail in respect of some proximate end: intended and
achieved by the will. Wherefore also, since the very intention of
this end is ordained to the last end, this same intention may be
right or sinful.

Reply Obj. 3: Each thing is ordained to its end by its action: and
therefore sin, which consists in straying from the order to the end,
consists properly in an action. On the other hand, punishment regards
the person of the sinner, as was stated in the First Part (Q. 48, A.
5, ad 4; A. 6, ad 3).
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 21, Art. 2]

Whether a Human Action Deserves Praise or Blame, by Reason of Its
Being Good or Evil?

Objection 1: It would seem that a human action does not deserve praise
or blame by reason of its being good or evil. For "sin happens even in
things done by nature" (Phys. ii, 8). And yet natural things are not
deserving of praise or blame (Ethic. iii, 5). Therefore a human action
does not deserve blame, by reason of its being evil or sinful; and,
consequently, neither does it deserve praise, by reason of its being
good.

Obj. 2: Further, just as sin occurs in moral actions, so does it
happen in the productions of art: because as stated in _Phys._ ii, 8
"it is a sin in a grammarian to write badly, and in a doctor to give
the wrong medicine." But the artist is not blamed for making
something bad: because the artist's work is such, that he can produce
a good or a bad thing, just as he lists. Therefore it seems that
neither is there any reason for blaming a moral action, in the fact
that it is evil.

Obj. 3: Further, Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv) that evil is "weak and
incapable." But weakness or inability either takes away or diminishes
guilt. Therefore a human action does not incur guilt from being evil.

_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher says (De Virt. et Vit. i) that
"virtuous deeds deserve praise, while deeds that are opposed to
virtue deserve censure and blame." But good actions are virtuous;
because "virtue makes that which has it, good, and makes its action
good" (Ethic. ii, 6): wherefore actions opposed to virtue are evil.
Therefore a human action deserves praise or blame, through being good
or evil.

_I answer that,_ Just as evil is more comprehensive than sin, so is
sin more comprehensive than blame. For an action is said to deserve
praise or blame, from its being imputed to the agent: since to praise
or to blame means nothing else than to impute to someone the malice
or goodness of his action. Now an action is imputed to an agent, when
it is in his power, so that he has dominion over it: because it is
through his will that man has dominion over his actions, as was made
clear above (Q. 1, AA. 1, 2). Hence it follows that good or evil, in
voluntary actions alone, renders them worthy of praise or blame: and
in such like actions, evil, sin and guilt are one and the same thing.

Reply Obj. 1: Natural actions are not in the power of the natural
agent: since the action of nature is determinate. And, therefore,
although there be sin in natural actions, there is no blame.

Reply Obj. 2: Reason stands in different relations to the productions
of art, and to moral actions. In matters of art, reason is directed
to a particular end, which is something devised by reason: whereas in
moral matters, it is directed to the general end of all human life.
Now a particular end is subordinate to the general end. Since
therefore sin is a departure from the order to the end, as stated
above (A. 1), sin may occur in two ways, in a production of art.
First, by a departure from the particular end intended by the artist:
and this sin will be proper to the art; for instance, if an artist
produce a bad thing, while intending to produce something good; or
produce something good, while intending to produce something bad.
Secondly, by a departure from the general end of human life: and then
he will be said to sin, if he intend to produce a bad work, and does
so in effect, so that another is taken in thereby. But this sin is
not proper to the artist as such, but as man. Consequently for the
former sin the artist is blamed as an artist; while for the latter he
is blamed as a man. On the other hand, in moral matters, where we
take into consideration the order of reason to the general end of
human life, sin and evil are always due to a departure from the order
of reason to the general end of human life. Wherefore man is blamed
for such a sin, both as man and as a moral being. Hence the
Philosopher says (Ethic. vi, 5) that "in art, he who sins voluntarily
is preferable; but in prudence, as in the moral virtues," which
prudence directs, "he is the reverse."

Reply Obj. 3: Weakness that occurs in voluntary evils, is subject to
man's power: wherefore it neither takes away nor diminishes guilt.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 21, Art. 3]

Whether a Human Action Is Meritorious or Demeritorious in So Far As
It Is Good or Evil?

Objection 1: It would seem that a human action is not meritorious or
demeritorious on account of its goodness or malice. For we speak of
merit or demerit in relation to retribution, which has no place save
in matters relating to another person. But good or evil actions are
not all related to another person, for some are related to the person
of the agent. Therefore not every good or evil human action is
meritorious or demeritorious.

Obj. 2: Further, no one deserves punishment or reward for doing as he
chooses with that of which he is master: thus if a man destroys what
belongs to him, he is not punished, as if he had destroyed what
belongs to another. But man is master of his own actions. Therefore a
man does not merit punishment or reward, through putting his action
to a good or evil purpose.

Obj. 3: Further, if a man acquire some good for himself, he does not
on that account deserve to be benefited by another man: and the same
applies to evil. Now a good action is itself a kind of good and
perfection of the agent: while an inordinate action is his evil.
Therefore a man does not merit or demerit, from the fact that he does
a good or an evil deed.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Isa. 3:10, 11): "Say to the just
man that it is well; for he shall eat the fruit of his doings. Woe to
the wicked unto evil; for the reward of his hands shall be given him."

_I answer that,_ We speak of merit and demerit, in relation to
retribution, rendered according to justice. Now, retribution
according to justice is rendered to a man, by reason of his having
done something to another's advantage or hurt. It must, moreover, be
observed that every individual member of a society is, in a fashion,
a part and member of the whole society. Wherefore, any good or evil,
done to the member of a society, redounds on the whole society: thus,
who hurts the hand, hurts the man. When, therefore, anyone does good
or evil to another individual, there is a twofold measure of merit or
demerit in his action: first, in respect of the retribution owed to
him by the individual to whom he has done good or harm; secondly, in
respect of the retribution owed to him by the whole of society. Now
when a man ordains his action directly for the good or evil of the
whole society, retribution is owed to him, before and above all, by
the whole society; secondarily, by all the parts of society. Whereas
when a man does that which conduces to his own benefit or
disadvantage, then again is retribution owed to him, in so far as
this too affects the community, forasmuch as he is a part of society:
although retribution is not due to him, in so far as it conduces to
the good or harm of an individual, who is identical with the agent:
unless, perchance, he owe retribution to himself, by a sort of
resemblance, in so far as man is said to be just to himself.

It is therefore evident that a good or evil action deserves praise or
blame, in so far as it is in the power of the will: that it is right
or sinful, according as it is ordained to the end; and that its merit
or demerit depends on the recompense for justice or injustice towards
another.

Reply Obj. 1: A man's good or evil actions, although not ordained to
the good or evil of another individual, are nevertheless ordained to
the good or evil of another, i.e. the community.

Reply Obj. 2: Man is master of his actions; and yet, in so far as he
belongs to another, i.e. the community, of which he forms part, he
merits or demerits, inasmuch as he disposes his actions well or ill:
just as if he were to dispense well or ill other belongings of his,
in respect of which he is bound to serve the community.

Reply Obj. 3: This very good or evil, which a man does to himself by
his action, redounds to the community, as stated above.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 21, Art. 4]

Whether a Human Action Is Meritorious or Demeritorious Before God,
According As It Is Good or Evil?

Objection 1: It would seem that man's actions, good or evil, are not
meritorious or demeritorious in the sight of God. Because, as stated
above (A. 3), merit and demerit imply relation to retribution for
good or harm done to another. But a man's action, good or evil, does
no good or harm to God; for it is written (Job 35:6, 7): "If thou
sin, what shalt thou hurt Him? . . . And if thou do justly, what
shalt thou give Him?" Therefore a human action, good or evil, is not
meritorious or demeritorious in the sight of God.

Obj. 2: Further, an instrument acquires no merit or demerit in the
sight of him that uses it; because the entire action of the
instrument belongs to the user. Now when man acts he is the
instrument of the Divine power which is the principal cause of his
action; hence it is written (Isa. 10:15): "Shall the axe boast itself
against him that cutteth with it? Or shall the saw exalt itself
against him by whom it is drawn?" where man while acting is evidently
compared to an instrument. Therefore man merits or demerits nothing
in God's sight, by good or evil deeds.

Obj. 3: Further, a human action acquires merit or demerit through
being ordained to someone else. But not all human actions are
ordained to God. Therefore not every good or evil action acquires
merit or demerit in God's sight.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Eccles. 12:14): "All things that
are done, God will bring into judgment . . . whether it be good or
evil." Now judgment implies retribution, in respect of which we speak
of merit and demerit. Therefore every human action, both good and
evil, acquires merit or demerit in God's sight.

_I answer that,_ A human action, as stated above (A. 3), acquires
merit or demerit, through being ordained to someone else, either by
reason of himself, or by reason of the community: and in each way,
our actions, good and evil, acquire merit or demerit, in the sight of
God. On the part of God Himself, inasmuch as He is man's last end;
and it is our duty to refer all our actions to the last end, as
stated above (Q. 19, A. 10). Consequently, whoever does an evil deed,
not referable to God, does not give God the honor due to Him as our
last end. On the part of the whole community of the universe, because
in every community, he who governs the community, cares, first of
all, for the common good; wherefore it is his business to award
retribution for such things as are done well or ill in the community.
Now God is the governor and ruler of the whole universe, as stated in
the First Part (Q. 103, A. 5): and especially of rational creatures.
Consequently it is evident that human actions acquire merit or
demerit in reference to Him: else it would follow that human actions
are no business of God's.

Reply Obj. 1: God in Himself neither gains nor loses anything by the
action of man: but man, for his part, takes something from God, or
offers something to Him, when he observes or does not observe the
order instituted by God.

Reply Obj. 2: Man is so moved, as an instrument, by God, that, at the
same time, he moves himself by his free-will, as was explained above
(Q. 9, A. 6, ad 3). Consequently, by his action, he acquires merit or
demerit in God's sight.

Reply Obj. 3: Man is not ordained to the body politic, according to
all that he is and has; and so it does not follow that every action
of his acquires merit or demerit in relation to the body politic. But
all that man is, and can, and has, must be referred to God: and
therefore every action of man, whether good or bad, acquires merit or
demerit in the sight of God, as far as the action itself is concerned.
________________________

TREATISE ON THE PASSIONS (QQ. 22-48)
________________________

QUESTION 22

OF THE SUBJECT OF THE SOUL'S PASSIONS
(In Three Articles)

We must now consider the passions of the soul: first, in general;
secondly, in particular. Taking them in general, there are four
things to be considered: (1) Their subject: (2) The difference
between them: (3) Their mutual relationship: (4) Their malice and
goodness.

Under the first head there are three points of inquiry:

(1) Whether there is any passion in the soul?

(2) Whether passion is in the appetitive rather than in the
apprehensive part?

(3) Whether passion is in the sensitive appetite rather than in the
intellectual appetite, which is called the will?
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 22, Art. 1]

Whether Any Passion Is in the Soul?

Objection 1: It would seem that there is no passion in the soul.
Because passivity belongs to matter. But the soul is not composed of
matter and form, as stated in the First Part (Q. 75, A. 5). Therefore
there is no passion in the soul.

Obj. 2: Further, passion is movement, as is stated in _Phys._ iii, 3.
But the soul is not moved, as is proved in _De Anima_ i, 3. Therefore
passion is not in the soul.

Obj. 3: Further, passion is the road to corruption; since "every
passion, when increased, alters the substance," as is stated in
_Topic._ vi, 6. But the soul is incorruptible. Therefore no passion
is in the soul.

_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says (Rom. 7:5): "When we were in the
flesh, the passions of sins which were by the law, did the work in
our members." Now sins are, properly speaking, in the soul. Therefore
passions also, which are described as being "of sins," are in the
soul.

_I answer that,_ The word "passive" is used in three ways. First, in
a general way, according as whatever receives something is passive,
although nothing is taken from it: thus we may say that the air is
passive when it is lit up. But this is to be perfected rather than to
be passive. Secondly, the word "passive" is employed in its proper
sense, when something is received, while something else is taken
away: and this happens in two ways. For sometimes that which is lost
is unsuitable to the thing: thus when an animal's body is healed, and
loses sickness. At other times the contrary occurs: thus to ail is to
be passive; because the ailment is received and health is lost. And
here we have passion in its most proper acceptation. For a thing is
said to be passive from its being drawn to the agent: and when a
thing recedes from what is suitable to it, then especially does it
appear to be drawn to something else. Moreover in _De Generat._ i, 3
it is stated that when a more excellent thing is generated from a
less excellent, we have generation simply, and corruption in a
particular respect: whereas the reverse is the case, when from a more
excellent thing, a less excellent is generated. In these three ways
it happens that passions are in the soul. For in the sense of mere
reception, we speak of "feeling and understanding as being a kind of
passion" (De Anima i, 5). But passion, accompanied by the loss of
something, is only in respect of a bodily transmutation; wherefore
passion properly so called cannot be in the soul, save accidentally,
in so far, to wit, as the _composite_ is passive. But here again we
find a difference; because when this transmutation is for the worse,
it has more of the nature of a passion, than when it is for the
better: hence sorrow is more properly a passion than joy.

Reply Obj. 1: It belongs to matter to be passive in such a way as to
lose something and to be transmuted: hence this happens only in those
things that are composed of matter and form. But passivity, as
implying mere reception, need not be in matter, but can be in
anything that is in potentiality. Now, though the soul is not
composed of matter and form, yet it has something of potentiality, in
respect of which it is competent to receive or to be passive,
according as the act of understanding is a kind of passion, as stated
in _De Anima_ iii, 4.

Reply Obj. 2: Although it does not belong to the soul in
itself to be passive and to be moved, yet it belongs accidentally as
stated in _De Anima_ i, 3.

Reply Obj. 3: This argument is true of passion accompanied by
transmutation to something worse. And passion, in this sense, is not
found in the soul, except accidentally: but the composite, which is
corruptible, admits of it by reason of its own nature.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 22, Art. 2]

Whether Passion Is in the Appetitive Rather Than in the Apprehensive
Part?

Objection 1: It would seem that passion is in the apprehensive part
of the soul rather than in the appetitive. Because that which is
first in any genus, seems to rank first among all things that are in
that genus, and to be their cause, as is stated in _Metaph._ ii, 1.
Now passion is found to be in the apprehensive, before being in the
appetitive part: for the appetitive part is not affected unless there
be a previous passion in the apprehensive part. Therefore passion is
in the apprehensive part more than in the appetitive.

Obj. 2: Further, what is more active is less passive; for action is
contrary to passion. Now the appetitive part is more active than the
apprehensive part. Therefore it seems that passion is more in the
apprehensive part.

Obj. 3: Further, just as the sensitive appetite is the power of a
corporeal organ, so is the power of sensitive apprehension. But
passion in the soul occurs, properly speaking, in respect of a bodily
transmutation. Therefore passion is not more in the sensitive
appetitive than in the sensitive apprehensive part.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Civ. Dei ix, 4) that "the
movement of the soul, which the Greeks called _pathe_, are styled by
some of our writers, Cicero [*"Those things which the Greeks call
_pathe_, we prefer to call disturbances rather than diseases" (Tusc.
iv. 5)] for instance, disturbances; by some, affections or emotions;
while others rendering the Greek more accurately, call them
passions." From this it is evident that the passions of the soul are
the same as affections. But affections manifestly belong to the
appetitive, and not to the apprehensive part. Therefore the passions
are in the appetitive rather than in the apprehensive part.

_I answer that,_ As we have already stated (A. 1) the word "passion"
implies that the patient is drawn to that which belongs to the agent.
Now the soul is drawn to a thing by the appetitive power rather than
by the apprehensive power: because the soul has, through its
appetitive power, an order to things as they are in themselves: hence
the Philosopher says (Metaph. vi, 4) that "good and evil," i.e. the
objects of the appetitive power, "are in things themselves." On the
other hand the apprehensive power is not drawn to a thing, as it is
in itself; but knows it by reason of an "intention" of the thing,
which "intention" it has in itself, or receives in its own way. Hence
we find it stated (Metaph. vi, 4) that "the true and the false,"
which pertain to knowledge, "are not in things, but in the mind."
Consequently it is evident that the nature of passion is consistent
with the appetitive, rather than with the apprehensive part.

Reply Obj. 1: In things relating to perfection the case is the
opposite, in comparison to things that pertain to defect. Because in
things relating to perfection, intensity is in proportion to the
approach to one first principle; to which the nearer a thing
approaches, the more intense it is. Thus the intensity of a thing
possessed of light depends on its approach to something endowed with
light in a supreme degree, to which the nearer a thing approaches the
more light it possesses. But in things that relate to defect,
intensity depends, not on approach to something supreme, but [o]n
receding from that which is perfect; because therein consists the
very notion of privation and defect. Wherefore the less a thing
recedes from that which stands first, the less intense it is: and the
result is that at first we always find some small defect, which
afterwards increases as it goes on. Now passion pertains to defect,
because it belongs to a thing according as it is in potentiality.
Wherefore in those things that approach to the Supreme Perfection,
i.e. to God, there is but little potentiality and passion: while in
other things, consequently, there is more. Hence also, in the
supreme, i.e. the apprehensive, power of the soul, passion is found
less than in the other powers.

Reply Obj. 2: The appetitive power is said to be more active, because
it is, more than the apprehensive power, the principle of the
exterior action: and this for the same reason that it is more
passive, namely, its being related to things as existing in
themselves: since it is through the external action that we come into
contact with things.

Reply Obj. 3: As stated in the First Part (Q. 78, A. 3) the organs of
the soul can be changed in two ways. First, by a spiritual change, in
respect of which the organ receives an "intention" of the object. And
this is essential to the act of the sensitive apprehension: thus is
the eye changed by the object visible, not by being colored, but by
receiving an intention of color. But the organs are receptive of
another and natural change, which affects their natural disposition;
for instance, when they become hot or cold, or undergo some similar
change. And whereas this kind of change is accidental to the act of
the sensitive apprehension; for instance, if the eye be wearied
through gazing intently at something or be overcome by the intensity
of the object: on the other hand, it is essential to the act of the
sensitive appetite; wherefore the material element in the definitions
of the movements of the appetitive part, is the natural change of the
organ; for instance, "anger is" said to be "a kindling of the blood
about the heart." Hence it is evident that the notion of passion is
more consistent with the act of the sensitive appetite, than with
that of the sensitive apprehension, although both are actions of a
corporeal organ.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 22, Art. 3]

Whether Passion Is in the Sensitive Appetite Rather Than in the
Intellectual Appetite, Which Is Called the Will?

Objection 1: It would seem that passion is not more in the sensitive
than in the intellectual appetite. For Dionysius declares (Div. Nom.
ii) Hierotheus "to be taught by a kind of yet more Godlike
instruction; not only by learning Divine things, but also by
suffering (_patiens_) them." But the sensitive appetite cannot "suffer"
Divine things, since its object is the sensible good. Therefore
passion is in the intellectual appetite, just as it is also in the
sensitive appetite.

Obj. 2: Further, the more powerful the active force, the more intense
the passion. But the object of the intellectual appetite, which is
the universal good, is a more powerful active force than the object
of the sensitive appetite, which is a particular good. Therefore
passion is more consistent with the intellectual than with the
sensitive appetite.

Obj. 3: Further, joy and love are said to be passions. But these are
to be found in the intellectual and not only in the sensitive
appetite: else they would not be ascribed by the Scriptures to God
and the angels. Therefore the passions are not more in the sensitive
than in the intellectual appetite.

_On the contrary,_ Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii, 22), while
describing the animal passions: "Passion is a movement of the
sensitive appetite when we imagine good or evil: in other words,
passion is a movement of the irrational soul, when we think of good
or evil."

_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1) passion is properly to be
found where there is corporeal transmutation. This corporeal
transmutation is found in the act of the sensitive appetite, and is
not only spiritual, as in the sensitive apprehension, but also
natural. Now there is no need for corporeal transmutation in the act
of the intellectual appetite: because this appetite is not exercised
by means of a corporeal organ. It is therefore evident that passion
is more properly in the act of the sensitive appetite, than in that
of the intellectual appetite; and this is again evident from the
definitions of Damascene quoted above.

Reply Obj. 1: By "suffering" Divine things is meant being well
affected towards them, and united to them by love: and this takes
place without any alteration in the body.

Reply Obj. 2: Intensity of passion depends not only on the power of
the agent, but also on the passibility of the patient: because things
that are disposed to passion, suffer much even from petty agents.
Therefore although the object of the intellectual appetite has
greater activity than the object of the sensitive appetite, yet the
sensitive appetite is more passive.

Reply Obj. 3: When love and joy and the like are ascribed to God or
the angels, or to man in respect of his intellectual appetite, they
signify simple acts of the will having like effects, but without
passion. Hence Augustine says (De Civ. Dei ix, 5): "The holy angels
feel no anger while they punish . . . no fellow-feeling with misery
while they relieve the unhappy: and yet ordinary human speech is wont
to ascribe to them also these passions by name, because, although
they have none of our weakness, their acts bear a certain resemblance
to ours."
________________________

QUESTION 23

HOW THE PASSIONS DIFFER FROM ONE ANOTHER
(In Four Articles)

We must now consider how the passions differ from one another: and
under this head there are four points of inquiry:

(1) Whether the passions of the concupiscible part are different from
those of the irascible part?

(2) Whether the contrariety of passions in the irascible part is
based on the contrariety of good and evil?

(3) Whether there is any passion that has no contrary?

(4) Whether, in the same power, there are any passions, differing in
species, but not contrary to one another?
________________________

QUESTION 23

Whether the Passions of the Concupiscible Part Are Different from
Those of the Irascible Part?

Objection 1: It would seem that the same passions are in the
irascible and concupiscible parts. For the Philosopher says (Ethic.
ii, 5) that the passions of the soul are those emotions "which are
followed by joy or sorrow." But joy and sorrow are in the
concupiscible part. Therefore all the passions are in the
concupiscible part, and not some in the irascible, others in the
concupiscible part.

Obj. 2: Further, on the words of Matt. 13:33, "The kingdom of heaven
is like to leaven," etc., Jerome's gloss says: "We should have
prudence in the reason; hatred of vice in the irascible faculty;
desire of virtue, in the concupiscible part." But hatred is in the
concupiscible faculty, as also is love, of which it is the contrary,
as is stated in _Topic._ ii, 7. Therefore the same passion is in the
concupiscible and irascible faculties.

Obj. 3: Further, passions and actions differ specifically according
to their objects. But the objects of the irascible and concupiscible
passions are the same, viz. good and evil. Therefore the same
passions are in the irascible and concupiscible faculties.

_On the contrary,_ The acts of the different powers differ in
species; for instance, to see, and to hear. But the irascible and the
concupiscible are two powers into which the sensitive appetite is
divided, as stated in the First Part (Q. 81, A. 2). Therefore, since
the passions are movements of the sensitive appetite, as stated above
(Q. 22, A. 3), the passions of the irascible faculty are specifically
distinct from those of the concupiscible part.

_I answer that,_ The passions of the irascible part differ in species
from those of the concupiscible faculty. For since different powers
have different objects, as stated in the First Part (Q. 77, A. 3),
the passions of different powers must of necessity be referred to
different objects. Much more, therefore, do the passions of different
faculties differ in species; since a greater difference in the object
is required to diversify the species of the powers, than to diversify
the species of passions or actions. For just as in the physical
order, diversity of genus arises from diversity in the potentiality
of matter, while diversity of species arises from diversity of form
in the same matter; so in the acts of the soul, those that belong to
different powers, differ not only in species but also in genus, while
acts and passions regarding different specific objects, included
under the one common object of a single power, differ as the species
of that genus.

In order, therefore, to discern which passions are in the irascible,
and which in the concupiscible, we must take the object of each of
these powers. For we have stated in the First Part (Q. 81, A. 2),
that the object of the concupiscible power is sensible good or evil,
simply apprehended as such, which causes pleasure or pain. But, since
the soul must, of necessity, experience difficulty or struggle at
times, in acquiring some such good, or in avoiding some such evil, in
so far as such good or evil is more than our animal nature can easily
acquire or avoid; therefore this very good or evil, inasmuch as it is
of an arduous or difficult nature, is the object of the irascible
faculty. Therefore whatever passions regard good or evil absolutely,
belong to the concupiscible power; for instance, joy, sorrow, love,
hatred, and such like: whereas those passions which regard good or
bad as arduous, through being difficult to obtain or avoid, belong to
the irascible faculty; such are daring, fear, hope and the like.

Reply Obj. 1: As stated in the First Part (Q. 81, A. 2), the
irascible faculty is bestowed on animals, in order to remove the
obstacles that hinder the concupiscible power from tending towards
its object, either by making some good difficult to obtain, or by
making some evil hard to avoid. The result is that all the irascible
passions terminate in the concupiscible passions: and thus it is that
even the passions which are in the irascible faculty are followed by
joy and sadness which are in the concupiscible faculty.

Reply Obj. 2: Jerome ascribes hatred of vice to the irascible
faculty, not by reason of hatred, which is properly a concupiscible
passion; but on account of the struggle, which belongs to the
irascible power.

Reply Obj. 3: Good, inasmuch as it is delightful, moves the
concupiscible power. But if it prove difficult to obtain, from this
very fact it has a certain contrariety to the concupiscible power:
and hence the need of another power tending to that good. The same
applies to evil. And this power is the irascible faculty.
Consequently the concupiscible passions are specifically different
from the irascible passions.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 23, Art. 2]

Whether the Contrariety of the Irascible Passions Is Based on the
Contrariety of Good and Evil?

Objection 1: It would seem that the contrariety of the irascible
passions is based on no other contrariety than that of good and evil.
For the irascible passions are ordained to the concupiscible
passions, as stated above (A. 1, ad 1). But the contrariety of the
concupiscible passions is no other than that of good and evil; take,
for instance, love and hatred, joy and sorrow. Therefore the same
applies to the irascible passions.

Obj. 2: Further, passions differ according to their objects; just as
movements differ according to their termini. But there is no other
contrariety of movements, except that of the termini, as is stated in
_Phys._ v, 3. Therefore there is no other contrariety of passions,
save that of the objects. Now the object of the appetite is good or
evil. Therefore in no appetitive power can there be contrariety of
passions other than that of good and evil.

Obj. 3: Further, "every passion of the soul is by way of approach and
withdrawal," as Avicenna declares in his sixth book of _Physics._
Now approach results from the apprehension of good; withdrawal, from
the apprehension of evil: since just as "good is what all desire"
(Ethic. i, 1), so evil is what all shun. Therefore, in the passions
of the soul, there can be no other contrariety than that of good and
evil.

_On the contrary,_ Fear and daring are contrary to one another, as
stated in _Ethic._ iii, 7. But fear and daring do not differ in
respect of good and evil: because each regards some kind of evil.
Therefore not every contrariety of the irascible passions is that of
good and evil.

_I answer that,_ Passion is a kind of movement, as stated in _Phys._
iii, 3. Therefore contrariety of passions is based on contrariety of
movements or changes. Now there is a twofold contrariety in changes
and movements, as stated in _Phys._ v, 5. One is according to
approach and withdrawal in respect of the same term: and this
contrariety belongs properly to changes, i.e. to generation, which is
a change _to being,_ and to corruption, which is a change _from
being._ The other contrariety is according to opposition of termini,
and belongs properly to movements: thus whitening, which is movement
from black to white, is contrary to blackening, which is movement
from white to black.

Accordingly there is a twofold contrariety in the passions of the
soul: one, according to contrariety of objects, i.e. of good and
evil; the other, according to approach and withdrawal in respect of
the same term. In the concupiscible passions the former contrariety
alone is to be found; viz. that which is based on the objects:
whereas in the irascible passions, we find both forms of contrariety.
The reason of this is that the object of the concupiscible faculty,
as stated above (A. 1), is sensible good or evil considered
absolutely. Now good, as such, cannot be a term wherefrom, but only a
term whereto, since nothing shuns good as such; on the contrary, all
things desire it. In like manner, nothing desires evil, as such; but
all things shun it: wherefore evil cannot have the aspect of a term
whereto, but only of a term wherefrom. Accordingly every
concupiscible passion in respect of good, tends to it, as love,
desire and joy; while every concupiscible passion in respect of evil,
tends from it, as hatred, avoidance or dislike, and sorrow.
Wherefore, in the concupiscible passions, there can be no contrariety
of approach and withdrawal in respect of the same object.

On the other hand, the object of the irascible faculty is sensible
good or evil, considered not absolutely, but under the aspect of
difficulty or arduousness. Now the good which is difficult or
arduous, considered as good, is of such a nature as to produce in us
a tendency to it, which tendency pertains to the passion of _hope;_
whereas, considered as arduous or difficult, it makes us turn from
it; and this pertains to the passion of _despair._ In like manner the
arduous evil, considered as an evil, has the aspect of something to
be shunned; and this belongs to the passion of _fear:_ but it also
contains a reason for tending to it, as attempting something arduous,
whereby to escape being subject to evil; and this tendency is called
_daring._ Consequently, in the irascible passions we find contrariety
in respect of good and evil (as between hope and fear): and also
contrariety according to approach and withdrawal in respect of the
same term (as between daring and fear).

From what has been said the replies to the objections are evident.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 23, Art. 3]

Whether Any Passion of the Soul Has No Contrary?

Objection 1: It would seem that every passion of the soul has a
contrary. For every passion of the soul is either in the irascible or
in the concupiscible faculty, as stated above (A. 1). But both kinds
of passion have their respective modes of contrariety. Therefore
every passion of the soul has its contrary.

Obj. 2: Further, every passion of the soul has either good or evil
for its object; for these are the common objects of the appetitive
part. But a passion having good for its object, is contrary to a
passion having evil for its object. Therefore every passion has a
contrary.

Obj. 3: Further, every passion of the soul is in respect of approach
or withdrawal, as stated above (A. 2). But every approach has a
corresponding contrary withdrawal, and vice versa. Therefore every
passion of the soul has a contrary.

_On the contrary,_ Anger is a passion of the soul. But no passion is
set down as being contrary to anger, as stated in _Ethic._ iv, 5.
Therefore not every passion has a contrary.

_I answer that,_ The passion of anger is peculiar in this, that it
cannot have a contrary, either according to approach and withdrawal,
or according to the contrariety of good and evil. For anger is caused
by a difficult evil already present: and when such an evil is
present, the appetite must needs either succumb, so that it does not
go beyond the limits of _sadness,_ which is a concupiscible passion;
or else it has a movement of attack on the hurtful evil, which
movement is that of _anger._ But it cannot have a movement of
withdrawal: because the evil is supposed to be already present or
past. Thus no passion is contrary to anger according to contrariety
of approach and withdrawal.

In like manner neither can there be according to contrariety of good
and evil. Because the opposite of present evil is good obtained,
which can be no longer have the aspect of arduousness or difficulty.
Nor, when once good is obtained, does there remain any other
movement, except the appetite's repose in the good obtained; which
repose belongs to joy, which is a passion of the concupiscible
faculty.

Accordingly no movement of the soul can be contrary to the movement
of anger, and nothing else than cessation from its movement is
contrary thereto; thus the Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 3) that "calm
is contrary to anger," by opposition not of contrariety but of
negation or privation.

From what has been said the replies to the objections are evident.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 23, Art. 4]

Whether in the Same Power, There Are Any Passions, Specifically
Different, but Not Contrary to One Another?

Objection 1: It would seem that there cannot be, in the same power,
specifically different passions that are not contrary to one another.
For the passions of the soul differ according to their objects. Now
the objects of the soul's passions are good and evil; and on this
distinction is based the contrariety of the passions. Therefore no
passions of the same power, that are not contrary to one another,
differ specifically.

Obj. 2: Further, difference of species implies a difference of form.
But every difference of form is in respect of some contrariety, as
stated in _Metaph._ x, 8. Therefore passions of the same power, that
are not contrary to one another, do not differ specifically.

Obj. 3: Further, since every passion of the soul consists in approach
or withdrawal in respect of good or evil, it seems that every
difference in the passions of the soul must needs arise from the
difference of good and evil; or from the difference of approach and
withdrawal; or from degrees in approach or withdrawal. Now the first
two differences cause contrariety in the passions of the soul, as
stated above (A. 2): whereas the third difference does not diversify
the species; else the species of the soul's passions would be
infinite. Therefore it is not possible for passions of the same power
to differ in species, without being contrary to one another.

_On the contrary,_ Love and joy differ in species, and are in the
concupiscible power; and yet they are not contrary to one another;
rather, in fact, one causes the other. Therefore in the same power
there are passions that differ in species without being contrary to
one another.

_I answer that,_ Passions differ in accordance with their active
causes, which, in the case of the passions of the soul, are their
objects. Now, the difference in active causes may be considered in
two ways: first, from the point of view of their species or nature,
as fire differs from water; secondly, from the point of view of the
difference in their active power. In the passions of the soul we can
treat the difference of their active or motive causes in respect of
their motive power, as if they were natural agents. For every mover,
in a fashion, either draws the patient to itself, or repels it from
itself. Now in drawing it to itself, it does three things in the
patient. Because, in the first place, it gives the patient an
inclination or aptitude to tend to the mover: thus a light body,
which is above, bestows lightness on the body generated, so that it
has an inclination or aptitude to be above. Secondly, if the
generated body be outside its proper place, the mover gives it
movement towards that place. Thirdly, it makes it to rest, when it
shall have come to its proper place: since to the same cause are due,
both rest in a place, and the movement to that place. The same
applies to the cause of repulsion.

Now, in the movements of the appetitive faculty, good has, as it
were, a force of attraction, while evil has a force of repulsion. In
the first place, therefore, good causes, in the appetitive power, a
certain inclination, aptitude or connaturalness in respect of good:
and this belongs to the passion of _love:_ the corresponding contrary
of which is _hatred_ in respect of evil. Secondly, if the good be not
yet possessed, it causes in the appetite a movement towards the
attainment of the good beloved: and this belongs to the passion of
_desire_ or _concupiscence:_ and contrary to it, in respect of evil,
is the passion of _aversion_ or _dislike._ Thirdly, when the good is
obtained, it causes the appetite to rest, as it were, in the good
obtained: and this belongs to the passion of _delight_ or _joy;_ the
contrary of which, in respect of evil, is _sorrow_ or _sadness._

On the other hand, in the irascible passions, the aptitude, or
inclination to seek good, or to shun evil, is presupposed as arising
from the concupiscible faculty, which regards good or evil absolutely.
And in respect of good not yet obtained, we have _hope_ and _despair._
In respect of evil not yet present we have _fear_ and _daring._ But in
respect of good obtained there is no irascible passion: because it is
no longer considered in the light of something arduous, as stated
above (A. 3). But evil already present gives rise to the passion
of _anger._

Accordingly it is clear that in the concupiscible faculty there are
three couples of passions; viz. love and hatred, desire and aversion,
joy and sadness. In like manner there are three groups in the
irascible faculty; viz. hope and despair, fear and daring, and anger
which has no contrary passion.

Consequently there are altogether eleven passions differing
specifically; six in the concupiscible faculty, and five in the
irascible; and under these all the passions of the soul are contained.

From this the replies to the objections are evident.
________________________

QUESTION 24

OF GOOD AND EVIL IN THE PASSIONS OF THE SOUL
(In Four Articles)

We must now consider good and evil in the passions of the soul: and
under this head there are four points of inquiry:

(1) Whether moral good and evil can be found in the passions of the
soul?

(2) Whether every passion of the soul is morally evil?

(3) Whether every passion increases or decreases the goodness or
malice of an act?

(4) Whether any passion is good or evil specifically?
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 24, Art. 1]

Whether Moral Good and Evil Can Be Found in the Passions of the Soul?

Objection 1: It would seem that no passion of the soul is morally
good or evil. For moral good and evil are proper to man: since
"morals are properly predicated of man," as Ambrose says (Super Luc.
Prolog.). But passions are not proper to man, for he has them in
common with other animals. Therefore no passion of the soul is
morally good or evil.

Obj. 2: Further, the good or evil of man consists in "being in
accord, or in disaccord with reason," as Dionysius says (Div. Nom.
iv). Now the passions of the soul are not in the reason, but in the
sensitive appetite, as stated above (Q. 22, A. 3). Therefore they
have no connection with human, i.e. moral, good or evil.

Obj. 3: Further, the Philosopher says (Ethic. ii, 5) that "we are
neither praised nor blamed for our passions." But we are praised and
blamed for moral good and evil. Therefore the passions are not
morally good or evil.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xiv, 7) while speaking
of the passions of the soul: "They are evil if our love is evil; good
if our love is good."

_I answer that,_ We may consider the passions of the soul in two
ways: first, in themselves; secondly, as being subject to the command
of the reason and will. If then the passions be considered in
themselves, to wit, as movements of the irrational appetite, thus
there is no moral good or evil in them, since this depends on the
reason, as stated above (Q. 18, A. 5). If, however, they be
considered as subject to the command of the reason and will, then
moral good and evil are in them. Because the sensitive appetite is
nearer than the outward members to the reason and will; and yet the
movements and actions of the outward members are morally good or
evil, inasmuch as they are voluntary. Much more, therefore, may the
passions, in so far as they are voluntary, be called morally good or
evil. And they are said to be voluntary, either from being commanded
by the will, or from not being checked by the will.

Reply Obj. 1: These passions, considered in themselves, are common to
man and other animals: but, as commanded by the reason, they are
proper to man.

Reply Obj. 2: Even the lower appetitive powers are called rational,
in so far as "they partake of reason in some sort" (Ethic. i, 13).

Reply Obj. 3: The Philosopher says that we are neither praised nor
blamed for our passions considered absolutely; but he does not
exclude their becoming worthy of praise or blame, in so far as they
are subordinate to reason. Hence he continues: "For the man who fears
or is angry, is not praised . . . or blamed, but the man who is angry
in a certain way, i.e. according to, or against reason."
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 24, Art. 2]

Whether Every Passion of the Soul Is Evil Morally?

Objection 1: It would seem that all the passions of the soul are
morally evil. For Augustine says (De Civ. Dei ix, 4) that "some call
the soul's passions diseases or disturbances of the soul" [*Cf. Q.
22, A. 2, footnote]. But every disease or disturbance of the soul is
morally evil. Therefore every passion of the soul is evil morally.

Obj. 2: Further, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii, 22) that "movement
in accord with nature is an action, but movement contrary to nature
is passion." But in movements of the soul, what is against nature is
sinful and morally evil: hence he says elsewhere (De Fide Orth. ii,
4) that "the devil turned from that which is in accord with nature to
that which is against nature." Therefore these passions are morally
evil.

Obj. 3: Further, whatever leads to sin, has an aspect of evil. But
these passions lead to sin: wherefore they are called "the passions
of sins" (Rom. 7:5). Therefore it seems that they are morally evil.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xiv, 9) that "all
these emotions are right in those whose love is rightly placed . . .
For they fear to sin, they desire to persevere; they grieve for sin,
they rejoice in good works."

_I answer that,_ On this question the opinion of the Stoics differed
from that of the Peripatetics: for the Stoics held that all passions
are evil, while the Peripatetics maintained that moderate passions
are good. This difference, although it appears great in words, is
nevertheless, in reality, none at all, or but little, if we consider
the intent of either school. For the Stoics did not discern between
sense and intellect; and consequently neither between the
intellectual and sensitive appetite. Hence they did not discriminate
the passions of the soul from the movements of the will, in so far as
the passions of the soul are in the sensitive appetite, while the
simple movements of the will are in the intellectual appetite: but
every rational movement of the appetitive part they call will, while
they called passion, a movement that exceeds the limits of reason.
Wherefore Cicero, following their opinion (De Tusc. Quaest. iii, 4)
calls all passions "diseases of the soul": whence he argues that
"those who are diseased are unsound; and those who are unsound are
wanting in sense." Hence we speak of those who are wanting in sense
of being "unsound."

On the other hand, the Peripatetics give the name of "passions" to
all the movements of the sensitive appetite. Wherefore they esteem
them good, when they are controlled by reason; and evil when they are
not controlled by reason. Hence it is evident that Cicero was wrong
in disapproving (De Tusc. Quaest. iii, 4) of the Peripatetic theory
of a mean in the passions, when he says that "every evil, though
moderate, should be shunned; for, just as a body, though it be
moderately ailing, is not sound; so, this mean in the diseases or
passions of the soul, is not sound." For passions are not called
"diseases" or "disturbances" of the soul, save when they are not
controlled by reason.

Hence the reply to the First Objection is evident.

Reply Obj. 2: In every passion there is an increase or decrease in
the natural movement of the heart, according as the heart is moved
more or less intensely by contraction and dilatation; and hence it
derives the character of passion. But there is no need for passion to
deviate always from the order of natural reason.

Reply Obj. 3: The passions of the soul, in so far as they are
contrary to the order of reason, incline us to sin: but in so far as
they are controlled by reason, they pertain to virtue.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 24, Art. 3]

Whether Passion Increases or Decreases the Goodness or Malice of an
Act?

Objection 1: It would seem that every passion decreases the goodness
of a moral action. For anything that hinders the judgment of reason,
on which depends the goodness of a moral act, consequently decreases
the goodness of the moral act. But every passion hinders the judgment
of reason: for Sallust says (Catilin.): "All those that take counsel
about matters of doubt, should be free from hatred, anger, friendship
and pity." Therefore passion decreases the goodness of a moral act.

Obj. 2: Further, the more a man's action is like to God, the better
it is: hence the Apostle says (Eph. 5:1): "Be ye followers of God, as
most dear children." But "God and the holy angels feel no anger when
they punish . . . no fellow-feeling with misery when they relieve the
unhappy," as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei ix, 5). Therefore it is
better to do such like deeds without than with a passion of the soul.

Obj. 3: Further, just as moral evil depends on its relation to
reason, so also does moral good. But moral evil is lessened by
passion: for he sins less, who sins from passion, than he who sins
deliberately. Therefore he does a better deed, who does well without
passion, than he who does with passion.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Civ. Dei ix, 5) that "the
passion of pity is obedient to reason, when pity is bestowed without
violating right, as when the poor are relieved, or the penitent
forgiven." But nothing that is obedient to reason lessens the moral
good. Therefore a passion of the soul does not lessen moral good.

_I answer that,_ As the Stoics held that every passion of the soul is
evil, they consequently held that every passion of the soul lessens
the goodness of an act; since the admixture of evil either destroys
good altogether, or makes it to be less good. And this is true
indeed, if by passions we understand none but the inordinate
movements of the sensitive appetite, considered as disturbances or
ailments. But if we give the name of passions to all the movements of
the sensitive appetite, then it belongs to the perfection of man's
good that his passions be moderated by reason. For since man's good
is founded on reason as its root, that good will be all the more
perfect, according as it extends to more things pertaining to man.
Wherefore no one questions the fact that it belongs to the perfection
of moral good, that the actions of the outward members be controlled
by the law of reason. Hence, since the sensitive appetite can obey
reason, as stated above (Q. 17, A. 7), it belongs to the perfection
of moral or human good, that the passions themselves also should be
controlled by reason.

Accordingly just as it is better that man should both will good and
do it in his external act; so also does it belong to the perfection
of moral good, that man should be moved unto good, not only in
respect of his will, but also in respect of his sensitive appetite;
according to Ps. 83:3: "My heart and my flesh have rejoiced in the
living God": where by "heart" we are to understand the intellectual
appetite, and by "flesh" the sensitive appetite.

Reply Obj. 1: The passions of the soul may stand in a twofold
relation to the judgment of reason. First, antecedently: and thus,
since they obscure the judgment of reason, on which the goodness of
the moral act depends, they diminish the goodness of the act; for it
is more praiseworthy to do a work of charity from the judgment of
reason than from the mere passion of pity. In the second place,
consequently: and this in two ways. First, by way of redundance:
because, to wit, when the higher part of the soul is intensely moved
to anything, the lower part also follows that movement: and thus the
passion that results in consequence, in the sensitive appetite, is a
sign of the intensity of the will, and so indicates greater moral
goodness. Secondly, by way of choice; when, to wit, a man, by the
judgment of his reason, chooses to be affected by a passion in order
to work more promptly with the co-operation of the sensitive
appetite. And thus a passion of the soul increases the goodness of an
action.

Reply Obj. 2: In God and the angels there is no sensitive appetite,
nor again bodily members: and so in them good does not depend on the
right ordering of passions or of bodily actions, as it does in us.

Reply Obj. 3: A passion that tends to evil, and precedes the judgment
of reason, diminishes sin; but if it be consequent in either of the
ways mentioned above (Reply Obj. 1), it aggravates the sin, or else
it is a sign of its being more grievous.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 24, Art. 4]

Whether Any Passion Is Good or Evil in Its Species?

Objection 1: It would seem that no passion of the soul is good or
evil morally according to its species. Because moral good and evil
depend on reason. But the passions are in the sensitive appetite; so
that accordance with reason is accidental to them. Since, therefore,
nothing accidental belongs to a thing's species, it seems that no
passion is good or evil according to its species.

Obj. 2: Further, acts and passions take their species from their
object. If, therefore, any passion were good or evil, according to
its species, it would follow that those passions the object of which
is good, are specifically good, such as love, desire and joy: and
that those passions, the object of which is evil, are specifically
evil, as hatred, fear and sadness. But this is clearly false.
Therefore no passion is good or evil according to its species.

Obj. 3: Further, there is no species of passion that is not to be
found in other animals. But moral good is in man alone. Therefore no
passion of the soul is good or evil according to its species.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Civ. Dei ix, 5) that "pity is a
kind of virtue." Moreover, the Philosopher says (Ethic. ii, 7) that
modesty is a praiseworthy passion. Therefore some passions are good
or evil according to their species.

_I answer that,_ We ought, seemingly, to apply to passions what has
been said in regard to acts (Q. 18, AA. 5, 6; Q. 20, A. 1)--viz. that
the species of a passion, as the species of an act, can be considered
from two points of view. First, according to its natural genus; and
thus moral good and evil have no connection with the species of an
act or passion. Secondly, according to its moral genus, inasmuch as
it is voluntary and controlled by reason. In this way moral good and
evil can belong to the species of a passion, in so far as the object
to which a passion tends, is, of itself, in harmony or in discord
with reason: as is clear in the case of _shame_ which is base fear;
and of _envy_ which is sorrow for another's good: for thus passions
belong to the same species as the external act.

Reply Obj. 1: This argument considers the passions in their natural
species, in so far as the sensitive appetite is considered in itself.
But in so far as the sensitive appetite obeys reason, good and evil
of reason are no longer accidentally in the passions of the appetite,
but essentially.

Reply Obj. 2: Passions having a tendency to good, are themselves
good, if they tend to that which is truly good, and in like manner,
if they turn away from that which is truly evil. On the other hand,
those passions which consist in aversion from good, and a tendency to
evil, are themselves evil.

Reply Obj. 3: In irrational animals the sensitive appetite does not
obey reason. Nevertheless, in so far as they are led by a kind of
estimative power, which is subject to a higher, i.e. the Divine
reason, there is a certain likeness of moral good in them, in regard
to the soul's passions.
________________________

QUESTION 25

OF THE ORDER OF THE PASSIONS TO ONE ANOTHER
(In Four Articles)

We must now consider the order of the passions to one another: and
under this head there are four points of inquiry:

(1) The relation of the irascible passions to the concupiscible
passions;

(2) The relation of the concupiscible passions to one another;

(3) The relation of the irascible passions to one another;

(4) The four principal passions.
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 25, Art. 1]

Whether the Irascible Passions Precede the Concupiscible Passions, or
Vice Versa?

Objection 1: It would seem that the irascible passions precede the
concupiscible passions. For the order of the passions is that of
their objects. But the object of the irascible faculty is the
difficult good, which seems to be the highest good. Therefore the
irascible passions seem to precede the concupiscible passions.

Obj. 2: Further, the mover precedes that which is moved. But the
irascible faculty is compared to the concupiscible, as mover to that
which is moved: since it is given to animals, for the purpose of
removing the obstacles that hinder the concupiscible faculty from
enjoying its object, as stated above (Q. 23, A. 1, ad 1; I, Q. 81,
A. 2). Now "that which removes an obstacle, is a kind of mover"
(Phys. viii, 4). Therefore the irascible passions precede the
concupiscible passions.

Obj. 3: Further, joy and sadness are concupiscible passions. But joy
and sadness succeed to the irascible passions: for the Philosopher
says (Ethic. iv, 5) that "retaliation causes anger to cease, because
it produces pleasure instead of the previous pain." Therefore the
concupiscible passions follow the irascible passions.

_On the contrary,_ The concupiscible passions regard the absolute
good, while the irascible passions regard a restricted, viz. the
difficult, good. Since, therefore, the absolute good precedes the
restricted good, it seems that the concupiscible passions precede
the irascible.

_I answer that,_ In the concupiscible passions there is more
diversity than in the passions of the irascible faculty. For in the
former we find something relating to movement--e.g. desire; and
something belonging to repose, e.g. joy and sadness. But in the
irascible passions there is nothing pertaining to repose, and only
that which belongs to movement. The reason of this is that when we
find rest in a thing, we no longer look upon it as something
difficult or arduous; whereas such is the object of the irascible
faculty.

Now since rest is the end of movement, it is first in the order of
intention, but last in the order of execution. If, therefore, we
compare the passions of the irascible faculty with those
concupiscible passions that denote rest in good, it is evident that
in the order of execution, the irascible passions take precedence of
such like passions of the concupiscible faculty: thus hope precedes
joy, and hence causes it, according to the Apostle (Rom. 12:12):
"Rejoicing in hope." But the concupiscible passion which denotes rest
in evil, viz. sadness, comes between two irascible passions: because
it follows fear; since we become sad when we are confronted by the
evil that we feared: while it precedes the movement of anger; since
the movement of self-vindication, that results from sadness, is the
movement of anger. And because it is looked upon as a good thing to
pay back the evil done to us; when the angry man has achieved this
he rejoices. Thus it is evident that every passion of the irascible
faculty terminates in a concupiscible passion denoting rest, viz.
either in joy or in sadness.

But if we compare the irascible passions to those concupiscible
passions that denote movement, then it is clear that the latter take
precedence: because the passions of the irascible faculty add
something to those of the concupiscible faculty; just as the object
of the irascible adds the aspect of arduousness or difficulty to the
object of the concupiscible faculty. Thus hope adds to desire a
certain effort, and a certain raising of the spirits to the
realization of the arduous good. In like manner fear adds to aversion
or detestation a certain lowness of spirits, on account of difficulty
in shunning the evil.

Accordingly the passions of the irascible faculty stand between those
concupiscible passions that denote movement towards good or evil, and
those concupiscible passions that denote rest in good or evil. And it
is therefore evident that the irascible passions both arise from and
terminate in the passions of the concupiscible faculty.

Reply Obj. 1: This argument would prove, if the formal object of the
concupiscible faculty were something contrary to the arduous, just as
the formal object of the irascible faculty is that which is arduous.
But because the object of the concupiscible faculty is good
absolutely, it naturally precedes the object of the irascible, as the
common precedes the proper.

Reply Obj. 2: The remover of an obstacle is not a direct but an
accidental mover: and here we are speaking of passions as directly
related to one another. Moreover, the irascible passion removes the
obstacle that hinders the concupiscible from resting in its object.
Wherefore it only follows that the irascible passions precede those
concupiscible passions that connote rest. The third objection leads
to the same conclusion.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 25, Art. 2]

Whether Love Is the First of the Concupiscible Passions?

Objection 1: It would seem that love is not the first of the
concupiscible passions. For the concupiscible faculty is so called
from concupiscence, which is the same passion as desire. But "things
are named from their chief characteristic" (De Anima ii, 4).
Therefore desire takes precedence of love.

Obj. 2: Further, love implies a certain union; since it is a "uniting
and binding force," as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv). But
concupiscence or desire is a movement towards union with the thing
coveted or desired. Therefore desire precedes love.

Obj. 3: Further, the cause precedes its effect. But pleasure is
sometimes the cause of love: since some love on account of pleasure
(Ethic. viii, 3, 4). Therefore pleasure precedes love; and
consequently love is not the first of the concupiscible passions.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xiv, 7, 9) that all
the passions are caused by love: since "love yearning for the beloved
object, is desire; and, having and enjoying it, is joy." Therefore
love is the first of the concupiscible passions.

_I answer that,_ Good and evil are the object of the concupiscible
faculty. Now good naturally precedes evil; since evil is privation of
good. Wherefore all the passions, the object of which is good, are
naturally before those, the object of which is evil--that is to say,
each precedes its contrary passion: because the quest of a good is
the reason for shunning the opposite evil.

Now good has the aspect of an end, and the end is indeed first in the
order of intention, but last in the order of execution. Consequently
the order of the concupiscible passions can be considered either in
the order of intention or in the order of execution. In the order of
execution, the first place belongs to that which takes place first in
the thing that tends to the end. Now it is evident that whatever
tends to an end, has, in the first place, an aptitude or proportion
to that end, for nothing tends to a disproportionate end; secondly,
it is moved to that end; thirdly, it rests in the end, after having
attained it. And this very aptitude or proportion of the appetite to
good is love, which is complacency in good; while movement towards
good is desire or concupiscence; and rest in good is joy or pleasure.
Accordingly in this order, love precedes desire, and desire precedes
pleasure. But in the order of intention, it is the reverse: because
the pleasure intended causes desire and love. For pleasure is the
enjoyment of the good, which enjoyment is, in a way, the end, just as
the good itself is, as stated above (Q. 11, A. 3, ad 3).

Reply Obj. 1: We name a thing as we understand it, for "words are
signs of thoughts," as the Philosopher states (Peri Herm. i, 1). Now
in most cases we know a cause by its effect. But the effect of love,
when the beloved object is possessed, is pleasure: when it is not
possessed, it is desire or concupiscence: and, as Augustine says (De
Trin. x, 12), "we are more sensible to love, when we lack that which
we love." Consequently of all the concupiscible passions,
concupiscence is felt most; and for this reason the power is named
after it.

Reply Obj. 2: The union of lover and beloved is twofold. There is
real union, consisting in the conjunction of one with the other. This
union belongs to joy or pleasure, which follows desire. There is also
an affective union, consisting in an aptitude or proportion, in so
far as one thing, from the very fact of its having an aptitude for
and an inclination to another, partakes of it: and love betokens such
a union. This union precedes the movement of desire.

Reply Obj. 3: Pleasure causes love, in so far as it precedes love in
the order of intention.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 25, Art. 3]

Whether Hope Is the First of the Irascible Passions?

Objection 1: It would seem that hope is not the first of the
irascible passions. Because the irascible faculty is denominated from
anger. Since, therefore, "things are names from their chief
characteristic" (cf. A. 2, Obj. 1), it seems that anger precedes and
surpasses hope.

Obj. 2: Further, the object of the irascible faculty is something
arduous. Now it seems more arduous to strive to overcome a contrary
evil that threatens soon to overtake us, which pertains to daring; or
an evil actually present, which pertains to anger; than to strive
simply to obtain some good. Again, it seems more arduous to strive to
overcome a present evil, than a future evil. Therefore anger seems to
be a stronger passion than daring, and daring, than hope. And
consequently it seems that hope does not precede them.

Obj. 3: Further, when a thing is moved towards an end, the movement
of withdrawal precedes the movement of approach. But fear and despair
imply withdrawal from something; while daring and hope imply approach
towards something. Therefore fear and despair precede hope and daring.

_On the contrary,_ The nearer a thing is to the first, the more it
precedes others. But hope is nearer to love, which is the first of
the passions. Therefore hope is the first of the passions in the
irascible faculty.

_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1) all irascible passions imply
movement towards something. Now this movement of the irascible
faculty towards something may be due to two causes: one is the mere
aptitude or proportion to the end; and this pertains to love or
hatred; [the other is the presence of good or evil itself,] and this
belongs to sadness or joy. As a matter of fact, the presence of good
produces no passion in the irascible, as stated above (Q. 23, AA. 3,
4); but the presence of evil gives rise to the passion of anger.

Since then in the order of generation or execution, proportion or
aptitude to the end precedes the achievement of the end; it follows
that, of all the irascible passions, anger is the last in the order
of generation. And among the other passions of the irascible faculty,
which imply a movement arising from love of good or hatred of evil,
those whose object is good, viz. hope and despair, must naturally
precede those whose object is evil, viz. daring and fear: yet so that
hope precedes despair; since hope is a movement towards good as such,
which is essentially attractive, so that hope tends to good directly;
whereas despair is a movement away from good, a movement which is
consistent with good, not as such, but in respect of something else,
wherefore its tendency from good is accidental, as it were. In like
manner fear, through being a movement from evil, precedes daring. And
that hope and despair naturally precede fear and daring is evident
from this--that as the desire of good is the reason for avoiding
evil, so hope and despair are the reason for fear and daring: because
daring arises from the hope of victory, and fear arises from the
despair of overcoming. Lastly, anger arises from daring: for no one
is angry while seeking vengeance, unless he dare to avenge himself,
as Avicenna observes in the sixth book of his _Physics._ Accordingly,
it is evident that hope is the first of all the irascible passions.

And if we wish to know the order of all the passions in the way of
generation, love and hatred are first; desire and aversion, second;
hope and despair, third; fear and daring, fourth; anger, fifth; sixth
and last, joy and sadness, which follow from all the passions, as
stated in _Ethic._ ii, 5: yet so that love precedes hatred; desire
precedes aversion; hope precedes despair; fear precedes daring; and
joy precedes sadness, as may be gathered from what has been stated
above.

Reply Obj. 1: Because anger arises from the other passions, as an
effect from the causes that precede it, it is from anger, as being
more manifest than the other passions, that the power takes its name.

Reply Obj. 2: It is not the arduousness but the good that is the
reason for approach or desire. Consequently hope, which regards good
more directly, takes precedence: although at times daring or even
anger regards something more arduous.

Reply Obj. 3: The movement of the appetite is essentially and
directly towards the good as towards its proper object; its movement
from evil results from this. For the movement of the appetitive part
is in proportion, not to natural movement, but to the intention of
nature, which intends the end before intending the removal of a
contrary, which removal is desired only for the sake of obtaining
the end.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 25, Art. 4]

Whether These Are the Four Principal Passions: Joy, Sadness, Hope and
Fear?

Objection 1: It would seem that joy, sadness, hope and fear are not
the four principal passions. For Augustine (De Civ. Dei xiv, 3, 7
sqq.) omits hope and puts desire in its place.

Obj. 2: Further, there is a twofold order in the passions of the
soul: the order of intention, and the order of execution or
generation. The principal passions should therefore be taken, either
in the order of intention; and thus joy and sadness, which are the
final passions, will be the principal passions; or in the order of
execution or generation, and thus love will be the principal passion.
Therefore joy and sadness, hope and fear should in no way be called
the four principal passions.

Obj. 3: Further, just as daring is caused by hope, so fear is caused
by despair. Either, therefore, hope and despair should be reckoned as
principal passions, since they cause others: or hope and daring, from
being akin to one another.

_On the contrary,_ Boethius (De Consol. i) in enumerating the four
principal passions, says:

"Banish joys: banish fears:
Away with hope: away with tears."

_I answer that,_ These four are commonly called the principal
passions. Two of them, viz. joy and sadness, are said to be principal
because in them all the other passions have their completion and end;
wherefore they arise from all the other passions, as is stated in
_Ethic._ ii, 5. Fear and hope are principal passions, not because
they complete the others simply, but because they complete them as
regards the movement of the appetite towards something: for in
respect of good, movement begins in love, goes forward to desire, and
ends in hope; while in respect of evil, it begins in hatred, goes on
to aversion, and ends in fear. Hence it is customary to distinguish
these four passions in relation to the present and the future: for
movement regards the future, while rest is in something present: so
that joy relates to present good, sadness relates to present evil;
hope regards future good, and fear, future evil.

As to the other passions that regard good or evil, present or future,
they all culminate in these four. For this reason some have said that
these four are the principal passions, because they are general
passions; and this is true, provided that by hope and fear we
understand the appetite's common tendency to desire or shun something.

Reply Obj. 1: Augustine puts desire or covetousness in place of hope,
in so far as they seem to regard the same object, viz. some future
good.

Reply Obj. 2: These are called principal passions, in the order of
intention and completion. And though fear and hope are not the last
passions simply, yet they are the last of those passions that tend
towards something as future. Nor can the argument be pressed any
further except in the case of anger: yet neither can anger be
reckoned a principal passion, because it is an effect of daring,
which cannot be a principal passion, as we shall state further on
(Reply Obj. 3).

Reply Obj. 3: Despair implies movement away from good; and this is,
as it were, accidental: and daring implies movement towards evil;
and this too is accidental. Consequently these cannot be principal
passions; because that which is accidental cannot be said to be
principal. And so neither can anger be called a principal passion,
because it arises from daring.
________________________

QUESTION 26

OF THE PASSIONS OF THE SOUL IN PARTICULAR: AND FIRST, OF LOVE
(In Four Articles)

We have now to consider the soul's passions in particular, and (1)
the passions of the concupiscible faculty; (2) the passions of the
irascible faculty.

The first of these considerations will be threefold: since we shall
consider (1) Love and hatred; (2) Desire and aversion; (3) Pleasure
and sadness.

Concerning love, three points must be considered: (1) Love itself;
(2) The cause of love; (3) The effects of love. Under the first
head there are four points of inquiry:

(1) Whether love is in the concupiscible power?

(2) Whether love is a passion?

(3) Whether love is the same as dilection?

(4) Whether love is properly divided into love of friendship, and
love of concupiscence?
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 26, Art. 1]

Whether Love Is in the Concupiscible Power?

Objection 1: It would seem that love is not in the concupiscible
power. For it is written (Wis. 8:2): "Her," namely wisdom, "have I
loved, and have sought her out from my youth." But the concupiscible
power, being a part of the sensitive appetite, cannot tend to wisdom,
which is not apprehended by the senses. Therefore love is not in the
concupiscible power.

Obj. 2: Further, love seems to be identified with every passion: for
Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xiv, 7): "Love, yearning for the object
beloved, is desire; having and enjoying it, is joy; fleeing what is
contrary to it, is fear; and feeling what is contrary to it, is
sadness." But not every passion is in the concupiscible power;
indeed, fear, which is mentioned in this passage, is in the irascible
power. Therefore we must not say absolutely that love is in the
concupiscible power.

Obj. 3: Further, Dionysius (Div. Nom. iv) mentions a "natural love."
But natural love seems to pertain rather to the natural powers, which
belong to the vegetal soul. Therefore love is not simply in the
concupiscible power.

_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher says (Topic. ii, 7) that "love is
in the concupiscible power."

_I answer that,_ Love is something pertaining to the appetite; since
good is the object of both. Wherefore love differs according to the
difference of appetites. For there is an appetite which arises from
an apprehension existing, not in the subject of the appetite, but in
some other: and this is called the _natural appetite._ Because
natural things seek what is suitable to them according to their
nature, by reason of an apprehension which is not in them, but in the
Author of their nature, as stated in the First Part (Q. 6, A. 1, ad
2; Q. 103, A. 1, ad 1, 3). And there is another appetite arising from
an apprehension in the subject of the appetite, but from necessity
and not from free-will. Such is, in irrational animals, the
_sensitive appetite,_ which, however, in man, has a certain share of
liberty, in so far as it obeys reason. Again, there is another
appetite following freely from an apprehension in the subject of the
appetite. And this is the rational or intellectual appetite, which is
called the _will._

Now in each of these appetites, the name "love" is given to the
principle of movement towards the end loved. In the natural appetite
the principle of this movement is the appetitive subject's
connaturalness with the thing to which it tends, and may be called
"natural love": thus the connaturalness of a heavy body for the
centre, is by reason of its weight and may be called "natural love."
In like manner the aptitude of the sensitive appetite or of the will
to some good, that is to say, its very complacency in good is called
"sensitive love," or "intellectual" or "rational love." So that
sensitive love is in the sensitive appetite, just as intellectual
love is in the intellectual appetite. And it belongs to the
concupiscible power, because it regards good absolutely, and not
under the aspect of difficulty, which is the object of the irascible
faculty.

Reply Obj. 1: The words quoted refer to intellectual or rational love.

Reply Obj. 2: Love is spoken of as being fear, joy, desire and
sadness, not essentially but causally.

Reply Obj. 3: Natural love is not only in the powers of the
vegetal soul, but in all the soul's powers, and also in all the parts
of the body, and universally in all things: because, as Dionysius says
(Div. Nom. iv), "Beauty and goodness are beloved by all things"; since
each single thing has a connaturalness with that which is naturally
suitable to it.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 26, Art. 2]

Whether Love Is a Passion?

Objection 1: It would seem that love is not a passion. For no power
is a passion. But every love is a power, as Dionysius says (Div. Nom.
iv). Therefore love is not a passion.

Obj. 2: Further, love is a kind of union or bond, as Augustine says
(De Trin. viii, 10). But a union or bond is not a passion, but rather
a relation. Therefore love is not a passion.

Obj. 3: Further, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii, 22) that passion
is a movement. But love does not imply the movement of the appetite;
for this is desire, of which movement love is the principle.
Therefore love is not a passion.

_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher says (Ethic. viii, 5) that "love
is a passion."

_I answer that,_ Passion is the effect of the agent on the patient.
Now a natural agent produces a twofold effect on the patient: for in
the first place it gives it the form; and secondly it gives it the
movement that results from the form. Thus the generator gives the
generated body both weight and the movement resulting from weight: so
that weight, from being the principle of movement to the place, which
is connatural to that body by reason of its weight, can, in a way, be
called "natural love." In the same way the appetible object gives the
appetite, first, a certain adaptation to itself, which consists in
complacency in that object; and from this follows movement towards
the appetible object. For "the appetitive movement is circular," as
stated in _De Anima_ iii, 10; because the appetible object moves the
appetite, introducing itself, as it were, into its intention; while
the appetite moves towards the realization of the appetible object,
so that the movement ends where it began. Accordingly, the first
change wrought in the appetite by the appetible object is called
"love," and is nothing else than complacency in that object; and from
this complacency results a movement towards that same object, and
this movement is "desire"; and lastly, there is rest which is "joy."
Since, therefore, love consists in a change wrought in the appetite
by the appetible object, it is evident that love is a passion:
properly so called, according as it is in the concupiscible faculty;
in a wider and extended sense, according as it is in the will.

Reply Obj. 1: Since power denotes a principle of movement or action,
Dionysius calls love a power, in so far as it is a principle of
movement in the appetite.

Reply Obj. 2: Union belongs to love in so far as by reason of the
complacency of the appetite, the lover stands in relation to that
which he loves, as though it were himself or part of himself. Hence
it is clear that love is not the very relation of union, but that
union is a result of love. Hence, too, Dionysius says that "love is a
unitive force" (Div. Nom. iv), and the Philosopher says (Polit. ii,
1) that union is the work of love.

Reply Obj. 3: Although love does not denote the movement of the
appetite in tending towards the appetible object, yet it denotes that
movement whereby the appetite is changed by the appetible object, so
as to have complacency therein.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 26, Art. 3]

Whether Love Is the Same As Dilection?

Objection 1: It would seem that love is the same as dilection. For
Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv) that love is to dilection, "as four is
to twice two, and as a rectilinear figure is to one composed of
straight lines." But these have the same meaning. Therefore love and
dilection denote the same thing.

Obj. 2: Further, the movements of the appetite differ by reason of
their objects. But the objects of dilection and love are the same.
Therefore these are the same.

Obj. 3: Further, if dilection and love differ, it seems that it is
chiefly in the fact that "dilection refers to good things, love to
evil things, as some have maintained," according to Augustine (De
Civ. Dei xiv, 7). But they do not differ thus; because as Augustine
says (De Civ. Dei xiv, 7) the holy Scripture uses both words in
reference to either good or bad things. Therefore love and dilection
do not differ: thus indeed Augustine concludes (De Civ. Dei xiv, 7)
that "it is not one thing to speak of love, and another to speak of
dilection."

_On the contrary,_ Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv) that "some holy men
have held that love means something more Godlike than dilection does."

_I answer that,_ We find four words referring in a way, to the same
thing: viz. love, dilection, charity and friendship. They differ,
however, in this, that "friendship," according to the Philosopher
(Ethic. viii, 5), "is like a habit," whereas "love" and "dilection"
are expressed by way of act or passion; and "charity" can be taken
either way.

Moreover these three express act in different ways. For love has a
wider signification than the others, since every dilection or charity
is love, but not vice versa. Because dilection implies, in addition
to love, a choice (_electionem_) made beforehand, as the very word
denotes: and therefore dilection is not in the concupiscible power,
but only in the will, and only in the rational nature. Charity
denotes, in addition to love, a certain perfection of love, in so far
as that which is loved is held to be of great price, as the word
itself implies [*Referring to the Latin "carus" (dear)].

Reply Obj. 1: Dionysius is speaking of love and dilection, in so far
as they are in the intellectual appetite; for thus love is the same
as dilection.

Reply Obj. 2: The object of love is more general than the
object of dilection: because love extends to more than dilection does,
as stated above.

Reply Obj. 3: Love and dilection differ, not in respect of
good and evil, but as stated. Yet in the intellectual faculty love is
the same as dilection. And it is in this sense that Augustine speaks
of love in the passage quoted: hence a little further on he adds that
"a right will is well-directed love, and a wrong will is ill-directed
love." However, the fact that love, which is concupiscible passion,
inclines many to evil, is the reason why some assigned the difference
spoken of.

Reply Obj. 4: The reason why some held that, even when applied
to the will itself, the word "love" signifies something more Godlike
than "dilection," was because love denotes a passion, especially in so
far as it is in the sensitive appetite; whereas dilection presupposes
the judgment of reason. But it is possible for man to tend to God by
love, being as it were passively drawn by Him, more than he can
possibly be drawn thereto by his reason, which pertains to the nature
of dilection, as stated above. And consequently love is more Godlike
than dilection.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 26, Art. 4]

Whether Love Is Properly Divided into Love of Friendship and Love of
Concupiscence?

Objection 1: It would seem that love is not properly divided into
love of friendship and love of concupiscence. For "love is a passion,
while friendship is a habit," according to the Philosopher (Ethic.
viii, 5). But habit cannot be the member of a division of passions.
Therefore love is not properly divided into love of concupiscence and
love of friendship.

Obj. 2: Further, a thing cannot be divided by another member of the
same division; for man is not a member of the same division as
"animal." But concupiscence is a member of the same division as love,
as a passion distinct from love. Therefore concupiscence is not a
division of love.

Obj. 3: Further, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. viii, 3)
friendship is threefold, that which is founded on _usefulness,_ that
which is founded on _pleasure,_ and that which is founded on
_goodness._ But useful and pleasant friendship are not without
concupiscence. Therefore concupiscence should not be contrasted with
friendship.

_On the contrary,_ We are said to love certain things, because we
desire them: thus "a man is said to love wine, on account of its
sweetness which he desires"; as stated in _Topic._ ii, 3. But we have
no friendship for wine and suchlike things, as stated in _Ethic._
viii, 2. Therefore love of concupiscence is distinct from love of
friendship.

_I answer that,_ As the Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 4), "to love is
to wish good to someone." Hence the movement of love has a twofold
tendency: towards the good which a man wishes to someone (to himself
or to another) and towards that to which he wishes some good.
Accordingly, man has love of concupiscence towards the good that he
wishes to another, and love of friendship towards him to whom he
wishes good.

Now the members of this division are related as primary and
secondary: since that which is loved with the love of friendship is
loved simply and for itself; whereas that which is loved with the
love of concupiscence, is loved, not simply and for itself, but for
something else. For just as that which has existence, is a being
simply, while that which exists in another is a relative being; so,
because good is convertible with being, the good, which itself has
goodness, is good simply; but that which is another's good, is a
relative good. Consequently the love with which a thing is loved,
that it may have some good, is love simply; while the love, with
which a thing is loved, that it may be another's good, is relative
love.

Reply Obj. 1: Love is not divided into friendship and concupiscence,
but into love of friendship, and love of concupiscence. For a friend
is, properly speaking, one to whom we wish good: while we are said to
desire, what we wish for ourselves.

Hence the Reply to the Second Objection.

Reply Obj. 3: When friendship is based on usefulness or pleasure, a
man does indeed wish his friend some good: and in this respect the
character of friendship is preserved. But since he refers this good
further to his own pleasure or use, the result is that friendship of
the useful or pleasant, in so far as it is connected with love of
concupiscence, loses the character to true friendship.
________________________

QUESTION 27

OF THE CAUSE OF LOVE
(In Four Articles)

We must now consider the cause of love: and under this head there are
four points of inquiry:

(1) Whether good is the only cause of love?

(2) Whether knowledge is a cause of love?

(3) Whether likeness is a cause of love?

(4) Whether any other passion of the soul is a cause of love?
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 27, Art. 1]

Whether Good Is the Only Cause of Love?

Objection 1: It would seem that good is not the only cause of love.
For good does not cause love, except because it is loved. But it
happens that evil also is loved, according to Ps. 10:6: "He that
loveth iniquity, hateth his own soul": else, every love would be
good. Therefore good is not the only cause of love.

Obj. 2: Further, the Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 4) that "we love
those who acknowledge their evils." Therefore it seems that evil is
the cause of love.

Obj. 3: Further, Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv) that not "the good"
only but also "the beautiful is beloved by all."

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Trin. viii, 3): "Assuredly the
good alone is beloved." Therefore good alone is the cause of love.

_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 26, A. 1), Love belongs to the
appetitive power which is a passive faculty. Wherefore its object
stands in relation to it as the cause of its movement or act.
Therefore the cause of love must needs be love's object. Now the
proper object of love is the good; because, as stated above (Q. 26,
AA. 1, 2), love implies a certain connaturalness or complacency of
the lover for the thing beloved, and to everything, that thing is a
good, which is akin and proportionate to it. It follows, therefore,
that good is the proper cause of love.

Reply Obj. 1: Evil is never loved except under the aspect of good,
that is to say, in so far as it is good in some respect, and is
considered as being good simply. And thus a certain love is evil, in
so far as it tends to that which is not simply a true good. It is in
this way that man "loves iniquity," inasmuch as, by means of
iniquity, some good is gained; pleasure, for instance, or money, or
such like.

Reply Obj. 2: Those who acknowledge their evils, are beloved, not
for their evils, but because they acknowledge them, for it is a good
thing to acknowledge one's faults, in so far as it excludes
insincerity or hypocrisy.

Reply Obj. 3: The beautiful is the same as the good, and they differ
in aspect only. For since good is what all seek, the notion of good
is that which calms the desire; while the notion of the beautiful is
that which calms the desire, by being seen or known. Consequently
those senses chiefly regard the beautiful, which are the most
cognitive, viz. sight and hearing, as ministering to reason; for we
speak of beautiful sights and beautiful sounds. But in reference to
the other objects of the other senses, we do not use the expression
"beautiful," for we do not speak of beautiful tastes, and beautiful
odors. Thus it is evident that beauty adds to goodness a relation
to the cognitive faculty: so that "good" means that which simply
pleases the appetite; while the "beautiful" is something pleasant
to apprehend.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 27, Art. 2]

Whether Knowledge Is a Cause of Love?

Objection 1: It would seem that knowledge is not a cause of love. For
it is due to love that a thing is sought. But some things are sought
without being known, for instance, the sciences; for since "to have
them is the same as to know them," as Augustine says (QQ. 83, qu.
35), if we knew them we should have them, and should not seek them.
Therefore knowledge is not the cause of love.

Obj. 2: Further, to love what we know not seems like loving something
more than we know it. But some things are loved more than they are
known: thus in this life God can be loved in Himself, but cannot be
known in Himself. Therefore knowledge is not the cause of love.

Obj. 3: Further, if knowledge were the cause of love, there would be
no love, where there is no knowledge. But in all things there is
love, as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv); whereas there is not
knowledge in all things. Therefore knowledge is not the cause of love.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine proves (De Trin. x, 1, 2) that "none can
love what he does not know."

_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1), good is the cause of love,
as being its object. But good is not the object of the appetite,
except as apprehended. And therefore love demands some apprehension
of the good that is loved. For this reason the Philosopher (Ethic.
ix, 5, 12) says that bodily sight is the beginning of sensitive love:
and in like manner the contemplation of spiritual beauty or goodness
is the beginning of spiritual love. Accordingly knowledge is the
cause of love for the same reason as good is, which can be loved only
if known.

Reply Obj. 1: He who seeks science, is not entirely without knowledge
thereof: but knows something about it already in some respect, either
in a general way, or in some one of its effects, or from having heard
it commended, as Augustine says (De Trin. x, 1, 2). But to have it is
not to know it thus, but to know it perfectly.

Reply Obj. 2: Something is required for the perfection of knowledge,
that is not requisite for the perfection of love. For knowledge
belongs to the reason, whose function it is to distinguish things
which in reality are united, and to unite together, after a fashion,
things that are distinct, by comparing one with another. Consequently
the perfection of knowledge requires that man should know distinctly
all that is in a thing, such as its parts, powers, and properties. On
the other hand, love is in the appetitive power, which regards a
thing as it is in itself: wherefore it suffices, for the perfection
of love, that a thing be loved according as it is known in itself.
Hence it is, therefore, that a thing is loved more than it is known;
since it can be loved perfectly, even without being perfectly known.
This is most evident in regard to the sciences, which some love
through having a certain general knowledge of them: for instance,
they know that rhetoric is a science that enables man to persuade
others; and this is what they love in rhetoric. The same applies to
the love of God.

Reply Obj. 3: Even natural love, which is in all things, is caused
by a kind of knowledge, not indeed existing in natural things
themselves, but in Him Who created their nature, as stated above
(Q. 26, A. 1; cf. I, Q. 6, A. 1, ad 2).
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 27, Art. 3]

Whether Likeness Is a Cause of Love?

Objection 1: It would seem that likeness is not a cause of love. For
the same thing is not the cause of contraries. But likeness is the
cause of hatred; for it is written (Prov. 13:10) that "among the
proud there are always contentions"; and the Philosopher says (Ethic.
viii, 1) that "potters quarrel with one another." Therefore likeness
is not a cause of love.

Obj. 2: Further, Augustine says (Confess. iv, 14) that "a man loves
in another that which he would not be himself: thus he loves an
actor, but would not himself be an actor." But it would not be so, if
likeness were the proper cause of love; for in that case a man would
love in another, that which he possesses himself, or would like to
possess. Therefore likeness is not a cause of love.

Obj. 3: Further, everyone loves that which he needs, even if he have
it not: thus a sick man loves health, and a poor man loves riches.
But in so far as he needs them and lacks them, he is unlike them.
Therefore not only likeness but also unlikeness is a cause of love.

Obj. 4: Further, the Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 4) that "we love
those who bestow money and health on us; and also those who retain
their friendship for the dead." But all are not such. Therefore
likeness is not a cause of love.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Ecclus. 13:19): "Every beast loveth
its like."

_I answer that,_ Likeness, properly speaking, is a cause of love. But
it must be observed that likeness between things is twofold. One kind
of likeness arises from each thing having the same quality actually:
for example, two things possessing the quality of whiteness are said
to be alike. Another kind of likeness arises from one thing having
potentially and by way of inclination, a quality which the other has
actually: thus we may say that a heavy body existing outside its
proper place is like another heavy body that exists in its proper
place: or again, according as potentiality bears a resemblance to its
act; since act is contained, in a manner, in the potentiality itself.

Accordingly the first kind of likeness causes love of friendship or
well-being. For the very fact that two men are alike, having, as it
were, one form, makes them to be, in a manner, one in that form: thus
two men are one thing in the species of humanity, and two white men
are one thing in whiteness. Hence the affections of one tend to the
other, as being one with him; and he wishes good to him as to
himself. But the second kind of likeness causes love of
concupiscence, or friendship founded on usefulness or pleasure:
because whatever is in potentiality, as such, has the desire for its
act; and it takes pleasure in its realization, if it be a sentient
and cognitive being.

Now it has been stated above (Q. 26, A. 4), that in the love of
concupiscence, the lover, properly speaking, loves himself, in
willing the good that he desires. But a man loves himself more than
another: because he is one with himself substantially, whereas with
another he is one only in the likeness of some form. Consequently,
if this other's likeness to him arising from the participation of a
form, hinders him from gaining the good that he loves, he becomes
hateful to him, not for being like him, but for hindering him from
gaining his own good. This is why "potters quarrel among themselves,"
because they hinder one another's gain: and why "there are
contentions among the proud," because they hinder one another in
attaining the position they covet.

Hence the Reply to the First Objection is evident.

Reply Obj. 2: Even when a man loves in another what he loves not in
himself, there is a certain likeness of proportion: because as the
latter is to that which is loved in him, so is the former to that
which he loves in himself: for instance, if a good singer love a good
writer, we can see a likeness of proportion, inasmuch as each one has
that which is becoming to him in respect of his art.

Reply Obj. 3: He that loves what he needs, bears a likeness to what
he loves, as potentiality bears a likeness to its act, as stated
above.

Reply Obj. 4: According to the same likeness of potentiality to its
act, the illiberal man loves the man who is liberal, in so far as he
expects from him something which he desires. The same applies to the
man who is constant in his friendship as compared to one who is
inconstant. For in either case friendship seems to be based on
usefulness. We might also say that although not all men have these
virtues in the complete habit, yet they have them according to
certain seminal principles in the reason, in force of which
principles the man who is not virtuous loves the virtuous man, as
being in conformity with his own natural reason.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 27, Art. 4]

Whether Any Other Passion of the Soul Is a Cause of Love?

Objection 1: It would seem that some other passion can be the cause
of love. For the Philosopher (Ethic. viii, 3) says that some are
loved for the sake of the pleasure they give. But pleasure is a
passion. Therefore another passion is a cause of love.

Obj. 2: Further, desire is a passion. But we love some because we
desire to receive something from them: as happens in every friendship
based on usefulness. Therefore another passion is a cause of love.

Obj. 3: Further, Augustine says (De Trin. x, 1): "When we have no
hope of getting a thing, we love it but half-heartedly or not at all,
even if we see how beautiful it is." Therefore hope too is a cause of
love.

_On the contrary,_ All the other emotions of the soul are caused by
love, as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xiv, 7, 9).

_I answer that,_ There is no other passion of the soul that does not
presuppose love of some kind. The reason is that every other passion
of the soul implies either movement towards something, or rest in
something. Now every movement towards something, or rest in
something, arises from some kinship or aptness to that thing; and in
this does love consist. Therefore it is not possible for any other
passion of the soul to be universally the cause of every love. But it
may happen that some other passion is the cause of some particular
love: just as one good is the cause of another.

Reply Obj. 1: When a man loves a thing for the pleasure it affords,
his love is indeed caused by pleasure; but that very pleasure is
caused, in its turn, by another preceding love; for none takes
pleasure save in that which is loved in some way.

Reply Obj. 2: Desire for a thing always presupposes love for that
thing. But desire of one thing can be the cause of another thing's
being loved; thus he that desires money, for this reason loves him
from whom he receives it.

Reply Obj. 3: Hope causes or increases love; both by reason of
pleasure, because it causes pleasure; and by reason of desire,
because hope strengthens desire, since we do not desire so intensely
that which we have no hope of receiving. Nevertheless hope itself is
of a good that is loved.
________________________

QUESTION 28

OF THE EFFECTS OF LOVE
(In Six Articles)

We now have to consider the effects of love: under which head there
are six points of inquiry:

(1) Whether union is an effect of love?

(2) Whether mutual indwelling is an effect of love?

(3) Whether ecstasy is an effect of love?

(4) Whether zeal is an effect of love?

(5) Whether love is a passion that is hurtful to the lover?

(6) Whether love is cause of all that the lover does?
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 28, Art. 1]

Whether Union Is an Effect of Love?

Objection 1: It would seem that union is not an effect of love. For
absence is incompatible with union. But love is compatible with
absence; for the Apostle says (Gal. 4:18): "Be zealous for that which
is good in a good thing always" (speaking of himself, according to a
gloss), "and not only when I am present with you." Therefore union is
not an effect of love.

Obj. 2: Further, every union is either according to essence, thus
form is united to matter, accident to subject, and a part to the
whole, or to another part in order to make up the whole: or according
to likeness, in genus, species, or accident. But love does not cause
union of essence; else love could not be between things essentially
distinct. On the other hand, love does not cause union of likeness,
but rather is caused by it, as stated above (Q. 27, A. 3). Therefore
union is not an effect of love.

Obj. 3: Further, the sense in act is the sensible in act, and the
intellect in act is the thing actually understood. But the lover in
act is not the beloved in act. Therefore union is the effect of
knowledge rather than of love.

_On the contrary,_ Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv) that every love is a
"unitive love."

_I answer that,_ The union of lover and beloved is twofold. The first
is real union; for instance, when the beloved is present with the
lover. The second is union of affection: and this union must be
considered in relation to the preceding apprehension; since movement
of the appetite follows apprehension. Now love being twofold, viz.
love of concupiscence and love of friendship; each of these arises
from a kind of apprehension of the oneness of the thing loved with
the lover. For when we love a thing, by desiring it, we apprehend it
as belonging to our well-being. In like manner when a man loves
another with the love of friendship, he wills good to him, just as he
wills good to himself: wherefore he apprehends him as his other self,
in so far, to wit, as he wills good to him as to himself. Hence a
friend is called a man's "other self" (Ethic. ix, 4), and Augustine
says (Confess. iv, 6), "Well did one say to his friend: Thou half of
my soul."

The first of these unions is caused _effectively_ by love; because
love moves man to desire and seek the presence of the beloved, as of
something suitable and belonging to him. The second union is caused
_formally_ by love; because love itself is this union or bond. In
this sense Augustine says (De Trin. viii, 10) that "love is a vital
principle uniting, or seeking to unite two together, the lover, to
wit, and the beloved." For in describing it as "uniting" he refers to
the union of affection, without which there is no love: and in saying
that "it seeks to unite," he refers to real union.

Reply Obj. 1: This argument is true of real union. That is necessary
to pleasure as being its cause; desire implies the real absence of
the beloved: but love remains whether the beloved be absent or
present.

Reply Obj. 2: Union has a threefold relation to love. There is union
which causes love; and this is substantial union, as regards the love
with which one loves oneself; while as regards the love wherewith one
loves other things, it is the union of likeness, as stated above (Q.
27, A. 3). There is also a union which is essentially love itself.
This union is according to a bond of affection, and is likened to
substantial union, inasmuch as the lover stands to the object of his
love, as to himself, if it be love of friendship; as to something
belonging to himself, if it be love of concupiscence. Again there is
a union, which is the effect of love. This is real union, which the
lover seeks with the object of his love. Moreover this union is in
keeping with the demands of love: for as the Philosopher relates
(Polit. ii, 1), "Aristophanes stated that lovers would wish to be
united both into one," but since "this would result in either one or
both being destroyed," they seek a suitable and becoming union--to
live together, speak together, and be united together in other like
things.

Reply Obj. 3: Knowledge is perfected by the thing known being
united, through its likeness, to the knower. But the effect of love is
that the thing itself which is loved, is, in a way, united to the
lover, as stated above. Consequently the union caused by love is
closer than that which is caused by knowledge.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 28, Art. 2]

Whether Mutual Indwelling Is an Effect of Love?

Objection 1: It would seem that love does not cause mutual
indwelling, so that the lover be in the beloved and vice versa. For
that which is in another is contained in it. But the same cannot be
container and contents. Therefore love cannot cause mutual
indwelling, so that the lover be in the beloved and vice versa.

Obj. 2: Further, nothing can penetrate within a whole, except by
means of a division of the whole. But it is the function of the
reason, not of the appetite where love resides, to divide things that
are really united. Therefore mutual indwelling is not an effect of
love.

Obj. 3: Further, if love involves the lover being in the beloved and
vice versa, it follows that the beloved is united to the lover, in
the same way as the lover is united to the beloved. But the union
itself is love, as stated above (A. 1). Therefore it follows that the
lover is always loved by the object of his love; which is evidently
false. Therefore mutual indwelling is not an effect of love.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (1 John 4:16): "He that abideth in
charity abideth in God, and God in him." Now charity is the love of
God. Therefore, for the same reason, every love makes the beloved to
be in the lover, and vice versa.

_I answer that,_ This effect of mutual indwelling may be understood
as referring both to the apprehensive and to the appetitive power.
Because, as to the apprehensive power, the beloved is said to be in
the lover, inasmuch as the beloved abides in the apprehension of the
lover, according to Phil. 1:7, "For that I have you in my heart":
while the lover is said to be in the beloved, according to
apprehension, inasmuch as the lover is not satisfied with a
superficial apprehension of the beloved, but strives to gain an
intimate knowledge of everything pertaining to the beloved, so as to
penetrate into his very soul. Thus it is written concerning the Holy
Ghost, Who is God's Love, that He "searcheth all things, yea the deep
things of God" (1 Cor. 2:10).

As the appetitive power, the object loved is said to be in the lover,
inasmuch as it is in his affections, by a kind of complacency:
causing him either to take pleasure in it, or in its good, when
present; or, in the absence of the object loved, by his longing, to
tend towards it with the love of concupiscence, or towards the good
that he wills to the beloved, with the love of friendship: not indeed
from any extrinsic cause (as when we desire one thing on account of
another, or wish good to another on account of something else), but
because the complacency in the beloved is rooted in the lover's
heart. For this reason we speak of love as being "intimate"; and "of
the bowels of charity." On the other hand, the lover is in the
beloved, by the love of concupiscence and by the love of friendship,
but not in the same way. For the love of concupiscence is not
satisfied with any external or superficial possession or enjoyment of
the beloved; but seeks to possess the beloved perfectly, by
penetrating into his heart, as it were. Whereas, in the love of
friendship, the lover is in the beloved, inasmuch as he reckons what
is good or evil to his friend, as being so to himself; and his
friend's will as his own, so that it seems as though he felt the good
or suffered the evil in the person of his friend. Hence it is proper
to friends "to desire the same things, and to grieve and rejoice at
the same," as the Philosopher says (Ethic. ix, 3 and Rhet. ii, 4).
Consequently in so far as he reckons what affects his friend as
affecting himself, the lover seems to be in the beloved, as though he
were become one with him: but in so far as, on the other hand, he
wills and acts for his friend's sake as for his own sake, looking on
his friend as identified with himself, thus the beloved is in the
lover.

In yet a third way, mutual indwelling in the love of friendship can
be understood in regard to reciprocal love: inasmuch as friends
return love for love, and both desire and do good things for one
another.

Reply Obj. 1: The beloved is contained in the lover, by being
impressed on his heart and thus becoming the object of his
complacency. On the other hand, the lover is contained in the
beloved, inasmuch as the lover penetrates, so to speak, into the
beloved. For nothing hinders a thing from being both container and
contents in different ways: just as a genus is contained in its
species, and vice versa.

Reply Obj. 2: The apprehension of the reason precedes the movement of
love. Consequently, just as the reason divides, so does the movement
of love penetrate into the beloved, as was explained above.

Reply Obj. 3: This argument is true of the third kind of mutual
indwelling, which is not to be found in every kind of love.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 28, Art. 3]

Whether Ecstasy Is an Effect of Love?

Objection 1: It would seem that ecstasy is not an effect of love.
For ecstasy seems to imply loss of reason. But love does not always
result in loss of reason: for lovers are masters of themselves at
times. Therefore love does not cause ecstasy.

Obj. 2: Further, the lover desires the beloved to be united to him.
Therefore he draws the beloved to himself, rather than betakes
himself into the beloved, going forth out from himself as it were.

Obj. 3: Further, love unites the beloved to the lover, as stated
above (A. 1). If, therefore, the lover goes out from himself, in
order to betake himself into the beloved, it follows that the lover
always loves the beloved more than himself: which is evidently false.
Therefore ecstasy is not an effect of love.

_On the contrary,_ Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv) that "the Divine
love produces ecstasy," and that "God Himself suffered ecstasy
through love." Since therefore according to the same author (Div.
Nom. iv), every love is a participated likeness of the Divine Love,
it seems that every love causes ecstasy.

_I answer that,_ To suffer ecstasy means to be placed outside
oneself. This happens as to the apprehensive power and as to the
appetitive power. As to the apprehensive power, a man is said to be
placed outside himself, when he is placed outside the knowledge
proper to him. This may be due to his being raised to a higher
knowledge; thus, a man is said to suffer ecstasy, inasmuch as he is
placed outside the connatural apprehension of his sense and reason,
when he is raised up so as to comprehend things that surpass sense
and reason: or it may be due to his being cast down into a state of
debasement; thus a man may be said to suffer ecstasy, when he is
overcome by violent passion or madness. As to the appetitive power, a
man is said to suffer ecstasy, when that power is borne towards
something else, so that it goes forth out from itself, as it were.

The first of these ecstasies is caused by love dispositively in so
far, namely, as love makes the lover dwell on the beloved, as stated
above (A. 2), and to dwell intently on one thing draws the mind from
other things. The second ecstasy is caused by love directly; by love
of friendship, simply; by love of concupiscence not simply but in a
restricted sense. Because in love of concupiscence, the lover is
carried out of himself, in a certain sense; in so far, namely, as not
being satisfied with enjoying the good that he has, he seeks to enjoy
something outside himself. But since he seeks to have this extrinsic
good for himself, he does not go out from himself simply, and this
movement remains finally within him. On the other hand, in the love
of friendship, a man's affection goes out from itself simply; because
he wishes and does good to his friend, by caring and providing for
him, for his sake.

Reply Obj. 1: This argument is true of the first kind of ecstasy.

Reply Obj. 2: This argument applies to love of concupiscence, which,
as stated above, does not cause ecstasy simply.

Reply Obj. 3: He who loves, goes out from himself, in so far as he
wills the good of his friend and works for it. Yet he does not will
the good of his friend more than his own good: and so it does not
follow that he loves another more than himself.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 28, Art. 4]

Whether Zeal Is an Effect of Love?

Objection 1: It would seem that zeal is not an effect of love. For
zeal is a beginning of contention; wherefore it is written (1 Cor.
3:3): "Whereas there is among you zeal [Douay: 'envying'] and
contention," etc. But contention is incompatible with love. Therefore
zeal is not an effect of love.

Obj. 2: Further, the object of love is the good, which communicates
itself to others. But zeal is opposed to communication; since it
seems an effect of zeal, that a man refuses to share the object of
his love with another: thus husbands are said to be jealous of
(_zelare_) their wives, because they will not share them with others.
Therefore zeal is not an effect of love.

Obj. 3: Further, there is no zeal without hatred, as neither is there
without love: for it is written (Ps. 72:3): "I had a zeal on occasion
of the wicked." Therefore it should not be set down as an effect of
love any more than of hatred.

_On the contrary,_ Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv): "God is said to be
a zealot, on account of his great love for all things."

_I answer that,_ Zeal, whatever way we take it, arises from the
intensity of love. For it is evident that the more intensely a power
tends to anything, the more vigorously it withstands opposition or
resistance. Since therefore love is "a movement towards the object
loved," as Augustine says (QQ. 83, qu. 35), an intense love seeks to
remove everything that opposes it.

But this happens in different ways according to love of
concupiscence, and love of friendship. For in love of concupiscence
he who desires something intensely, is moved against all that hinders
his gaining or quietly enjoying the object of his love. It is thus
that husbands are said to be jealous of their wives, lest association
with others prove a hindrance to their exclusive individual rights.
In like manner those who seek to excel, are moved against those who
seem to excel, as though these were a hindrance to their excelling.
And this is the zeal of envy, of which it is written (Ps. 36:1): "Be
not emulous of evil doers, nor envy (_zelaveris_) them that work
iniquity."

On the other hand, love of friendship seeks the friend's good:
wherefore, when it is intense, it causes a man to be moved against
everything that opposes the friend's good. In this respect, a man is
said to be zealous on behalf of his friend, when he makes a point of
repelling whatever may be said or done against the friend's good. In
this way, too, a man is said to be zealous on God's behalf, when he
endeavors, to the best of his means, to repel whatever is contrary to
the honor or will of God; according to 3 Kings 19:14: "With zeal I
have been zealous for the Lord of hosts." Again on the words of John
2:17: "The zeal of Thy house hath eaten me up," a gloss says that "a
man is eaten up with a good zeal, who strives to remedy whatever evil
he perceives; and if he cannot, bears with it and laments it."

Reply Obj. 1: The Apostle is speaking in this passage of the zeal of
envy; which is indeed the cause of contention, not against the object
of love, but for it, and against that which is opposed to it.

Reply Obj. 2: Good is loved inasmuch as it can be communicated to the
lover. Consequently whatever hinders the perfection of this
communication, becomes hateful. Thus zeal arises from love of good.
But through defect of goodness, it happens that certain small goods
cannot, in their entirety, be possessed by many at the same time: and
from the love of such things arises the zeal of envy. But it does not
arise, properly speaking, in the case of those things which, in their
entirety, can be possessed by many: for no one envies another the
knowledge of truth, which can be known entirely by many; except
perhaps one may envy another his superiority in the knowledge of it.

Reply Obj. 3: The very fact that a man hates whatever is opposed to
the object of his love, is the effect of love. Hence zeal is set down
as an effect of love rather than of hatred.
________________________

FIFTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 28, Art. 5]

Whether Love Is a Passion That Wounds the Lover?

Objection 1: It would seem that love wounds the lover. For languor
denotes a hurt in the one that languishes. But love causes languor:
for it is written (Cant 2:5): "Stay me up with flowers, compass me
about with apples; because I languish with love." Therefore love is
a wounding passion.

Obj. 2: Further, melting is a kind of dissolution. But love melts
that in which it is: for it is written (Cant 5:6): "My soul melted
when my beloved spoke." Therefore love is a dissolvent: therefore it
is a corruptive and a wounding passion.

Obj. 3: Further, fervor denotes a certain excess of heat; which
excess has a corruptive effect. But love causes fervor: for Dionysius
(Coel. Hier. vii) in reckoning the properties belonging to the
Seraphim's love, includes "hot" and "piercing" and "most fervent."
Moreover it is said of love (Cant 8:6) that "its lamps are fire and
flames." Therefore love is a wounding and corruptive passion.

_On the contrary,_ Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv) that "everything
loves itself with a love that holds it together," i.e. that preserves
it. Therefore love is not a wounding passion, but rather one that
preserves and perfects.

_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 26, AA. 1, 2; Q. 27, A. 1), love
denotes a certain adapting of the appetitive power to some good. Now
nothing is hurt by being adapted to that which is suitable to it;
rather, if possible, it is perfected and bettered. But if a thing be
adapted to that which is not suitable to it, it is hurt and made
worse thereby. Consequently love of a suitable good perfects and
betters the lover; but love of a good which is unsuitable to the
lover, wounds and worsens him. Wherefore man is perfected and
bettered chiefly by the love of God: but is wounded and worsened by
the love of sin, according to Osee 9:10: "They became abominable, as
those things which they loved."

And let this be understood as applying to love in respect of its
formal element, i.e. in regard to the appetite. But in respect of the
material element in the passion of love, i.e. a certain bodily
change, it happens that love is hurtful, by reason of this change
being excessive: just as it happens in the senses, and in every act
of a power of the soul that is exercised through the change of some
bodily organ.

In reply to the objections, it is to be observed that four proximate
effects may be ascribed to love: viz. melting, enjoyment, languor,
and fervor. Of these the first is "melting," which is opposed to
freezing. For things that are frozen, are closely bound together, so
as to be hard to pierce. But it belongs to love that the appetite is
fitted to receive the good which is loved, inasmuch as the object
loved is in the lover, as stated above (A. 2). Consequently the
freezing or hardening of the heart is a disposition incompatible with
love: while melting denotes a softening of the heart, whereby the
heart shows itself to be ready for the entrance of the beloved. If,
then, the beloved is present and possessed, pleasure or enjoyment
ensues. But if the beloved be absent, two passions arise; viz.
sadness at its absence, which is denoted by "languor" (hence Cicero
in _De Tusc. Quaest._ iii, 11 applies the term "ailment" chiefly to
sadness); and an intense desire to possess the beloved, which is
signified by "fervor." And these are the effects of love considered
formally, according to the relation of the appetitive power to its
object. But in the passion of love, other effects ensue,
proportionate to the above, in respect of a change in the organ.
________________________

SIXTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 28, Art. 6]

Whether Love Is Cause of All That the Lover Does?

Objection 1: It would seem that the lover does not do everything from
love. For love is a passion, as stated above (Q. 26, A. 2). But man
does not do everything from passion: but some things he does from
choice, and some things from ignorance, as stated in _Ethic._ v, 8.
Therefore not everything that a man does, is done from love.

Obj. 2: Further, the appetite is a principle of movement and action
in all animals, as stated in _De Anima_ iii, 10. If, therefore,
whatever a man does is done from love, the other passions of the
appetitive faculty are superfluous.

Obj. 3: Further, nothing is produced at one and the same time by
contrary causes. But some things are done from hatred. Therefore all
things are not done from love.

_On the contrary,_ Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv) that "all things,
whatever they do, they do for the love of good."

_I answer that,_ Every agent acts for an end, as stated above (Q. 1,
A. 2). Now the end is the good desired and loved by each one.
Wherefore it is evident that every agent, whatever it be, does every
action from love of some kind.

Reply Obj. 1: This objection takes love as a passion existing in the
sensitive appetite. But here we are speaking of love in a general
sense, inasmuch as it includes intellectual, rational, animal, and
natural love: for it is in this sense that Dionysius speaks of love
in chapter iv of _De Divinis Nominibus._

Reply Obj. 2: As stated above (A. 5; Q. 27, A. 4) desire, sadness and
pleasure, and consequently all the other passions of the soul, result
from love. Wherefore every act that proceeds from any passion,
proceeds also from love as from a first cause: and so the other
passions, which are proximate causes, are not superfluous.

Reply Obj. 3: Hatred also is a result of love, as we shall state
further on (Q. 29, A. 2).
________________________

QUESTION 29

OF HATRED
(In Six Articles)

We must now consider hatred: concerning which there are six points of
inquiry:

(1) Whether evil is the cause and the object of hatred?

(2) Whether love is the cause of hatred?

(3) Whether hatred is stronger than love?

(4) Whether a man can hate himself?

(5) Whether a man can hate the truth?

(6) Whether a thing can be the object of universal hatred?
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 29, Art. 1]

Whether Evil Is the Cause and Object of Hatred?

Objection 1: It would seem that evil is not the object and cause of
hatred. For everything that exists, as such, is good. If therefore
evil be the object of hatred, it follows that nothing but the lack
of something can be the object of hatred: which is clearly untrue.

Obj. 2: Further, hatred of evil is praiseworthy; hence (2 Macc. 3:1)
some are praised for that "the laws were very well kept, because of
the godliness of Onias the high-priest, and the hatred of their souls
[Douay: 'his soul'] had no evil." If, therefore, nothing but evil be
the object of hatred, it would follow that all hatred is commendable:
and this is clearly false.

Obj. 3: Further, the same thing is not at the same time both good and
evil. But the same thing is lovable and hateful to different
subjects. Therefore hatred is not only of evil, but also of good.

_On the contrary,_ Hatred is the opposite of love. But the object of
love is good, as stated above (Q. 26, A. 1; Q. 27, A. 1). Therefore
the object of hatred is evil.

_I answer that,_ Since the natural appetite is the result of
apprehension (though this apprehension is not in the same subject as
the natural appetite), it seems that what applies to the inclination
of the natural appetite, applies also to the animal appetite, which
does result from an apprehension in the same subject, as stated above
(Q. 26, A. 1). Now, with regard to the natural appetite, it is
evident, that just as each thing is naturally attuned and adapted to
that which is suitable to it, wherein consists natural love; so has
it a natural dissonance from that which opposes and destroys it; and
this is natural hatred. So, therefore, in the animal appetite, or in
the intellectual appetite, love is a certain harmony of the appetite
with that which is apprehended as suitable; while hatred is
dissonance of the appetite from that which is apprehended as
repugnant and hurtful. Now, just as whatever is suitable, as such,
bears the aspect of good; so whatever is repugnant, as such, bears
the aspect of evil. And therefore, just as good is the object of
love, so evil is the object of hatred.

Reply Obj. 1: Being, as such, has not the aspect of repugnance but
only of fittingness; because being is common to all things. But
being, inasmuch as it is this determinate being, has an aspect of
repugnance to some determinate being. And in this way, one being is
hateful to another, and is evil; though not in itself, but by
comparison with something else.

Reply Obj. 2: Just as a thing may be apprehended as good, when it is
not truly good; so a thing may be apprehended as evil, whereas it is
not truly evil. Hence it happens sometimes that neither hatred of
evil nor love of good is good.

Reply Obj. 3: To different things the same thing may be lovable or
hateful: in respect of the natural appetite, owing to one and the
same thing being naturally suitable to one thing, and naturally
unsuitable to another: thus heat is becoming to fire and unbecoming
to water: and in respect of the animal appetite, owing to one and
the same thing being apprehended by one as good, by another as bad.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 29, Art. 2]

Whether Love Is a Cause of Hatred?

Objection 1: It would seem that love is not a cause of hatred. For
"the opposite members of a division are naturally simultaneous"
(Praedic. x). But love and hatred are opposite members of a division,
since they are contrary to one another. Therefore they are naturally
simultaneous. Therefore love is not the cause of hatred.

Obj. 2: Further, of two contraries, one is not the cause of the
other. But love and hatred are contraries. Therefore love is not the
cause of hatred.

Obj. 3: Further, that which follows is not the cause of that which
precedes. But hatred precedes love, seemingly: since hatred implies a
turning away from evil, whereas love implies a turning towards good.
Therefore love is not the cause of hatred.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xiv, 7, 9) that all
emotions are caused by love. Therefore hatred also, since it is an
emotion of the soul, is caused by love.

_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1), love consists in a certain
agreement of the lover with the object loved, while hatred consists
in a certain disagreement or dissonance. Now we should consider in
each thing, what agrees with it, before that which disagrees: since a
thing disagrees with another, through destroying or hindering that
which agrees with it. Consequently love must needs precede hatred;
and nothing is hated, save through being contrary to a suitable thing
which is loved. And hence it is that every hatred is caused by love.

Reply Obj. 1: The opposite members of a division are sometimes
naturally simultaneous, both really and logically; e.g. two species
of animal, or two species of color. Sometimes they are simultaneous
logically, while, in reality, one precedes, and causes the other;
e.g. the species of numbers, figures and movements. Sometimes they
are not simultaneous either really or logically; e.g. substance and
accident; for substance is in reality the cause of accident; and
being is predicated of substance before it is predicated of accident,
by a priority of reason, because it is not predicated of accident
except inasmuch as the latter is in substance. Now love and hatred
are naturally simultaneous, logically but not really. Wherefore
nothing hinders love from being the cause of hatred.

Reply Obj. 2: Love and hatred are contraries if considered in respect
of the same thing. But if taken in respect of contraries, they are
not themselves contrary, but consequent to one another: for it
amounts to the same that one love a certain thing, or that one hate
its contrary. Thus love of one thing is the cause of one's hating its
contrary.

Reply Obj. 3: In the order of execution, the turning away from one
term precedes the turning towards the other. But the reverse is the
case in the order of intention: since approach to one term is the
reason for turning away from the other. Now the appetitive movement
belongs rather to the order of intention than to that of execution.
Wherefore love precedes hatred: because each is an appetitive
movement.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 29, Art. 3]

Whether Hatred Is Stronger Than Love?

Objection 1: It would seem that hatred is stronger than love. For
Augustine says (QQ. 83, qu. 36): "There is no one who does not flee
from pain, more than he desires pleasure." But flight from pain
pertains to hatred; while desire for pleasure belongs to love.
Therefore hatred is stronger than love.

Obj. 2: Further, the weaker is overcome by the stronger. But love is
overcome by hatred: when, that is to say, love is turned into hatred.
Therefore hatred is stronger than love.

Obj. 3: Further, the emotions of the soul are shown by their effects.
But man insists more on repelling what is hateful, than on seeking
what is pleasant: thus also irrational animals refrain from pleasure
for fear of the whip, as Augustine instances (QQ. 83, qu. 36).
Therefore hatred is stronger than love.

_On the contrary,_ Good is stronger than evil; because "evil does
nothing except in virtue of good," as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv).
But hatred and love differ according to the difference of good and
evil. Therefore love is stronger than hatred.

_I answer that,_ It is impossible for an effect to be stronger than
its cause. Now every hatred arises from some love as its cause, as
above stated (A. 2). Therefore it is impossible for hatred to be
stronger than love absolutely.

But furthermore, love must needs be, absolutely speaking, stronger
than hatred. Because a thing is moved to the end more strongly than
to the means. Now turning away from evil is directed as a means to
the gaining of good. Wherefore, absolutely speaking, the soul's
movement in respect of good is stronger than its movement in respect
of evil.

Nevertheless hatred sometimes seems to be stronger than love, for two
reasons. First, because hatred is more keenly felt than love. For,
since the sensitive perception is accompanied by a certain
impression; when once the impression has been received it is not felt
so keenly as in the moment of receiving it. Hence the heat of a
hectic fever, though greater, is nevertheless not felt so much as the
heat of tertian fever; because the heat of the hectic fever is
habitual and like a second nature. For this reason, love is felt more
keenly in the absence of the object loved; thus Augustine says (De
Trin. x, 12) that "love is felt more keenly when we lack what we
love." And for the same reason, the unbecomingness of that which is
hated is felt more keenly than the becomingness of that which is
loved. Secondly, because comparison is made between a hatred and a
love which are not mutually corresponding. Because, according to
different degrees of good there are different degrees of love to
which correspond different degrees of hatred. Wherefore a hatred that
corresponds to a greater love, moves us more than a lesser love.

Hence it is clear how to reply to the First Objection. For the love
of pleasure is less than the love of self-preservation, to which
corresponds flight from pain. Wherefore we flee from pain more than
we love pleasure.

Reply Obj. 2: Hatred would never overcome love, were it not for the
greater love to which that hatred corresponds. Thus man loves
himself, more than he loves his friend: and because he loves himself,
his friend is hateful to him, if he oppose him.

Reply Obj. 3: The reason why we act with greater insistence in
repelling what is hateful, is because we feel hatred more keenly.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 29, Art. 4]

Whether a Man Can Hate Himself?

Objection 1: It would seem that a man can hate himself. For it is
written (Ps. 10:6): "He that loveth iniquity, hateth his own soul."
But many love iniquity. Therefore many hate themselves.

Obj. 2: Further, him we hate, to whom we wish and work evil. But
sometimes a man wishes and works evil to himself, e.g. a man who
kills himself. Therefore some men hate themselves.

Obj. 3: Further, Boethius says (De Consol. ii) that "avarice makes a
man hateful"; whence we may conclude that everyone hates a miser. But
some men are misers. Therefore they hate themselves.

_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says (Eph. 5:29) that "no man ever
hated his own flesh."

_I answer that,_ Properly speaking, it is impossible for a man to
hate himself. For everything naturally desires good, nor can anyone
desire anything for himself, save under the aspect of good: for "evil
is outside the scope of the will," as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv).
Now to love a man is to will good to him, as stated above (Q. 26, A.
4). Consequently, a man must, of necessity, love himself; and it is
impossible for a man to hate himself, properly speaking.

But accidentally it happens that a man hates himself: and this in two
ways. First, on the part of the good which a man wills to himself.
For it happens sometimes that what is desired as good in some
particular respect, is simply evil; and in this way, a man
accidentally wills evil to himself; and thus hates himself. Secondly,
in regard to himself, to whom he wills good. For each thing is that
which is predominant in it; wherefore the state is said to do what
the king does, as if the king were the whole state. Now it is clear
that man is principally the mind of man. And it happens that some men
account themselves as being principally that which they are in their
material and sensitive nature. Wherefore they love themselves
according to what they take themselves to be, while they hate that
which they really are, by desiring what is contrary to reason. And in
both these ways, "he that loveth iniquity hateth" not only "his own
soul," but also himself.

Wherefore the reply to the First Objection is evident.

Reply Obj. 2: No man wills and works evil to himself, except he
apprehend it under the aspect of good. For even they who kill
themselves, apprehend death itself as a good, considered as putting
an end to some unhappiness or pain.

Reply Obj. 3: The miser hates something accidental to himself, but
not for that reason does he hate himself: thus a sick man hates his
sickness for the very reason that he loves himself. Or we may say
that avarice makes man hateful to others, but not to himself. In
fact, it is caused by inordinate self-love, in respect of which,
man desires temporal goods for himself more than he should.
________________________

FIFTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 29, Art. 5]

Whether a Man Can Hate the Truth?

Objection 1: It would seem that a man cannot hate the truth. For
good, true, and being are convertible. But a man cannot hate good.
Neither, therefore, can he hate the truth.

Obj. 2: Further, "All men have a natural desire for knowledge," as
stated in the beginning of the _Metaphysics_ (i, 1). But knowledge is
only of truth. Therefore truth is naturally desired and loved. But
that which is in a thing naturally, is always in it. Therefore no man
can hate the truth.

Obj. 3: Further, the Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 4) that "men love
those who are straightforward." But there can be no other motive for
this save truth. Therefore man loves the truth naturally. Therefore
he cannot hate it.

_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says (Gal. 4:16): "Am I become your
enemy because I tell you the truth?" [*St. Thomas quotes the passage,
probably from memory, as though it were an assertion: "I am become,"
etc.]

_I answer that,_ Good, true and being are the same in reality, but
differ as considered by reason. For good is considered in the light
of something desirable, while being and true are not so considered:
because good is "what all things seek." Wherefore good, as such,
cannot be the object of hatred, neither in general nor in particular.
Being and truth in general cannot be the object of hatred: because
disagreement is the cause of hatred, and agreement is the cause of
love; while being and truth are common to all things. But nothing
hinders some particular being or some particular truth being an
object of hatred, in so far as it is considered as hurtful and
repugnant; since hurtfulness and repugnance are not incompatible with
the notion of being and truth, as they are with the notion of good.

Now it may happen in three ways that some particular truth is
repugnant or hurtful to the good we love. First, according as truth
is in things as in its cause and origin. And thus man sometimes hates
a particular truth, when he wishes that what is true were not true.
Secondly, according as truth is in man's knowledge, which hinders him
from gaining the object loved: such is the case of those who wish not
to know the truth of faith, that they may sin freely; in whose person
it is said (Job 21:14): "We desire not the knowledge of Thy ways."
Thirdly, a particular truth is hated, as being repugnant, inasmuch as
it is in the intellect of another man: as, for instance, when a man
wishes to remain hidden in his sin, he hates that anyone should know
the truth about his sin. In this respect, Augustine says (Confess. x,
23) that men "love truth when it enlightens, they hate it when it
reproves." This suffices for the Reply to the First Objection.

Reply Obj. 2: The knowledge of truth is lovable in itself: hence
Augustine says that men love it when it enlightens. But accidentally,
the knowledge of truth may become hateful, in so far as it hinders
one from accomplishing one's desire.

Reply Obj. 3: The reason why we love those who are straightforward is
that they make known the truth, and the knowledge of the truth,
considered in itself, is a desirable thing.
________________________

SIXTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 29, Art. 6]

Whether Anything Can Be an Object of Universal Hatred?

Objection 1: It would seem that a thing cannot be an object of
universal hatred. Because hatred is a passion of the sensitive
appetite, which is moved by an apprehension in the senses. But the
senses cannot apprehend the universal. Therefore a thing cannot be an
object of universal hatred.

Obj. 2: Further, hatred is caused by disagreement; and where there is
disagreement, there is nothing in common. But the notion of
universality implies something in common. Therefore nothing can be
the object of universal hatred.

Obj. 3: Further, the object of hatred is evil. But "evil is in
things, and not in the mind" (Metaph. vi, 4). Since therefore the
universal is in the mind only, which abstracts the universal from the
particular, it would seem that hatred cannot have a universal object.

_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 4) that "anger is
directed to something singular, whereas hatred is also directed to a
thing in general; for everybody hates the thief and the backbiter."

_I answer that,_ There are two ways of speaking of the universal:
first, as considered under the aspect of universality; secondly, as
considered in the nature to which it is ascribed: for it is one thing
to consider the universal man, and another to consider a man as man.
If, therefore, we take the universal, in the first way, no sensitive
power, whether of apprehension or of appetite, can attain the
universal: because the universal is obtained by abstraction from
individual matter, on which every sensitive power is based.

Nevertheless the sensitive powers, both of apprehension and of
appetite, can tend to something universally. Thus we say that the
object of sight is color considered generically; not that the sight
is cognizant of universal color, but because the fact that color is
cognizant by the sight, is attributed to color, not as being this
particular color, but simply because it is color. Accordingly hatred
in the sensitive faculty can regard something universally: because
this thing, by reason of its common nature, and not merely as an
individual, is hostile to the animal--for instance, a wolf in regard
to a sheep. Hence a sheep hates the wolf universally. On the other
hand, anger is always caused by something in particular: because it
is caused by some action of the one that hurts us; and actions
proceed from individuals. For this reason the Philosopher says (Rhet.
ii, 4) that "anger is always directed to something singular, whereas
hatred can be directed to a thing in general."

But according as hatred is in the intellectual part, since it arises
from the universal apprehension of the intellect, it can regard the
universal in both ways.

Reply Obj. 1: The senses do not apprehend the universal, as such: but
they apprehend something to which the character of universality is
given by abstraction.

Reply Obj. 2: That which is common to all cannot be a reason of
hatred. But nothing hinders a thing from being common to many, and at
variance with others, so as to be hateful to them.

Reply Obj. 3: This argument considers the universal under the aspect
of universality: and thus it does not come under the sensitive
apprehension or appetite.
________________________

QUESTION 30

OF CONCUPISCENCE
(In Four Articles)

We have now to consider concupiscence: under which head there are
four points of inquiry:

(1) Whether concupiscence is in the sensitive appetite only?

(2) Whether concupiscence is a specific passion?

(3) Whether some concupiscences are natural, and some not natural?

(4) Whether concupiscence is infinite?
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 30, Art. 1]

Whether Concupiscence Is in the Sensitive Appetite Only?

Objection 1: It would seem that concupiscence is not only in the
sensitive appetite. For there is a concupiscence of wisdom, according
to Wis. 6:21: "The concupiscence [Douay: 'desire'] of wisdom bringeth
to the everlasting kingdom." But the sensitive appetite can have no
tendency to wisdom. Therefore concupiscence is not only in the
sensitive appetite.

Obj. 2: Further, the desire for the commandments of God is not in the
sensitive appetite: in fact the Apostle says (Rom. 7:18): "There
dwelleth not in me, that is to say, in my flesh, that which is good."
But desire for God's commandments is an act of concupiscence,
according to Ps. 118:20: "My soul hath coveted (_concupivit_) to long
for thy justifications." Therefore concupiscence is not only in the
sensitive appetite.

Obj. 3: Further, to each power, its proper good is a matter of
concupiscence. Therefore concupiscence is in each power of the soul,
and not only in the sensitive appetite.

_On the contrary,_ Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii, 12) that "the
irrational part which is subject and amenable to reason, is divided
into the faculties of concupiscence and anger. This is the irrational
part of the soul, passive and appetitive." Therefore concupiscence is
in the sensitive appetite.

_I answer that,_ As the Philosopher says (Rhet. i, 11),
"concupiscence is a craving for that which is pleasant." Now pleasure
is twofold, as we shall state later on (Q. 31, AA. 3, 4): one is in
the intelligible good, which is the good of reason; the other is in
good perceptible to the senses. The former pleasure seems to belong
to soul alone: whereas the latter belongs to both soul and body:
because the sense is a power seated in a bodily organ: wherefore
sensible good is the good of the whole composite. Now concupiscence
seems to be the craving for this latter pleasure, since it belongs to
the united soul and body, as is implied by the Latin word
"concupiscentia." Therefore, properly speaking, concupiscence is in
the sensitive appetite, and in the concupiscible faculty, which takes
its name from it.

Reply Obj. 1: The craving for wisdom, or other spiritual goods, is
sometimes called concupiscence; either by reason of a certain
likeness; or on account of the craving in the higher part of the soul
being so vehement that it overflows into the lower appetite, so that
the latter also, in its own way, tends to the spiritual good,
following the lead of the higher appetite, the result being that the
body itself renders its service in spiritual matters, according to
Ps. 83:3: "My heart and my flesh have rejoiced in the living God."

Reply Obj. 2: Properly speaking, desire may be not only in the lower,
but also in the higher appetite. For it does not imply fellowship in
craving, as concupiscence does; but simply movement towards the thing
desired.

Reply Obj. 3: It belongs to each power of the soul to seek its proper
good by the natural appetite, which does not arise from apprehension.
But the craving for good, by the animal appetite, which arises from
apprehension, belongs to the appetitive power alone. And to crave a
thing under the aspect of something delightful to the senses, wherein
concupiscence properly consists, belongs to the concupiscible power.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 30, Art. 2]

Whether Concupiscence Is a Specific Passion?

Objection 1: It would seem that concupiscence is not a specific
passion of the concupiscible power. For passions are distinguished by
their objects. But the object of the concupiscible power is something
delightful to the senses; and this is also the object of
concupiscence, as the Philosopher declares (Rhet. i, 11). Therefore
concupiscence is not a specific passion of the concupiscible faculty.

Obj. 2: Further, Augustine says (QQ. 83, qu. 33) that "covetousness
is the love of transitory things": so that it is not distinct from
love. But all specific passions are distinct from one another.
Therefore concupiscence is not a specific passion in the
concupiscible faculty.

Obj. 3: Further, to each passion of the concupiscible faculty there
is a specific contrary passion in that faculty, as stated above (Q.
23, A. 4). But no specific passion of the concupiscible faculty is
contrary to concupiscence. For Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii, 12)
that "good when desired gives rise to concupiscence; when present, it
gives joy: in like manner, the evil we apprehend makes us fear, the
evil that is present makes us sad": from which we gather that as
sadness is contrary to joy, so is fear contrary to concupiscence. But
fear is not in the concupiscible, but in the irascible part.
Therefore concupiscence is not a specific passion of the
concupiscible faculty.

_On the contrary,_ Concupiscence is caused by love, and tends to
pleasure, both of which are passions of the concupiscible faculty.
Hence it is distinguished from the other concupiscible passions, as
a specific passion.

_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1; Q. 23, A. 1), the good which
gives pleasure to the senses is the common object of the
concupiscible faculty. Hence the various concupiscible passions are
distinguished according to the differences of that good. Now the
diversity of this object can arise from the very nature of the
object, or from a diversity in its active power. The diversity,
derived from the nature of the active object, causes a material
difference of passions: while the difference in regard to its active
power causes a formal diversity of passions, in respect of which the
passions differ specifically.

Now the nature of the motive power of the end or of the good, differs
according as it is really present, or absent: because, according as
it is present, it causes the faculty to find rest in it; whereas,
according as it is absent, it causes the faculty to be moved towards
it. Wherefore the object of sensible pleasure causes love, inasmuch
as, so to speak, it attunes and conforms the appetite to itself; it
causes concupiscence, inasmuch as, when absent, it draws the faculty
to itself; and it causes pleasure, inasmuch as, when present, it
makes the faculty to find rest in itself. Accordingly, concupiscence
is a passion differing _in species_ from both love and pleasure. But
concupiscences of this or that pleasurable object differ _in number._

Reply Obj. 1: Pleasurable good is the object of concupiscence, not
absolutely, but considered as absent: just as the sensible,
considered as past, is the object of memory. For these particular
conditions diversify the species of passions, and even of the powers
of the sensitive part, which regards particular things.

Reply Obj. 2: In the passage quoted we have causal, not essential
predication: for covetousness is not essentially love, but an effect
of love. We may also say that Augustine is taking covetousness in a
wide sense, for any movement of the appetite in respect of good to
come: so that it includes both love and hope.

Reply Obj. 3: The passion which is directly contrary to concupiscence
has no name, and stands in relation to evil, as concupiscence in
regard to good. But since, like fear, it regards the absent evil;
sometimes it goes by the name of fear, just as hope is sometimes
called covetousness. For a small good or evil is reckoned as though
it were nothing: and consequently every movement of the appetite in
future good or evil is called hope or fear, which regard good and
evil as arduous.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 30, Art. 3]

Whether Some Concupiscences Are Natural, and Some Not Natural?

Objection 1: It would seem that concupiscences are not divided into
those which are natural and those which are not. For concupiscence
belongs to the animal appetite, as stated above (A. 1, ad 3). But the
natural appetite is contrasted with the animal appetite. Therefore no
concupiscence is natural.

Obj. 2: Further, material differences makes no difference of species,
but only numerical difference; a difference which is outside the
purview of science. But if some concupiscences are natural, and some
not, they differ only in respect of their objects; which amounts to a
material difference, which is one of number only. Therefore
concupiscences should not be divided into those that are natural and
those that are not.

Obj. 3: Further, reason is contrasted with nature, as stated in
_Phys._ ii, 5. If therefore in man there is a concupiscence which is
not natural, it must needs be rational. But this is impossible:
because, since concupiscence is a passion, it belongs to the
sensitive appetite, and not to the will, which is the rational
appetite. Therefore there are no concupiscences which are not natural.

_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher (Ethic. iii, 11 and Rhetor. i, 11)
distinguishes natural concupiscences from those that are not natural.

_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1), concupiscence is the craving
for pleasurable good. Now a thing is pleasurable in two ways. First,
because it is suitable to the nature of the animal; for example,
food, drink, and the like: and concupiscence of such pleasurable
things is said to be natural. Secondly, a thing is pleasurable
because it is apprehended as suitable to the animal: as when one
apprehends something as good and suitable, and consequently takes
pleasure in it: and concupiscence of such pleasurable things is said
to be not natural, and is more wont to be called "cupidity."

Accordingly concupiscences of the first kind, or natural
concupiscences, are common to men and other animals: because to both
is there something suitable and pleasurable according to nature: and
in these all men agree; wherefore the Philosopher (Ethic. iii, 11)
calls them "common" and "necessary." But concupiscences of the second
kind are proper to men, to whom it is proper to devise something as
good and suitable, beyond that which nature requires. Hence the
Philosopher says (Rhet. i, 11) that the former concupiscences are
"irrational," but the latter, "rational." And because different men
reason differently, therefore the latter are also called (Ethic. iii,
11) "peculiar and acquired," i.e. in addition to those that are
natural.

Reply Obj. 1: The same thing that is the object of the natural
appetite, may be the object of the animal appetite, once it is
apprehended. And in this way there may be an animal concupiscence of
food, drink, and the like, which are objects of the natural appetite.

Reply Obj. 2: The difference between those concupiscences that are
natural and those that are not, is not merely a material difference;
it is also, in a way, formal, in so far as it arises from a
difference in the active object. Now the object of the appetite is
the apprehended good. Hence diversity of the active object follows
from diversity of apprehension: according as a thing is apprehended
as suitable, either by absolute apprehension, whence arise natural
concupiscences, which the Philosopher calls "irrational" (Rhet. i,
11); or by apprehension together with deliberation, whence arise
those concupiscences that are not natural, and which for this very
reason the Philosopher calls "rational" (Rhet. i, 11).

Reply Obj. 3: Man has not only universal reason, pertaining to the
intellectual faculty; but also particular reason pertaining to the
sensitive faculty, as stated in the First Part (Q. 78, A. 4; Q. 81,
A. 3): so that even rational concupiscence may pertain to the
sensitive appetite. Moreover the sensitive appetite can be moved by
the universal reason also, through the medium of the particular
imagination.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 30, Art. 4]

Whether Concupiscence Is Infinite?

Objection 1: It would seem that concupiscence is not infinite. For
the object of concupiscence is good, which has the aspect of an end.
But where there is infinity there is no end (Metaph. ii, 2).
Therefore concupiscence cannot be infinite.

Obj. 2: Further, concupiscence is of the fitting good, since it
proceeds from love. But the infinite is without proportion, and
therefore unfitting. Therefore concupiscence cannot be infinite.

Obj. 3: Further, there is no passing through infinite things: and
thus there is no reaching an ultimate term in them. But the subject
of concupiscence is not delighted until he attain the ultimate term.
Therefore, if concupiscence were infinite, no delight would ever
ensue.

_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher says (Polit. i, 3) that "since
concupiscence is infinite, men desire an infinite number of things."

_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 3), concupiscence is twofold;
one is natural, the other is not natural. Natural concupiscence
cannot be actually infinite: because it is of that which nature
requires; and nature ever tends to something finite and fixed. Hence
man never desires infinite meat, or infinite drink. But just as in
nature there is potential successive infinity, so can this kind of
concupiscence be infinite successively; so that, for instance, after
getting food, a man may desire food yet again; and so of anything
else that nature requires: because these bodily goods, when obtained,
do not last for ever, but fail. Hence Our Lord said to the woman of
Samaria (John 4:13): "Whosoever drinketh of this water, shall thirst
again."

But non-natural concupiscence is altogether infinite. Because, as
stated above (A. 3), it follows from the reason, and it belongs to
the reason to proceed to infinity. Hence he that desires riches, may
desire to be rich, not up to a certain limit, but to be simply as
rich as possible.

Another reason may be assigned, according to the Philosopher (Polit.
i, 3), why a certain concupiscence is finite, and another infinite.
Because concupiscence of the end is always infinite: since the end is
desired for its own sake, e.g. health: and thus greater health is
more desired, and so on to infinity; just as, if a white thing of
itself dilates the sight, that which is more white dilates yet more.
On the other hand, concupiscence of the means is not infinite,
because the concupiscence of the means is in suitable proportion to
the end. Consequently those who place their end in riches have an
infinite concupiscence of riches; whereas those who desire riches, on
account of the necessities of life, desire a finite measure of
riches, sufficient for the necessities of life, as the Philosopher
says (Polit. i, 3). The same applies to the concupiscence of any
other things.

Reply Obj. 1: Every object of concupiscence is taken as something
finite: either because it is finite in reality, as being once
actually desired; or because it is finite as apprehended. For it
cannot be apprehended as infinite, since the infinite is that "from
which, however much we may take, there always remains something to be
taken" (Phys. iii, 6).

Reply Obj. 2: The reason is possessed of infinite power, in a certain
sense, in so far as it can consider a thing infinitely, as appears in
the addition of numbers and lines. Consequently, the infinite, taken
in a certain way, is proportionate to reason. In fact the universal
which the reason apprehends, is infinite in a sense, inasmuch as it
contains potentially an infinite number of singulars.

Reply Obj. 3: In order that a man be delighted, there is no need for
him to realize all that he desires: for he delights in the
realization of each object of his concupiscence.
________________________

QUESTION 31

OF DELIGHT [*Or, Pleasure] CONSIDERED IN ITSELF
(In Eight Articles)

We must now consider delight and sadness. Concerning delight four
things must be considered: (1) Delight in itself; (2) The causes of
delight; (3) Its effects; (4) Its goodness and malice.

Under the first head there are eight points of inquiry:

(1) Whether delight is a passion?

(2) Whether delight is subject to time?

(3) Whether it differs from joy?

(4) Whether it is in the intellectual appetite?

(5) Of the delights of the higher appetite compared with the delight
of the lower;

(6) Of sensible delights compared with one another;

(7) Whether any delight is non-natural?

(8) Whether one delight can be contrary to another?
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 31, Art. 1]

Whether Delight Is a Passion?

Objection 1: It would seem that delight is not a passion. For
Damascene (De Fide Orth. ii, 22) distinguishes operation from
passion, and says that "operation is a movement in accord with
nature, while passion is a movement contrary to nature." But delight
is an operation, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. vii, 12; x, 5).
Therefore delight is not a passion.

Obj. 2: Further, "To be passive is to be moved," as stated in _Phys._
iii, 3. But delight does not consist in being moved, but in having
been moved; for it arises from good already gained. Therefore delight
is not a passion.

Obj. 3: Further, delight is a kind of a perfection of the one who is
delighted; since it "perfects operation," as stated in _Ethic._ x, 4,
5. But to be perfected does not consist in being passive or in being
altered, as stated in _Phys._ vii, 3 and _De Anima_ ii, 5. Therefore
delight is not a passion.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine (De Civ. Dei ix, 2; xiv, 5 seqq) reckons
delight, joy, or gladness among the other passions of the soul.

_I answer that,_ The movements of the sensitive appetite, are
properly called passions, as stated above (Q. 22, A. 3). Now every
emotion arising from a sensitive apprehension, is a movement of the
sensitive appetite: and this must needs be said of delight, since,
according to the Philosopher (Rhet. i, 11) "delight is a certain
movement of the soul and a sensible establishing thereof all at once,
in keeping with the nature of the thing."

In order to understand this, we must observe that just as in natural
things some happen to attain to their natural perfections, so does
this happen in animals. And though movement towards perfection does
not occur all at once, yet the attainment of natural perfection does
occur all at once. Now there is this difference between animals and
other natural things, that when these latter are established in the
state becoming their nature, they do not perceive it, whereas animals
do. And from this perception there arises a certain movement of the
soul in the sensitive appetite; which movement is called delight.
Accordingly by saying that delight is "a movement of the soul," we
designate its genus. By saying that it is "an establishing in keeping
with the thing's nature," i.e. with that which exists in the thing, we
assign the cause of delight, viz. the presence of a becoming good. By
saying that this establishing is "all at once," we mean that this
establishing is to be understood not as in the process of
establishment, but as in the fact of complete establishment, in the
term of the movement, as it were: for delight is not a "becoming" as
Plato [*Phileb. 32, 33] maintained, but a "complete fact," as stated
in _Ethic._ vii, 12. Lastly, by saying that this establishing is
"sensible," we exclude the perfections of insensible things wherein
there is no delight. It is therefore evident that, since delight is a
movement of the animal appetite arising from an apprehension of sense,
it is a passion of the soul.

Reply Obj. 1: Connatural operation, which is unhindered, is a second
perfection, as stated in _De Anima_ ii, 1: and therefore when a thing
is established in its proper connatural and unhindered operation,
delight follows, which consists in a state of completion, as observed
above. Accordingly when we say that delight is an operation, we
designate, not its essence, but its cause.

Reply Obj. 2: A twofold movement is to be observed in an animal: one,
according to the intention of the end, and this belongs to the
appetite; the other, according to the execution, and this belongs to
the external operation. And so, although in him who has already
gained the good in which he delights, the movement of execution
ceases, by which he tends to the end; yet the movement of the
appetitive faculty does not cease, since, just as before it desired
that which it had not, so afterwards does it delight in that which is
possesses. For though delight is a certain repose of the appetite, if
we consider the presence of the pleasurable good that satisfies the
appetite, nevertheless there remains the impression made on the
appetite by its object, by reason of which delight is a kind of
movement.

Reply Obj. 3: Although the name of passion is more appropriate to
those passions which have a corruptive and evil tendency, such as
bodily ailments, as also sadness and fear in the soul; yet some
passions have a tendency to something good, as stated above (Q. 23,
AA. 1, 4): and in this sense delight is called a passion.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 31, Art. 2]

Whether Delight Is in Time?

Objection 1: It would seem that delight is in time. For "delight is
a kind of movement," as the Philosopher says (Rhet. i, 11). But all
movement is in time. Therefore delight is in time.

Obj. 2: Further, a thing is said to last long and to be morose in
respect of time. But some pleasures are called morose. Therefore
pleasure is in time.

Obj. 3: Further, the passions of the soul are of one same genus. But
some passions of the soul are in time. Therefore delight is too.

_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher says (Ethic. x, 4) that "no one
takes pleasure according to time."

_I answer that,_ A thing may be in time in two ways: first, by
itself; secondly, by reason of something else, and accidentally as
it were. For since time is the measure of successive things, those
things are of themselves said to be in time, to which succession or
something pertaining to succession is essential: such are movement,
repose, speech and such like. On the other hand, those things are
said to be in time, by reason of something else and not of
themselves, to which succession is not essential, but which are
subject to something successive. Thus the fact of being a man is not
essentially something successive; since it is not a movement, but the
term of a movement or change, viz. of this being begotten: yet,
because human being is subject to changeable causes, in this respect,
to be a man is in time.

Accordingly, we must say that delight, of itself indeed, is not in
time: for it regards good already gained, which is, as it were, the
term of the movement. But if this good gained be subject to change,
the delight therein will be in time accidentally: whereas if it be
altogether unchangeable, the delight therein will not be in time,
either by reason of itself or accidentally.

Reply Obj. 1: As stated in _De Anima_ iii, 7, movement is twofold.
One is "the act of something imperfect, i.e. of something existing in
potentiality, as such": this movement is successive and is in time.
Another movement is "the act of something perfect, i.e. of something
existing in act," e.g. to understand, to feel, and to will and such
like, also to have delight. This movement is not successive, nor is
it of itself in time.

Reply Obj. 2: Delight is said to be long lasting or morose, according
as it is accidentally in time.

Reply Obj. 3: Other passions have not for their object a good
obtained, as delight has. Wherefore there is more of the movement of
the imperfect in them than in delight. And consequently it belongs
more to delight not to be in time.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 31, Art. 3]

Whether Delight Differs from Joy?

Objection 1: It would seem that delight is altogether the same as
joy. Because the passions of the soul differ according to their
objects. But delight and joy have the same object, namely, a good
obtained. Therefore joy is altogether the same as delight.

Obj. 2: Further, one movement does not end in two terms. But one and
the same movement, that of desire, ends in joy and delight. Therefore
delight and joy are altogether the same.

Obj. 3: Further, if joy differs from delight, it seems that there is
equal reason for distinguishing gladness, exultation, and
cheerfulness from delight, so that they would all be various passions
of the soul. But this seems to be untrue. Therefore joy does not
differ from delight.

_On the contrary,_ We do not speak of joy in irrational animals;
whereas we do speak of delight in them. Therefore joy is not the same
as delight.

_I answer that,_ Joy, as Avicenna states (De Anima iv), is a kind of
delight. For we must observe that, just as some concupiscences are
natural, and some not natural, but consequent to reason, as stated
above (Q. 30, A. 3), so also some delights are natural, and some are
not natural but rational. Or, as Damascene (De Fide Orth. ii, 13) and
Gregory of Nyssa [*Nemesius, De Nat. Hom. xviii.] put it, "some
delights are of the body, some are of the soul"; which amounts to the
same. For we take delight both in those things which we desire
naturally, when we get them, and in those things which we desire as a
result of reason. But we do not speak of joy except when delight
follows reason; and so we do not ascribe joy to irrational animals,
but only delight.

Now whatever we desire naturally, can also be the object of reasoned
desire and delight, but not vice versa. Consequently whatever can be
the object of delight, can also be the object of joy in rational
beings. And yet everything is not always the object of joy; since
sometimes one feels a certain delight in the body, without rejoicing
thereat according to reason. And accordingly delight extends to more
things than does joy.

Reply Obj. 1: Since the object of the appetite of the soul is an
apprehended good, diversity of apprehension pertains, in a way, to
diversity of the object. And so delights of the soul, which are also
called joys, are distinct from bodily delights, which are not called
otherwise than delights: as we have observed above in regard to
concupiscences (Q. 30, A. 3, ad 2).

Reply Obj. 2: A like difference is to be observed in concupiscences
also: so that delight corresponds to concupiscence, while joy
corresponds to desire, which seems to pertain more to concupiscence
of the soul. Hence there is a difference of repose corresponding to
the difference of movement.

Reply Obj. 3: These other names pertaining to delight are derived
from the effects of delight; for _laetitia_ (gladness) is derived
from the "dilation" of the heart, as if one were to say "latitia";
"exultation" is derived from the exterior signs of inward delight,
which appear outwardly in so far as the inward joy breaks forth from
its bounds; and "cheerfulness" is so called from certain special
signs and effects of gladness. Yet all these names seem to belong to
joy; for we do not employ them save in speaking of rational beings.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 31, Art. 4]

Whether Delight Is in the Intellectual Appetite?

Objection 1: It would seem that delight is not in the intellectual
appetite. Because the Philosopher says (Rhet. i, 11) that "delight is
a sensible movement." But sensible movement is not in an intellectual
power. Therefore delight is not in the intellectual appetite.

Obj. 2: Further, delight is a passion. But every passion is in the
sensitive appetite. Therefore delight is only in the sensitive
appetite.

Obj. 3: Further, delight is common to us and to the irrational
animals. Therefore it is not elsewhere than in that power which we
have in common with irrational animals.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Ps. 36:4): "Delight in the Lord."
But the sensitive appetite cannot reach to God; only the intellectual
appetite can. Therefore delight can be in the intellectual appetite.

_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 3), a certain delight arises
from the apprehension of the reason. Now on the reason apprehending
something, not only the sensitive appetite is moved, as regards its
application to some particular thing, but also the intellectual
appetite, which is called the will. And accordingly in the
intellectual appetite or will there is that delight which is called
joy, but not bodily delight.

However, there is this difference of delight in either power, that
delight of the sensitive appetite is accompanied by a bodily
transmutation, whereas delight of the intellectual appetite is
nothing but the mere movement of the will. Hence Augustine says (De
Civ. Dei xiv, 6) that "desire and joy are nothing else but a volition
of consent to the things we wish."

Reply Obj. 1: In this definition of the Philosopher, he uses the word
"sensible" in its wide acceptation for any kind of perception. For he
says (Ethic. x, 4) that "delight is attendant upon every sense, as it
is also upon every act of the intellect and contemplation." Or we may
say that he is defining delight of the sensitive appetite.

Reply Obj. 2: Delight has the character of passion, properly
speaking, when accompanied by bodily transmutation. It is not thus in
the intellectual appetite, but according to simple movement: for thus
it is also in God and the angels. Hence the Philosopher says (Ethic.
vii, 14) that "God rejoices by one simple act": and Dionysius says at
the end of _De Coel. Hier.,_ that "the angels are not susceptible to
our passible delight, but rejoice together with God with the gladness
of incorruption."

Reply Obj. 3: In us there is delight, not only in common with dumb
animals, but also in common with angels. Wherefore Dionysius says (De
Coel. Hier.) that "holy men often take part in the angelic delights."
Accordingly we have delight, not only in the sensitive appetite,
which we have in common with dumb animals, but also in the
intellectual appetite, which we have in common with the angels.
________________________

FIFTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 31, Art. 5]

Whether Bodily and Sensible Pleasures Are Greater Than Spiritual and
Intellectual Pleasures?

Objection 1: It would seem that bodily and sensible pleasures are
greater than spiritual and intelligible pleasures. For all men seek
some pleasure, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. x, 2, 4). But
more seek sensible pleasures, than intelligible spiritual pleasures.
Therefore bodily pleasures are greater.

Obj. 2: Further, the greatness of a cause is known by its effect. But
bodily pleasures have greater effects; since "they alter the state of
the body, and in some they cause madness" (Ethic. vii, 3). Therefore
bodily pleasures are greater.

Obj. 3: Further, bodily pleasures need to be tempered and checked, by
reason of their vehemence: whereas there is no need to check
spiritual pleasures. Therefore bodily pleasures are greater.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Ps. 118:103): "How sweet are Thy
words to my palate; more than honey to my mouth!" And the Philosopher
says (Ethic. x, 7) that "the greatest pleasure is derived from the
operation of wisdom."

_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1), pleasure arises from union
with a suitable object perceived or known. Now, in the operations of
the soul, especially of the sensitive and intellectual soul, it must
be noted that, since they do not pass into outward matter, they are
acts or perfections of the agent, e.g. to understand, to feel, to
will and the like: because actions which pass into outward matter,
are actions and perfections rather of the matter transformed; for
"movement is the act produced by the mover in the thing moved" (Phys.
iii, 3). Accordingly the aforesaid actions of the sensitive and
intellectual soul, are themselves a certain good of the agent, and
are known by sense and intellect. Wherefore from them also does
pleasure arise, and not only from their objects.

If therefore we compare intellectual pleasures with sensible
pleasures, according as we delight in the very actions, for instance
in sensitive and in intellectual knowledge; without doubt
intellectual pleasures are much greater than sensible pleasures. For
man takes much more delight in knowing something, by understanding
it, than in knowing something by perceiving it with his sense.
Because intellectual knowledge is more perfect; and because it is
better known, since the intellect reflects on its own act more than
sense does. Moreover intellectual knowledge is more beloved: for
there is no one who would not forfeit his bodily sight rather than
his intellectual vision, as beasts or fools are deprived thereof, as
Augustine says in De Civ. Dei (De Trin. xiv, 14).

If, however, intellectual spiritual pleasures be compared with
sensible bodily pleasures, then, in themselves and absolutely
speaking, spiritual pleasures are greater. And this appears from the
consideration of the three things needed for pleasure, viz. the good
which is brought into conjunction, that to which it is conjoined, and
the conjunction itself. For spiritual good is both greater and more
beloved than bodily good: a sign whereof is that men abstain from
even the greatest bodily pleasures, rather than suffer loss of honor
which is an intellectual good. Likewise the intellectual faculty is
much more noble and more knowing than the sensitive faculty. Also the
conjunction is more intimate, more perfect and more firm. More
intimate, because the senses stop at the outward accidents of a
thing, whereas the intellect penetrates to the essence; for the
object of the intellect is "what a thing is." More perfect, because
the conjunction of the sensible to the sense implies movement, which
is an imperfect act: wherefore sensible pleasures are not perceived
all at once, but some part of them is passing away, while some other
part is looked forward to as yet to be realized, as is manifest in
pleasures of the table and in sexual pleasures: whereas intelligible
things are without movement: hence pleasures of this kind are
realized all at once. More firm; because the objects of bodily
pleasure are corruptible, and soon pass away; whereas spiritual goods
are incorruptible.

On the other hand, in relation to us, bodily pleasures are more
vehement, for three reasons. First, because sensible things are more
known to us, than intelligible things. Secondly, because sensible
pleasures, through being passions of the sensitive appetite, are
accompanied by some alteration in the body: whereas this does not
occur in spiritual pleasures, save by reason of a certain reaction of
the superior appetite on the lower. Thirdly, because bodily pleasures
are sought as remedies for bodily defects or troubles, whence various
griefs arise. Wherefore bodily pleasures, by reason of their
succeeding griefs of this kind, are felt the more, and consequently
are welcomed more than spiritual pleasures, which have no contrary
griefs, as we shall state farther on (Q. 35, A. 5).

Reply Obj. 1: The reason why more seek bodily pleasures is
because sensible goods are known better and more generally: and,
again, because men need pleasures as remedies for many kinds of sorrow
and sadness: and since the majority cannot attain spiritual pleasures,
which are proper to the virtuous, hence it is that they turn aside to
seek those of the body.

Reply Obj. 2: Bodily transmutation arises more from bodily
pleasures, inasmuch as they are passions of the sensitive appetite.

Reply Obj. 3: Bodily pleasures are realized in the sensitive
faculty which is governed by reason: wherefore they need to be
tempered and checked by reason. But spiritual pleasures are in the
mind, which is itself the rule: wherefore they are in themselves both
sober and moderate.
________________________

SIXTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 31, Art. 6]

Whether the Pleasures of Touch Are Greater Than the Pleasures
Afforded by the Other Senses?

Objection 1: It would seem that the pleasures of touch are not
greater than the pleasures afforded by the other senses. Because the
greatest pleasure seems to be that without which all joy is at an
end. But such is the pleasure afforded by the sight, according to the
words of Tob. 5:12: "What manner of joy shall be to me, who sit in
darkness, and see not the light of heaven?" Therefore the pleasure
afforded by the sight is the greatest of sensible pleasures.

Obj. 2: Further, "every one finds treasure in what he loves," as the
Philosopher says (Rhet. i, 11). But "of all the senses the sight is
loved most" [*Metaph. i, 1]. Therefore the greatest pleasure seems to
be afforded by sight.

Obj. 3: Further, the beginning of friendship which is for the sake of
the pleasant is principally sight. But pleasure is the cause of such
friendship. Therefore the greatest pleasure seems to be afforded by
sight.

_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher says (Ethic. iii, 10), that the
greatest pleasures are those which are afforded by the touch.

_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 25, A. 2, ad 1; Q. 27, A. 4, ad
1), everything gives pleasure according as it is loved. Now, as
stated in _Metaph._ i, 1, the senses are loved for two reasons: for
the purpose of knowledge, and on account of their usefulness.
Wherefore the senses afford pleasure in both these ways. But because
it is proper to man to apprehend knowledge itself as something good,
it follows that the former pleasures of the senses, i.e. those which
arise from knowledge, are proper to man: whereas pleasures of the
senses, as loved for their usefulness, are common to all animals.

If therefore we speak of that sensible pleasure which is by reason of
knowledge, it is evident that the sight affords greater pleasure than
any other sense. On the other hand, if we speak of that sensible
pleasure which is by reason of usefulness, then the greatest pleasure
is afforded by the touch. For the usefulness of sensible things is
gauged by their relation to the preservation of the animal's nature.
Now the sensible objects of touch bear the closest relation to this
usefulness: for the touch takes cognizance of those things which are
vital to an animal, namely, of things hot and cold and the like.
Wherefore in this respect, the pleasures of touch are greater as
being more closely related to the end. For this reason, too, other
animals which do not experience sensible pleasure save by reason of
usefulness, derive no pleasure from the other senses except as
subordinated to the sensible objects of the touch: "for dogs do not
take delight in the smell of hares, but in eating them; . . . nor
does the lion feel pleasure in the lowing of an ox, but in devouring
it" (Ethic. iii, 10).

Since then the pleasure afforded by touch is the greatest in respect
of usefulness, and the pleasure afforded by sight the greatest in
respect of knowledge; if anyone wish to compare these two, he will
find that the pleasure of touch is, absolutely speaking, greater than
the pleasure of sight, so far as the latter remains within the limits
of sensible pleasure. Because it is evident that in everything, that
which is natural is most powerful: and it is to these pleasures of
the touch that the natural concupiscences, such as those of food,
sexual union, and the like, are ordained. If, however, we consider
the pleasures of sight, inasmuch sight is the handmaid of the mind,
then the pleasures of sight are greater, forasmuch as intellectual
pleasures are greater than sensible.

Reply Obj. 1: Joy, as stated above (A. 3), denotes pleasure of the
soul; and this belongs principally to the sight. But natural pleasure
belongs principally to the touch.

Reply Obj. 2: The sight is loved most, "on account of knowledge,
because it helps us to distinguish many things," as is stated in the
same passage (Metaph. i, 1).

Reply Obj. 3: Pleasure causes carnal love in one way; the sight, in
another. For pleasure, especially that which is afforded by the
touch, is the final cause of the friendship which is for the sake of
the pleasant: whereas the sight is a cause like that from which a
movement has its beginning, inasmuch as the beholder on seeing the
lovable object receives an impression of its image, which entices him
to love it and to seek its delight.
________________________

SEVENTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 31, Art. 7]

Whether Any Pleasure Is Not Natural?

Objection 1: It would seem that no pleasure is not natural. For
pleasure is to the emotions of the soul what repose is to bodies. But
the appetite of a natural body does not repose save in a connatural
place. Neither, therefore, can the repose of the animal appetite,
which is pleasure, be elsewhere than in something connatural.
Therefore no pleasure is non-natural.

Obj. 2: Further, what is against nature is violent. But "whatever is
violent causes grief" (Metaph. v, 5). Therefore nothing which is
unnatural can give pleasure.

Obj. 3: Further, the fact of being established in one's own nature,
if perceived, gives rise to pleasure, as is evident from the
Philosopher's definition quoted above (A. 1). But it is natural to
every thing to be established in its nature; because natural movement
tends to a natural end. Therefore every pleasure is natural.

_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher says (Ethic. vii, 5, 6) that some
things are pleasant "not from nature but from disease."

_I answer that,_ We speak of that as being natural, which is in
accord with nature, as stated in _Phys._ ii, 1. Now, in man, nature
can be taken in two ways. First, inasmuch as intellect and reason is
the principal part of man's nature, since in respect thereof he has
his own specific nature. And in this sense, those pleasures may be
called natural to man, which are derived from things pertaining to
man in respect of his reason: for instance, it is natural to man to
take pleasure in contemplating the truth and in doing works of
virtue. Secondly, nature in man may be taken as contrasted with
reason, and as denoting that which is common to man and other
animals, especially that part of man which does not obey reason. And
in this sense, that which pertains to the preservation of the body,
either as regards the individual, as food, drink, sleep, and the
like, or as regards the species, as sexual intercourse, are said to
afford man natural pleasure. Under each kind of pleasures, we find
some that are _not natural_ speaking absolutely, and yet _connatural_
in some respect. For it happens in an individual that some one of the
natural principles of the species is corrupted, so that something
which is contrary to the specific nature, becomes accidentally
natural to this individual: thus it is natural to this hot water to
give heat. Consequently it happens that something which is not
natural to man, either in regard to reason, or in regard to the
preservation of the body, becomes connatural to this individual man,
on account of there being some corruption of nature in him. And this
corruption may be either on the part of the body--from some ailment;
thus to a man suffering from fever, sweet things seem bitter, and
vice versa--or from an evil temperament; thus some take pleasure in
eating earth and coals and the like; or on the part of the soul; thus
from custom some take pleasure in cannibalism or in the unnatural
intercourse of man and beast, or other such things, which are not in
accord with human nature.

This suffices for the answers to the objections.
________________________

EIGHTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 31, Art. 8]

Whether One Pleasure Can Be Contrary to Another?

Objection 1: It would seem that one pleasure cannot be contrary to
another. Because the passions of the soul derive their species and
contrariety from their objects. Now the object of pleasure is the
good. Since therefore good is not contrary to good, but "good is
contrary to evil, and evil to good," as stated in Praedic. viii;
it seems that one pleasure is not contrary to another.

Obj. 2: Further, to one thing there is one contrary, as is proved in
_Metaph._ x, 4. But sadness is contrary to pleasure. Therefore
pleasure is not contrary to pleasure.

Obj. 3: Further, if one pleasure is contrary to another, this is only
on account of the contrariety of the things which give pleasure. But
this difference is material: whereas contrariety is a difference of
form, as stated in _Metaph._ x, 4. Therefore there is no contrariety
between one pleasure and another.

_On the contrary,_ Things of the same genus that impede one another
are contraries, as the Philosopher states (Phys. viii, 8). But some
pleasures impede one another, as stated in _Ethic._ x, 5. Therefore
some pleasures are contrary to one another.

_I answer that,_ Pleasure, in the emotions of the soul, is likened to
repose in natural bodies, as stated above (Q. 23, A. 4). Now one
repose is said to be contrary to another when they are in contrary
termini; thus, "repose in a high place is contrary to repose in a low
place" (Phys. v, 6). Wherefore it happens in the emotions of the soul
that one pleasure is contrary to another.

Reply Obj. 1: This saying of the Philosopher is to be understood of
good and evil as applied to virtues and vices: because one vice may
be contrary to another vice, whereas no virtue can be contrary to
another virtue. But in other things nothing prevents one good from
being contrary to another, such as hot and cold, of which the former
is good in relation to fire, the latter, in relation to water. And in
this way one pleasure can be contrary to another. That this is
impossible with regard to the good of virtue, is due to the fact that
virtue's good depends on fittingness in relation to some one
thing--i.e. the reason.

Reply Obj. 2: Pleasure, in the emotions of the soul, is likened to
natural repose in bodies: because its object is something suitable
and connatural, so to speak. But sadness is like a violent repose;
because its object is disagreeable to the animal appetite, just as
the place of violent repose is disagreeable to the natural appetite.
Now natural repose is contrary both to violent repose of the same
body, and to the natural repose of another, as stated in _Phys._ v,
6. Wherefore pleasure is contrary to both to another pleasure and to
sadness.

Reply Obj. 3: The things in which we take pleasure, since they are
the objects of pleasure, cause not only a material, but also a formal
difference, if the formality of pleasurableness be different. Because
difference in the formal object causes a specific difference in acts
and passions, as stated above (Q. 23, AA. 1, 4; Q. 30, A. 2).
________________________

QUESTION 32

OF THE CAUSE OF PLEASURE
(In Eight Articles)

We must now consider the causes of pleasure: and under this head
there are eight points of inquiry:

(1) Whether operation is the proper cause of pleasure?

(2) Whether movement is a cause of pleasure?

(3) Whether hope and memory cause pleasure?

(4) Whether sadness causes pleasure?

(5) Whether the actions of others are a cause of pleasure to us?

(6) Whether doing good to another is a cause of pleasure?

(7) Whether likeness is a cause of pleasure?

(8) Whether wonder is a cause of pleasure?
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 32, Art. 1]

Whether Operation Is the Proper Cause of Pleasure?

Objection 1: It would seem that operation is not the proper and first
cause of pleasure. For, as the Philosopher says (Rhet. i, 11),
"pleasure consists in a perception of the senses," since knowledge is
requisite for pleasure, as stated above (Q. 31, A. 1). But the
objects of operations are knowable before the operations themselves.
Therefore operation is not the proper cause of pleasure.

Obj. 2: Further, pleasure consists especially in an end gained: since
it is this that is chiefly desired. But the end is not always an
operation, but is sometimes the effect of the operation. Therefore
operation is not the proper and direct cause of pleasure.

Obj. 3: Further, leisure and rest consist in cessation from work: and
they are objects of pleasure (Rhet. i, 11). Therefore operation is
not the proper cause of pleasure.

_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher says (Ethic. vii, 12, 13; x, 4)
that "pleasure is a connatural and uninterrupted operation."

_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 31, A. 1), two things are
requisite for pleasure: namely, the attainment of the suitable good,
and knowledge of this attainment. Now each of these consists in a
kind of operation: because actual knowledge is an operation; and the
attainment of the suitable good is by means of an operation.
Moreover, the proper operation itself is a suitable good. Wherefore
every pleasure must needs be the result of some operation.

Reply Obj. 1: The objects of operations are not pleasurable save
inasmuch as they are united to us; either by knowledge alone, as when
we take pleasure in thinking of or looking at certain things; or in
some other way in addition to knowledge; as when a man takes pleasure
in knowing that he has something good--riches, honor, or the like;
which would not be pleasurable unless they were apprehended as
possessed. For as the Philosopher observes (Polit. ii, 2) "we take
great pleasure in looking upon a thing as our own, by reason of the
natural love we have for ourselves." Now to have such like things is
nothing else but to use them or to be able to use them: and this is
through some operation. Wherefore it is evident that every pleasure
is traced to some operation as its cause.

Reply Obj. 2: Even when it is not an operation, but the effect of an
operation, that is the end, this effect is pleasant in so far as
possessed or effected: and this implies use or operation.

Reply Obj. 3: Operations are pleasant, in so far as they are
proportionate and connatural to the agent. Now, since human power is
finite, operation is proportionate thereto according to a certain
measure. Wherefore if it exceed that measure, it will be no longer
proportionate or pleasant, but, on the contrary, painful and irksome.
And in this sense, leisure and play and other things pertaining to
repose, are pleasant, inasmuch as they banish sadness which results
from labor.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 32, Art. 2]

Whether Movement Is a Cause of Pleasure?

Objection 1: It would seem that movement is not a cause of pleasure.
Because, as stated above (Q. 31, A. 1), the good which is obtained
and is actually possessed, is the cause of pleasure: wherefore the
Philosopher says (Ethic. vii, 12) that pleasure is not compared with
generation, but with the operation of a thing already in existence.
Now that which is being moved towards something has it not as yet;
but, so to speak, is being generated in its regard, forasmuch as
generation or corruption are united to every movement, as stated in
_Phys._ viii, 3. Therefore movement is not a cause of pleasure.

Obj. 2: Further, movement is the chief cause of toil and fatigue in
our works. But operations through being toilsome and fatiguing are
not pleasant but disagreeable. Therefore movement is not a cause of
pleasure.

Obj. 3: Further, movement implies a certain innovation, which is the
opposite of custom. But things "which we are accustomed to, are
pleasant," as the Philosopher says (Rhet. i, 11). Therefore movement
is not a cause of pleasure.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (Confess. viii, 3): "What means
this, O Lord my God, whereas Thou art everlasting joy to Thyself, and
some things around Thee evermore rejoice in Thee? What means this,
that this portion of things ebbs and flows alternately displeased and
reconciled?" From these words we gather that man rejoices and takes
pleasure in some kind of alterations: and therefore movement seems to
cause pleasure.

_I answer that,_ Three things are requisite for pleasure; two, i.e.
the one that is pleased and the pleasurable object conjoined to him;
and a third, which is knowledge of this conjunction: and in respect
of these three, movement is pleasant, as the Philosopher says (Ethic.
vii, 14 and Rhetor. i, 11). For as far as we who feel pleasure are
concerned, change is pleasant to us because our nature is changeable:
for which reason that which is suitable to us at one time is not
suitable at another; thus to warm himself at a fire is suitable to
man in winter but not in summer. Again, on the part of the pleasing
good which is united to us, change is pleasant. Because the continued
action of an agent increases its effect: thus the longer a person
remains near the fire, the more he is warmed and dried. Now the
natural mode of being consists in a certain measure; and therefore
when the continued presence of a pleasant object exceeds the measure
of one's natural mode of being, the removal of that object becomes
pleasant. On the part of the knowledge itself (change becomes
pleasant), because man desires to know something whole and perfect:
when therefore a thing cannot be apprehended all at once as a whole,
change in such a thing is pleasant, so that one part may pass and
another succeed, and thus the whole be perceived. Hence Augustine
says (Confess. iv, 11): "Thou wouldst not have the syllables stay,
but fly away, that others may come, and thou hear the whole. And so
whenever any one thing is made up of many, all of which do not exist
together, all would please collectively more than they do severally,
if all could be perceived collectively."

If therefore there be any thing, whose nature is unchangeable; the
natural mode of whose being cannot be exceeded by the continuation of
any pleasing object; and which can behold the whole object of its
delight at once--to such a one change will afford no delight. And the
more any pleasures approach to this, the more are they capable of
being continual.

Reply Obj. 1: Although the subject of movement has not yet perfectly
that to which it is moved, nevertheless it is beginning to have
something thereof: and in this respect movement itself has something
of pleasure. But it falls short of the perfection of pleasure;
because the more perfect pleasures regard things that are
unchangeable. Moreover movement becomes the cause of pleasure, in so
far as thereby something which previously was unsuitable, becomes
suitable or ceases to be, as stated above.

Reply Obj. 2: Movement causes toil and fatigue, when it exceeds our
natural aptitude. It is not thus that it causes pleasure, but by
removing the obstacles to our natural aptitude.

Reply Obj. 3: What is customary becomes pleasant, in so far as it
becomes natural: because custom is like a second nature. But the
movement which gives pleasure is not that which departs from custom,
but rather that which prevents the corruption of the natural mode of
being, that might result from continued operation. And thus from the
same cause of connaturalness, both custom and movement become
pleasant.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 32, Art. 3]

Whether Hope and Memory Cause Pleasure?

Objection 1: It would seem that memory and hope do not cause
pleasure. Because pleasure is caused by present good, as Damascene
says (De Fide Orth. ii, 12). But hope and memory regard what is
absent: since memory is of the past, and hope of the future.
Therefore memory and hope do not cause pleasure.

Obj. 2: Further, the same thing is not the cause of contraries. But
hope causes affliction, according to Prov. 13:12: "Hope that is
deferred afflicteth the soul." Therefore hope does not cause pleasure.

Obj. 3: Further, just as hope agrees with pleasure in regarding good,
so also do desire and love. Therefore hope should not be assigned as
a cause of pleasure, any more than desire or love.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Rom. 12:12): "Rejoicing in hope";
and (Ps. 76:4): "I remembered God, and was delighted."

_I answer that,_ Pleasure is caused by the presence of suitable good,
in so far as it is felt, or perceived in any way. Now a thing is
present to us in two ways. First, in knowledge--i.e. according as the
thing known is in the knower by its likeness; secondly, in
reality--i.e. according as one thing is in real conjunction of any
kind with another, either actually or potentially. And since real
conjunction is greater than conjunction by likeness, which is the
conjunction of knowledge; and again, since actual is greater than
potential conjunction: therefore the greatest pleasure is that which
arises from sensation which requires the presence of the sensible
object. The second place belongs to the pleasure of hope, wherein
there is pleasurable conjunction, not only in respect of
apprehension, but also in respect of the faculty or power of
obtaining the pleasurable object. The third place belongs to the
pleasure of memory, which has only the conjunction of apprehension.

Reply Obj. 1: Hope and memory are indeed of things which, absolutely
speaking, are absent: and yet those are, after a fashion, present,
i.e. either according to apprehension only; or according to
apprehension and possibility, at least supposed, of attainment.

Reply Obj. 2: Nothing prevents the same thing, in different ways,
being the cause of contraries. And so hope, inasmuch as it implies a
present appraising of a future good, causes pleasure; whereas,
inasmuch as it implies absence of that good, it causes affliction.

Reply Obj. 3: Love and concupiscence also cause pleasure. For
everything that is loved becomes pleasing to the lover, since love is
a kind of union or connaturalness of lover and beloved. In like
manner every object of desire is pleasing to the one that desires,
since desire is chiefly a craving for pleasure. However hope, as
implying a certainty of the real presence of the pleasing good, that
is not implied either by love or by concupiscence, is reckoned in
preference to them as causing pleasure; and also in preference to
memory, which is of that which has already passed away.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 32, Art. 4]

Whether sadness causes pleasure?

Objection 1: It would seem that sadness does not cause pleasure. For
nothing causes its own contrary. But sadness is contrary to pleasure.
Therefore it does not cause it.

Obj. 2: Further, contraries have contrary effects. But pleasures,
when called to mind, cause pleasure. Therefore sad things, when
remembered, cause sorrow and not pleasure.

Obj. 3: Further, as sadness is to pleasure, so is hatred to love. But
hatred does not cause love, but rather the other way about, as stated
above (Q. 29, A. 2). Therefore sadness does not cause pleasure.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Ps. 41:4): "My tears have been my
bread day and night": where bread denotes the refreshment of
pleasure. Therefore tears, which arise from sadness, can give
pleasure.

_I answer that,_ Sadness may be considered in two ways: as existing
actually, and as existing in the memory: and in both ways sadness can
cause pleasure. Because sadness, as actually existing, causes
pleasure, inasmuch as it brings to mind that which is loved, the
absence of which causes sadness; and yet the mere thought of it gives
pleasure. The recollection of sadness becomes a cause of pleasure, on
account of the deliverance which ensued: because absence of evil is
looked upon as something good; wherefore so far as a man thinks that
he has been delivered from that which caused him sorrow and pain, so
much reason has he to rejoice. Hence Augustine says in _De Civ. Dei_
xxii, 31 [*Gregory, Moral. iv.] that "oftentimes in joy we call to
mind sad things . . . and in the season of health we recall past
pains without feeling pain . . . and in proportion are the more
filled with joy and gladness": and again (Confess. viii, 3) he says
that "the more peril there was in the battle, so much the more joy
will there be in the triumph."

Reply Obj. 1: Sometimes accidentally a thing is the cause of its
contrary: thus "that which is cold sometimes causes heat," as stated
in _Phys._ viii, 1. In like manner sadness is the accidental cause of
pleasure, in so far as it gives rise to the apprehension of something
pleasant.

Reply Obj. 2: Sad things, called to mind, cause pleasure, not in so
far as they are sad and contrary to pleasant things; but in so far as
man is delivered from them. In like manner the recollection of
pleasant things, by reason of these being lost, may cause sadness.

Reply Obj. 3: Hatred also can be the accidental cause of love: i.e.
so far as some love one another, inasmuch as they agree in hating one
and the same thing.
________________________

FIFTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 32, Art. 5]

Whether the Actions of Others Are a Cause of Pleasure to Us?

Objection 1: It would seem that the actions of others are not a cause
of pleasure to us. Because the cause of pleasure is our own good when
conjoined to us. But the actions of others are not conjoined to us.
Therefore they are not a cause of pleasure to us.

Obj. 2: Further, the action is the agent's own good. If, therefore,
the actions of others are a cause of pleasure to us, for the same
reason all goods belonging to others will be pleasing to us: which is
evidently untrue.

Obj. 3: Further, action is pleasant through proceeding from an innate
habit; hence it is stated in _Ethic._ ii, 3 that "we must reckon the
pleasure which follows after action, as being the sign of a habit
existing in us." But the actions of others do not proceed from habits
existing in us, but, sometimes, from habits existing in the agents.
Therefore the actions of others are not pleasing to us, but to the
agents themselves.

_On the contrary,_ It is written in the second canonical epistle of
John (verse 4): "I was exceeding glad that I found thy children
walking in truth."

_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1; Q. 31, A. 1), two things are
requisite for pleasure, namely, the attainment of one's proper good,
and the knowledge of having obtained it. Wherefore the action of
another may cause pleasure to us in three ways. First, from the fact
that we obtain some good through the action of another. And in this
way, the actions of those who do some good to us, are pleasing to us:
since it is pleasant to be benefited by another. Secondly, from the
fact that another's action makes us to know or appreciate our own
good: and for this reason men take pleasure in being praised or
honored by others, because, to wit, they thus become aware of some
good existing in themselves. And since this appreciation receives
greater weight from the testimony of good and wise men, hence men
take greater pleasure in being praised and honored by them. And
because a flatterer appears to praise, therefore flattery is pleasing
to some. And as love is for something good, while admiration is for
something great, so it is pleasant to be loved and admired by others,
inasmuch as a man thus becomes aware of his own goodness or
greatness, through their giving pleasure to others. Thirdly, from the
fact that another's actions, if they be good, are reckoned as one's
own good, by reason of the power of love, which makes a man to regard
his friend as one with himself. And on account of hatred, which makes
one to reckon another's good as being in opposition to oneself, the
evil action of an enemy becomes an object of pleasure: whence it is
written (1 Cor. 13:6) that charity "rejoiceth not in iniquity, but
rejoiceth with the truth."

Reply Obj. 1: Another's action may be conjoined to me, either by its
effect, as in the first way, or by knowledge, as in the second way;
or by affection, as in the third way.

Reply Obj. 2: This argument avails for the third mode, but not for
the first two.

Reply Obj. 3: Although the actions of another do not proceed from
habits that are in me, yet they either produce in me something that
gives pleasure; or they make me appreciate or know a habit of mind;
or they proceed from the habit of one who is united to me by love.
________________________

SIXTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 32, Art. 6]

Whether Doing Good to Another Is a Cause of Pleasure?

Objection 1: It would seem that doing good to another is not a cause
of pleasure. Because pleasure is caused by one's obtaining one's
proper good, as stated above (AA. 1, 5; Q. 31, A. 1). But doing good
pertains not to the obtaining but to the spending of one's proper
good. Therefore it seems to be the cause of sadness rather than of
pleasure.

Obj. 2: Further, the Philosopher says (Ethic. iv, 1) that
"illiberality is more connatural to man than prodigality." Now it is
a mark of prodigality to do good to others; while it is a mark of
illiberality to desist from doing good. Since therefore everyone
takes pleasure in a connatural operation, as stated in _Ethic._ vii,
14 and x, 4, it seems that doing good to others is not a cause of
pleasure.

Obj. 3: Further, contrary effects proceed from contrary causes. But
man takes a natural pleasure in certain kinds of ill-doing, such as
overcoming, contradicting or scolding others, or, if he be angry, in
punishing them, as the Philosopher says (Rhet. i, 11). Therefore
doing good to others is a cause of sadness rather than pleasure.

_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher says (Polit. ii, 2) that "it is
most pleasant to give presents or assistance to friends and
strangers."

_I answer that,_ Doing good to another may give pleasure in three
ways. First, in consideration of the effect, which is the good
conferred on another. In this respect, inasmuch as through being
united to others by love, we look upon their good as being our own,
we take pleasure in the good we do to others, especially to our
friends, as in our own good. Secondly, in consideration of the end;
as when a man, from doing good to another, hopes to get some good for
himself, either from God or from man: for hope is a cause of
pleasure. Thirdly, in consideration of the principle: and thus, doing
good to another, can give pleasure in respect of a threefold
principle. One is the faculty of doing good: and in this regard,
doing good to another becomes pleasant, in so far as it arouses in
man an imagination of abundant good existing in him, whereof he is
able to give others a share. Wherefore men take pleasure in their
children, and in their own works, as being things on which they
bestow a share of their own good. Another principle is man's habitual
inclination to do good, by reason of which doing good becomes
connatural to him: for which reason the liberal man takes pleasure in
giving to others. The third principle is the motive: for instance
when a man is moved by one whom he loves, to do good to someone: for
whatever we do or suffer for a friend is pleasant, because love is
the principal cause of pleasure.

Reply Obj. 1: Spending gives pleasure as showing forth one's good.
But in so far as it empties us of our own good it may be a cause of
sadness; for instance when it is excessive.

Reply Obj. 2: Prodigality is an excessive spending, which is
unnatural: wherefore prodigality is said to be contrary to nature.

Reply Obj. 3: To overcome, to contradict, and to punish, give
pleasure, not as tending to another's ill, but as pertaining to one's
own good, which man loves more than he hates another's ill. For it is
naturally pleasant to overcome, inasmuch as it makes a man to
appreciate his own superiority. Wherefore all those games in which
there is a striving for the mastery, and a possibility of winning it,
afford the greatest pleasure: and speaking generally all contests, in
so far as they admit hope of victory. To contradict and to scold can
give pleasure in two ways. First, as making man imagine himself to be
wise and excellent; since it belongs to wise men and elders to
reprove and to scold. Secondly, in so far as by scolding and
reproving, one does good to another: for this gives one pleasure, as
stated above. It is pleasant to an angry man to punish, in so far as
he thinks himself to be removing an apparent slight, which seems to
be due to a previous hurt: for when a man is hurt by another, he
seems to be slighted thereby; and therefore he wishes to be quit of
this slight by paying back the hurt. And thus it is clear that doing
good to another may be of itself pleasant: whereas doing evil to
another is not pleasant, except in so far as it seems to affect one's
own good.
________________________

SEVENTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 32, Art. 7]

Whether Likeness Is a Cause of Pleasure?

Objection 1: It would seem that likeness is not a cause of pleasure.
Because ruling and presiding seem to imply a certain unlikeness. But
"it is natural to take pleasure in ruling and presiding," as stated
in _Rhetor._ i, 11. Therefore unlikeness, rather than likeness, is a
cause of pleasure.

Obj. 2: Further, nothing is more unlike pleasure than sorrow. But
those who are burdened by sorrow are most inclined to seek pleasures,
as the Philosopher says (Ethic. vii, 14). Therefore unlikeness,
rather than likeness, is a cause of pleasure.

Obj. 3: Further, those who are satiated with certain delights, derive
not pleasure but disgust from them; as when one is satiated with
food. Therefore likeness is not a cause of pleasure.

_On the contrary,_ Likeness is a cause of love, as above stated (Q.
27, A. 3): and love is the cause of pleasure. Therefore likeness is a
cause of pleasure.

_I answer that,_ Likeness is a kind of unity; hence that which is
like us, as being one with us, causes pleasure; just at it causes
love, as stated above (Q. 27, A. 3). And if that which is like us
does not hurt our own good, but increase it, it is pleasurable
simply; for instance one man in respect of another, one youth in
relation to another. But if it be hurtful to our own good, thus
accidentally it causes disgust or sadness, not as being like and one
with us, but as hurtful to that which is yet more one with us.

Now it happens in two ways that something like is hurtful to our own
good. First, by destroying the measure of our own good, by a kind of
excess; because good, especially bodily good, as health, is
conditioned by a certain measure: wherefore superfluous good or any
bodily pleasure, causes disgust. Secondly, by being directly contrary
to one's own good: thus a potter dislikes other potters, not because
they are potters, but because they deprive him of his own excellence
or profits, which he seeks as his own good.

Reply Obj. 1: Since ruler and subject are in communion with one
another, there is a certain likeness between them: but this likeness
is conditioned by a certain superiority, since ruling and presiding
pertain to the excellence of a man's own good: because they belong to
men who are wise and better than others; the result being that they
give man an idea of his own excellence. Another reason is that by
ruling and presiding, a man does good to others, which is pleasant.

Reply Obj. 2: That which gives pleasure to the sorrowful man, though
it be unlike sorrow, bears some likeness to the man that is
sorrowful: because sorrows are contrary to his own good. Wherefore
the sorrowful man seeks pleasure as making for his own good, in so
far as it is a remedy for its contrary. And this is why bodily
pleasures, which are contrary to certain sorrows, are more sought
than intellectual pleasures, which have no contrary sorrow, as we
shall state later on (Q. 35, A. 5). And this explains why all animals
naturally desire pleasure: because animals ever work through sense
and movement. For this reason also young people are most inclined to
seek pleasures; on account of the many changes to which they are
subject, while yet growing. Moreover this is why the melancholic has
a strong desire for pleasures, in order to drive away sorrow: because
his "body is corroded by a base humor," as stated in _Ethic._ vii, 14.

Reply Obj. 3: Bodily goods are conditioned by a certain fixed
measure: wherefore surfeit of such things destroys the proper good,
and consequently gives rise to disgust and sorrow, through being
contrary to the proper good of man.
________________________

EIGHTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 32, Art. 8]

Whether Wonder Is a Cause of Pleasure?

Objection 1: It would seem that wonder is not a cause of pleasure.
Because wonder is the act of one who is ignorant of the nature of
something, as Damascene says. But knowledge, rather than ignorance,
is a cause of pleasure. Therefore wonder is not a cause of pleasure.

Obj. 2: Further, wonder is the beginning of wisdom, being as it were,
the road to the search of truth, as stated in the beginning of
_Metaph._ i, 2. But "it is more pleasant to think of what we know,
than to seek what we know not," as the Philosopher says (Ethic. x,
7): since in the latter case we encounter difficulties and
hindrances, in the former not; while pleasure arises from an
operation which is unhindered, as stated in _Ethic._ vii, 12, 13.
Therefore wonder hinders rather than causes pleasure.

Obj. 3: Further, everyone takes pleasure in what he is accustomed to:
wherefore the actions of habits acquired by custom, are pleasant. But
"we wonder at what is unwonted," as Augustine says (Tract. xxiv in
Joan.). Therefore wonder is contrary to the cause of pleasure.

_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher says (Rhet. i, 11) that wonder is
the cause of pleasure.

_I answer that,_ It is pleasant to get what one desires, as stated
above (Q. 23, A. 4): and therefore the greater the desire for the
thing loved, the greater the pleasure when it is attained: indeed the
very increase of desire brings with it an increase of pleasure,
according as it gives rise to the hope of obtaining that which is
loved, since it was stated above (A. 3, ad 3) that desire resulting
from hope is a cause of pleasure. Now wonder is a kind of desire for
knowledge; a desire which comes to man when he sees an effect of
which the cause either is unknown to him, or surpasses his knowledge
or faculty of understanding. Consequently wonder is a cause of
pleasure, in so far as it includes a hope of getting the knowledge
which one desires to have. For this reason whatever is wonderful is
pleasing, for instance things that are scarce. Also, representations
of things, even of those which are not pleasant in themselves, give
rise to pleasure; for the soul rejoices in comparing one thing with
another, because comparison of one thing with another is the proper
and connatural act of the reason, as the Philosopher says (Poet. iv).
This again is why "it is more delightful to be delivered from great
danger, because it is something wonderful," as stated in _Rhetor._ i,
11.

Reply Obj. 1: Wonder gives pleasure, not because it implies
ignorance, but in so far as it includes the desire of learning the
cause, and in so far as the wonderer learns something new, i.e. that
the cause is other than he had thought it to be. [*According to
another reading:--that he is other than he thought himself to be.]

Reply Obj. 2: Pleasure includes two things; rest in the good, and
perception of this rest. As to the former therefore, since it is more
perfect to contemplate the known truth, than to seek for the unknown,
the contemplation of what we know, is in itself more pleasing than
the research of what we do not know. Nevertheless, as to the second,
it happens that research is sometimes more pleasing accidentally, in
so far as it proceeds from a greater desire: for greater desire is
awakened when we are conscious of our ignorance. This is why man
takes the greatest pleasure in finding or learning things for the
first time.

Reply Obj. 3: It is pleasant to do what we are wont to do, inasmuch
as this is connatural to us, as it were. And yet things that are of
rare occurrence can be pleasant, either as regards knowledge, from
the fact that we desire to know something about them, in so far as
they are wonderful; or as regards action, from the fact that "the
mind is more inclined by desire to act intensely in things that are
new," as stated in _Ethic._ x, 4, since more perfect operation
causes more perfect pleasure.
________________________

QUESTION 33

OF THE EFFECTS OF PLEASURE
(In Four Articles)

We must now consider the effects of pleasure; and under this head
there are four points of inquiry:

(1) Whether expansion is an effect of pleasure?

(2) Whether pleasure causes thirst or desire for itself?

(3) Whether pleasure hinders the use of reason?

(4) Whether pleasure perfects operation?
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 33, Art. 1]

Whether Expansion Is an Effect of Pleasure?

Objection 1: It would seem that expansion is not an effect of
pleasure. For expansion seems to pertain more to love, according to
the Apostle (2 Cor. 6:11): "Our heart is enlarged." Wherefore it is
written (Ps. 118:96) concerning the precept of charity: "Thy
commandment is exceeding broad." But pleasure is a distinct passion
from love. Therefore expansion is not an effect of pleasure.

Obj. 2: Further, when a thing expands it is enabled to receive more.
But receiving pertains to desire, which is for something not yet
possessed. Therefore expansion seems to belong to desire rather than
to pleasure.

Obj. 3: Further, contraction is contrary to expansion. But
contraction seems to belong to pleasure, for the hand closes on that
which we wish to grasp firmly: and such is the affection of appetite
in regard to that which pleases it. Therefore expansion does not
pertain to pleasure.

_On the contrary,_ In order to express joy, it is written (Isa.
60:5): "Thou shall see and abound, thy heart shall wonder and be
enlarged." Moreover pleasure is called by the name of "laetitia" as
being derived from "dilatatio" (expansion), as stated above (Q. 31,
A. 3, ad 3).

_I answer that,_ Breadth (_latitudo_)is a dimension of bodily
magnitude: hence it is not applied to the emotions of the soul, save
metaphorically. Now expansion denotes a kind of movement towards
breadth; and it belongs to pleasure in respect of the two things
requisite for pleasure. One of these is on the part of the
apprehensive power, which is cognizant of the conjunction with some
suitable good. As a result of this apprehension, man perceives that
he has attained a certain perfection, which is a magnitude of the
spiritual order: and in this respect man's mind is said to be
magnified or expanded by pleasure. The other requisite for pleasure
is on the part of the appetitive power, which acquiesces in the
pleasurable object, and rests therein, offering, as it were, to
enfold it within itself. And thus man's affection is expanded by
pleasure, as though it surrendered itself to hold within itself the
object of its pleasure.

Reply Obj. 1: In metaphorical expressions nothing hinders one and the
same thing from being attributed to different things according to
different likenesses. And in this way expansion pertains to love by
reason of a certain spreading out, in so far as the affection of the
lover spreads out to others, so as to care, not only for his own
interests, but also for what concerns others. On the other hand
expansion pertains to pleasure, in so far as a thing becomes more
ample in itself so as to become more capacious.

Reply Obj. 2: Desire includes a certain expansion arising from the
imagination of the thing desired; but this expansion increases at the
presence of the pleasurable object: because the mind surrenders
itself more to that object when it is already taking pleasure in it,
than when it desires it before possessing it; since pleasure is the
end of desire.

Reply Obj. 3: He that takes pleasure in a thing holds it fast, by
clinging to it with all his might: but he opens his heart to it that
he may enjoy it perfectly.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 33, Art. 2]

Whether Pleasure Causes Thirst or Desire for Itself?

Objection 1: It would seem that pleasure does not cause desire for
itself. Because all movement ceases when repose is reached. But
pleasure is, as it were, a certain repose of the movement of desire,
as stated above (Q. 23, A. 4; Q. 25, A. 2). Therefore the movement of
desire ceases when pleasure is reached. Therefore pleasure does not
cause desire.

Obj. 2: Further, a thing does not cause its contrary. But pleasure
is, in a way, contrary to desire, on the part of the object: since
desire regards a good which is not yet possessed, whereas pleasure
regards the good that is possessed. Therefore pleasure does not cause
desire for itself.

Obj. 3: Further, distaste is incompatible with desire. But pleasure
often causes distaste. Therefore it does not cause desire.

_On the contrary,_ Our Lord said (John 4:13): "Whosoever drinketh of
this water, shall thirst again": where, according to Augustine
(Tract. xv in Joan.), water denotes pleasures of the body.

_I answer that,_ Pleasure can be considered in two ways; first, as
existing in reality; secondly, as existing in the memory. Again
thirst, or desire, can be taken in two ways; first, properly, as
denoting a craving for something not possessed; secondly, in general,
as excluding distaste.

Considered as existing in reality, pleasure does not of itself cause
thirst or desire for itself, but only accidentally; provided we take
thirst or desire as denoting a craving for some thing not possessed:
because pleasure is an emotion of the appetite in respect of
something actually present. But it may happen that what is actually
present is not perfectly possessed: and this may be on the part of
the thing possessed, or on the part of the possessor. On the part of
the thing possessed, this happens through the thing possessed not
being a simultaneous whole; wherefore one obtains possession of it
successively, and while taking pleasure in what one has, one desires
to possess the remainder: thus if a man is pleased with the first
part of a verse, he desires to hear the second part, as Augustine
says (Confess. iv, 11). In this way nearly all bodily pleasures cause
thirst for themselves, until they are fully realized, because
pleasures of this kind arise from some movement: as is evident in
pleasures of the table. On the part of the possessor, this happens
when a man possesses a thing which is perfect in itself, yet does not
possess it perfectly, but obtains possession of it little by little.
Thus in this life, a faint perception of Divine knowledge affords us
delight, and delight sets up a thirst or desire for perfect
knowledge; in which sense we may understand the words of Ecclus.
24:29: "They that drink me shall yet thirst."

On the other hand, if by thirst or desire we understand the mere
intensity of the emotion, that excludes distaste, thus more than all
others spiritual pleasures cause thirst or desire for themselves.
Because bodily pleasures become distasteful by reason of their
causing an excess in the natural mode of being, when they are
increased or even when they are protracted; as is evident in the case
of pleasures of the table. This is why, when a man arrives at the
point of perfection in bodily pleasures, he wearies of them, and
sometimes desires another kind. Spiritual pleasures, on the contrary,
do not exceed the natural mode of being, but perfect nature. Hence
when their point of perfection is reached, then do they afford the
greatest delight: except, perchance, accidentally, in so far as the
work of contemplation is accompanied by some operation of the bodily
powers, which tire from protracted activity. And in this sense also
we may understand those words of Ecclus. 24:29: "They that drink me
shall yet thirst": for, even of the angels, who know God perfectly,
and delight in Him, it is written (1 Pet. 1:12) that they "desire to
look at Him."

Lastly, if we consider pleasure, not as existing in reality, but as
existing in the memory, thus it has of itself a natural tendency to
cause thirst and desire for itself: when, to wit, man returns to that
disposition, in which he was when he experienced the pleasure that is
past. But if he be changed from that disposition, the memory of that
pleasure does not give him pleasure, but distaste: for instance, the
memory of food in respect of a man who has eaten to repletion.

Reply Obj. 1: When pleasure is perfect, then it includes complete
rest; and the movement of desire, tending to what was not possessed,
ceases. But when it is imperfect, then the desire, tending to what
was not possessed, does not cease altogether.

Reply Obj. 2: That which is possessed imperfectly, is possessed in
one respect, and in another respect is not possessed. Consequently it
may be the object of desire and pleasure at the same time.

Reply Obj. 3: Pleasures cause distaste in one way, desire in another,
as stated above.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 33, Art. 3]

Whether Pleasure Hinders the Use of Reason?

Objection 1: It would seem that pleasure does not hinder the use of
reason. Because repose facilitates very much the due use of reason:
wherefore the Philosopher says (Phys. vii, 3) that "while we sit and
rest, the soul is inclined to knowledge and prudence"; and it is
written (Wis. 8:16): "When I go into my house, I shall repose myself
with her," i.e. wisdom. But pleasure is a kind of repose. Therefore
it helps rather than hinders the use of reason.

Obj. 2: Further, things which are not in the same subject though they
be contraries, do not hinder one another. But pleasure is in the
appetitive faculty, while the use of reason is in the apprehensive
power. Therefore pleasure does not hinder the use of reason.

Obj. 3: Further, that which is hindered by another, seems to be
moved, as it were, thereby. But the use of an apprehensive power
moves pleasure rather than is moved by it: because it is the cause of
pleasure. Therefore pleasure does not hinder the use of reason.

_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher says (Ethic. vi, 5), that
"pleasure destroys the estimate of prudence."

_I answer that,_ As is stated in _Ethic._ x, 5, "appropriate
pleasures increase activity . . . whereas pleasures arising from
other sources are impediments to activity." Accordingly there is a
certain pleasure that is taken in the very act of reason, as when one
takes pleasure in contemplating or in reasoning: and such pleasure
does not hinder the act of reason, but helps it; because we are more
attentive in doing that which gives us pleasure, and attention
fosters activity.

On the other hand bodily pleasures hinder the use of reason in three
ways. First, by distracting the reason. Because, as we have just
observed, we attend much to that which pleases us. Now when the
attention is firmly fixed on one thing, it is either weakened in
respect of other things, or it is entirely withdrawn from them; and
thus if the bodily pleasure be great, either it entirely hinders the
use of reason, by concentrating the mind's attention on itself; or
else it hinders it considerably. Secondly, by being contrary to
reason. Because some pleasures, especially those that are in excess,
are contrary to the order of reason: and in this sense the
Philosopher says that "bodily pleasures destroy the estimate of
prudence, but not the speculative estimate," to which they are not
opposed, "for instance that the three angles of a triangle are
together equal to two right angles." In the first sense, however,
they hinder both estimates. Thirdly, by fettering the reason: in so
far as bodily pleasure is followed by a certain alteration in the
body, greater even than in the other passions, in proportion as the
appetite is more vehemently affected towards a present than towards
an absent thing. Now such bodily disturbances hinder the use of
reason; as may be seen in the case of drunkards, in whom the use of
reason is fettered or hindered.

Reply Obj. 1: Bodily pleasure implies indeed repose of the appetite
in the object of pleasure; which repose is sometimes contrary to
reason; but on the part of the body it always implies alteration.
And in respect of both points, it hinders the use of reason.

Reply Obj. 2: The powers of the appetite and of apprehension are
indeed distinct parts, but belonging to the one soul. Consequently
when the soul is very intent on the action of one part, it is
hindered from attending to a contrary act of the other part.

Reply Obj. 3: The use of reason requires the due use of the
imagination and of the other sensitive powers, which are exercised
through a bodily organ. Consequently alteration in the body hinders
the use of reason, because it hinders the act of the imagination
and of the other sensitive powers.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 33, Art. 4]

Whether Pleasure Perfects Operation?

Objection 1: It would seem that pleasure does not perfect operation.
For every human operation depends on the use of reason. But pleasure
hinders the use of reason, as stated above (A. 3). Therefore
pleasure does not perfect, but weakens human operation.

Obj. 2: Further, nothing perfects itself or its cause. But
pleasure is an operation (Ethic. vii, 12; x, 4), i.e. either in its
essence or in its cause. Therefore pleasure does not perfect
operation.

Obj. 3: Further, if pleasure perfects operation, it does so
either as end, or as form, or as agent. But not as end; because
operation is not sought for the sake of pleasure, but rather the
reverse, as stated above (Q. 4, A. 2): nor as agent, because
rather is it the operation that causes pleasure: nor again as form,
because, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. x, 4), "pleasure does
not perfect operation, as a habit does." Therefore pleasure does not
perfect operation.

_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher says (Ethic. x, 4) that "pleasure
perfects operation."

_I answer that,_ Pleasure perfects operation in two ways. First, as an
end: not indeed according as an end is that on "account of which a
thing is"; but according as every good which is added to a thing and
completes it, can be called its end. And in this sense the Philosopher
says (Ethic. x, 4) that "pleasure perfects operation . . . as some end
added to it": that is to say, inasmuch as to this good, which is
operation, there is added another good, which is pleasure, denoting
the repose of the appetite in a good that is presupposed. Secondly, as
agent; not indeed directly, for the Philosopher says (Ethic. x, 4)
that "pleasure perfects operation, not as a physician makes a man
healthy, but as health does": but it does so indirectly; inasmuch as
the agent, through taking pleasure in his action, is more eagerly
intent on it, and carries it out with greater care. And in this sense
it is said in _Ethic._ x, 5 that "pleasures increase their appropriate
activities, and hinder those that are not appropriate."

Reply Obj. 1: It is not every pleasure that hinders the act of
reason, but only bodily pleasure; for this arises, not from the act
of reason, but from the act of the concupiscible faculty, which act
is intensified by pleasure. _On the contrary,_ pleasure that arises
from the act of reason, strengthens the use of reason.

Reply Obj. 2: As stated in _Phys._ ii, 3 two things may be causes of
one another, if one be the efficient, the other the final cause. And
in this way, operation is the efficient cause of pleasure, while
pleasure perfects operation by way of final cause, as stated above.

The Reply to the Third Objection is evident for what has been said.
________________________

QUESTION 34

OF THE GOODNESS AND MALICE OF PLEASURES
(In Four Articles)

We must now consider the goodness and malice of pleasures: under
which head there are four points of inquiry:

(1) Whether every pleasure is evil?

(2) If not, whether every pleasure is good?

(3) Whether any pleasure is the greatest good?

(4) Whether pleasure is the measure or rule by which to judge of
moral good and evil?
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 34, Art. 1]

Whether Every Pleasure Is Evil?

Objection 1: It would seem that every pleasure is evil. For that
which destroys prudence and hinders the use of reason, seems to be
evil in itself: since man's good is to be "in accord with reason," as
Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv). But pleasure destroys prudence and
hinders the use of reason; and so much the more, as the pleasure is
greater: wherefore "in sexual pleasures," which are the greatest of
all, "it is impossible to understand anything," as stated in _Ethic._
vii, 11. Moreover, Jerome says in his commentary on Matthew [*Origen,
Hom. vi in Num.] that "at the time of conjugal intercourse, the
presence of the Holy Ghost is not vouchsafed, even if it be a prophet
that fulfils the conjugal duty." Therefore pleasure is evil in
itself; and consequently every pleasure is evil.

Obj. 2: Further, that which the virtuous man shuns, and the man
lacking in virtue seeks, seems to be evil in itself, and should be
avoided; because, as stated in _Ethic._ x, 5 "the virtuous man is a
kind of measure and rule of human actions"; and the Apostle says (1
Cor. 2:15): "The spiritual man judgeth all things." But children and
dumb animals, in whom there is no virtue, seek pleasure: whereas the
man who is master of himself does not. Therefore pleasures are evil
in themselves and should be avoided.

Obj. 3: Further, "virtue and art are concerned about the difficult
and the good" (Ethic. ii, 3). But no art is ordained to pleasure.
Therefore pleasure is not something good.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Ps. 36:4): "Delight in the Lord."
Since, therefore, Divine authority leads to no evil, it seems that
not every pleasure is evil.

_I answer that,_ As stated in _Ethic._ x, 2, 3, some have maintained
that all pleasure is evil. The reason seems to have been that they
took account only of sensible and bodily pleasures which are more
manifest; since, also in other respects, the ancient philosophers did
not discriminate between the intelligible and the sensible, nor
between intellect and sense (De Anima iii, 3). And they held that all
bodily pleasures should be reckoned as bad, and thus that man, being
prone to immoderate pleasures, arrives at the mean of virtue by
abstaining from pleasure. But they were wrong in holding this
opinion. Because, since none can live without some sensible and
bodily pleasure, if they who teach that all pleasures are evil, are
found in the act of taking pleasure; men will be more inclined to
pleasure by following the example of their works instead of listening
to the doctrine of their words: since, in human actions and passions,
wherein experience is of great weight, example moves more than words.

We must therefore say that some pleasures are good, and that some are
evil. For pleasure is a repose of the appetitive power in some loved
good, and resulting from some operation; wherefore we assign a
twofold reason for this assertion. The first is in respect of the
good in which a man reposes with pleasure. For good and evil in the
moral order depend on agreement or disagreement with reason, as
stated above (Q. 18, A. 5): just as in the order of nature, a thing
is said to be natural, if it agrees with nature, and unnatural, if
it disagrees. Accordingly, just as in the natural order there is a
certain natural repose, whereby a thing rests in that which agrees
with its nature, for instance, when a heavy body rests down below;
and again an unnatural repose, whereby a thing rests in that which
disagrees with its nature, as when a heavy body rests up aloft: so,
in the moral order, there is a good pleasure, whereby the higher or
lower appetite rests in that which is in accord with reason; and an
evil pleasure, whereby the appetite rests in that which is discordant
from reason and the law of God.

The second reason can be found by considering the actions, some of
which are good, some evil. Now pleasures which are conjoined to
actions are more akin to those actions, than desires, which precede
them in point of time. Wherefore, since the desires of good actions
are good, and of evil actions, evil; much more are the pleasures of
good actions good, and those of evil actions evil.

Reply Obj. 1: As stated above (Q. 33, A. 3), it is not the pleasures
which result from an act of reason, that hinder the reason or destroy
prudence, but extraneous pleasures, such as the pleasures of the
body. These indeed hinder the use of reason, as stated above (Q. 33,
A. 3), either by contrariety of the appetite that rests in something
repugnant to reason, which makes the pleasure morally bad; or by
fettering the reason: thus in conjugal intercourse, though the
pleasure be in accord with reason, yet it hinders the use of reason,
on account of the accompanying bodily change. But in this case the
pleasure is not morally evil; as neither is sleep, whereby the reason
is fettered, morally evil, if it be taken according to reason: for
reason itself demands that the use of reason be interrupted at times.
We must add, however, that although this fettering of the reason
through the pleasure of conjugal intercourse has no moral malice,
since it is neither a mortal nor a venial sin; yet it proceeds from a
kind of moral malice, namely, from the sin of our first parent;
because, as stated in the First Part (Q. 98, A. 2) the case was
different in the state of innocence.

Reply Obj. 2: The temperate man does not shun all pleasures, but
those that are immoderate, and contrary to reason. The fact that
children and dumb animals seek pleasures, does not prove that all
pleasures are evil: because they have from God their natural
appetite, which is moved to that which is naturally suitable to them.

Reply Obj. 3: Art is not concerned with all kinds of good, but with
the making of external things, as we shall state further on (Q. 57,
A. 3). But actions and passions, which are within us, are more the
concern of prudence and virtue than of art. Nevertheless there is an
art of making pleasure, namely, "the art of cookery and the art of
making arguments," as stated in _Ethic._ vii, 12.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 34, Art. 2]

Whether Every Pleasure Is Good?

Objection 1: It would seem that every pleasure is good. Because as
stated in the First Part (Q. 5, A. 6) there are three kinds of good:
the virtuous, the useful, and the pleasant. But everything virtuous
is good; and in like manner everything useful is good. Therefore also
every pleasure is good.

Obj. 2: Further, that which is not sought for the sake of something
else, is good in itself, as stated in _Ethic._ i, 6, 7. But pleasure
is not sought for the sake of something else; for it seems absurd to
ask anyone why he seeks to be pleased. Therefore pleasure is good in
itself. Now that which is predicated of a thing considered in itself,
is predicated thereof universally. Therefore every pleasure is good.

Obj. 3: Further, that which is desired by all, seems to be good of
itself: because good is "what all things seek," as stated in _Ethic._
i, 1. But everyone seeks some kind of pleasure, even children and
dumb animals. Therefore pleasure is good in itself: and consequently
all pleasure is good.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Prov. 2:14): "Who are glad when
they have done evil, and rejoice in most wicked things."

_I answer that,_ While some of the Stoics maintained that all
pleasures are evil, the Epicureans held that pleasure is good in
itself, and that consequently all pleasures are good. They seem to
have thus erred through not discriminating between that which is good
simply, and that which is good in respect of a particular individual.
That which is good simply, is good in itself. Now that which is not
good in itself, may be good in respect of some individual in two
ways. In one way, because it is suitable to him by reason of a
disposition in which he is now, which disposition, however, is not
natural: thus it is sometimes good for a leper to eat things that are
poisonous, which are not suitable simply to the human temperament. In
another way, through something unsuitable being esteemed suitable.
And since pleasure is the repose of the appetite in some good, if the
appetite reposes in that which is good simply, the pleasure will be
pleasure simply, and good simply. But if a man's appetite repose in
that which is good, not simply, but in respect of that particular
man, then his pleasure will not be pleasure simply, but a pleasure to
him; neither will it be good simply, but in a certain respect, or an
apparent good.

Reply Obj. 1: The virtuous and the useful depend on accordance with
reason, and consequently nothing is virtuous or useful, without being
good. But the pleasant depends on agreement with the appetite, which
tends sometimes to that which is discordant from reason. Consequently
not every object of pleasure is good in the moral order which depends
on the order of reason.

Reply Obj. 2: The reason why pleasure is not sought for the sake of
something else is because it is repose in the end. Now the end may be
either good or evil; although nothing can be an end except in so far
as it is good in respect of such and such a man: and so too with
regard to pleasure.

Reply Obj. 3: All things seek pleasure in the same way as they seek
good: since pleasure is the repose of the appetite in good. But, just
as it happens that not every good which is desired, is of itself and
verily good; so not every pleasure is of itself and verily good.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 34, Art. 3]

Whether Any Pleasure Is the Greatest Good?

Objection 1: It would seem that no pleasure is the greatest good.
Because nothing generated is the greatest good: since generation
cannot be the last end. But pleasure is a consequence of generation:
for the fact that a thing takes pleasure is due to its being
established in its own nature, as stated above (Q. 31, A. 1).
Therefore no pleasure is the greatest good.

Obj. 2: Further, that which is the greatest good cannot be made
better by addition. But pleasure is made better by addition; since
pleasure together with virtue is better than pleasure without virtue.
Therefore pleasure is not the greatest good.

Obj. 3: Further, that which is the greatest good is universally good,
as being good of itself: since that which is such of itself is prior
to and greater than that which is such accidentally. But pleasure is
not universally good, as stated above (A. 2). Therefore pleasure is
not the greatest good.

_On the contrary,_ Happiness is the greatest good: since it is the
end of man's life. But Happiness is not without pleasure: for it is
written (Ps. 15:11): "Thou shalt fill me with joy with Thy
countenance; at Thy right hand are delights even to the end."

_I answer that,_ Plato held neither with the Stoics, who asserted
that all pleasures are evil, nor with the Epicureans, who maintained
that all pleasures are good; but he said that some are good, and some
evil; yet, so that no pleasure be the sovereign or greatest good.
But, judging from his arguments, he fails in two points. First,
because, from observing that sensible and bodily pleasure consists in
a certain movement and "becoming," as is evident in satiety from
eating and the like; he concluded that all pleasure arises from some
"becoming" and movement: and from this, since "becoming" and movement
are the acts of something imperfect, it would follow that pleasure is
not of the nature of ultimate perfection. But this is seen to be
evidently false as regards intellectual pleasures: because one takes
pleasure, not only in the "becoming" of knowledge, for instance, when
one learns or wonders, as stated above (Q. 32, A. 8, ad 2); but also
in the act of contemplation, by making use of knowledge already
acquired.

Secondly, because by greatest good he understood that which is the
supreme good simply, i.e. the good as existing apart from, and
unparticipated by, all else, in which sense God is the Supreme Good;
whereas we are speaking of the greatest good in human things. Now the
greatest good of everything is its last end. And the end, as stated
above (Q. 1, A. 8; Q. 2, A. 7) is twofold; namely, the thing itself,
and the use of that thing; thus the miser's end is either money or
the possession of money. Accordingly, man's last end may be said to
be either God Who is the Supreme Good simply; or the enjoyment of
God, which implies a certain pleasure in the last end. And in this
sense a certain pleasure of man may be said to be the greatest among
human goods.

Reply Obj. 1: Not every pleasure arises from a "becoming"; for some
pleasures result from perfect operations, as stated above.
Accordingly nothing prevents some pleasure being the greatest good,
although every pleasure is not such.

Reply Obj. 2: This argument is true of the greatest good simply, by
participation of which all things are good; wherefore no addition can
make it better: whereas in regard to other goods, it is universally
true that any good becomes better by the addition of another good.
Moreover it might be said that pleasure is not something extraneous
to the operation of virtue, but that it accompanies it, as stated in
_Ethic._ i, 8.

Reply Obj. 3: That pleasure is the greatest good is due not to the
mere fact that it is pleasure, but to the fact that it is perfect
repose in the perfect good. Hence it does not follow that every
pleasure is supremely good, or even good at all. Thus a certain
science is supremely good, but not every science is.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 34, Art. 4]

Whether Pleasure Is the Measure or Rule by Which to Judge of Moral
Good or Evil?

Objection 1: It would seem that pleasure is not the measure or rule
of moral good and evil. Because "that which is first in a genus is
the measure of all the rest" (Metaph. x, 1). But pleasure is not the
first thing in the moral genus, for it is preceded by love and
desire. Therefore it is not the rule of goodness and malice in moral
matters.

Obj. 2: Further, a measure or rule should be uniform; hence that
movement which is the most uniform, is the measure and rule of all
movements (Metaph. x, 1). But pleasures are various and multiform:
since some of them are good, and some evil. Therefore pleasure is not
the measure and rule of morals.

Obj. 3: Further, judgment of the effect from its cause is more
certain than judgment of cause from effect. Now goodness or malice of
operation is the cause of goodness or malice of pleasure: because
"those pleasures are good which result from good operations, and
those are evil which arise from evil operations," as stated in
_Ethic._ x, 5. Therefore pleasures are not the rule and measure of
moral goodness and malice.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine, commenting on Ps. 7:10 "The searcher of
hearts and reins is God," says: "The end of care and thought is the
pleasure which each one aims at achieving." And the Philosopher says
(Ethic. vii, 11) that "pleasure is the architect," i.e. the
principal, "end [*St. Thomas took _finis_ as being the nominative,
whereas it is the genitive--_tou telous_; and the Greek reads "He"
(i.e. the political philosopher), "is the architect of the end."], in
regard to which, we say absolutely that this is evil, and that, good."

_I answer that,_ Moral goodness or malice depends chiefly on the
will, as stated above (Q. 20, A. 1); and it is chiefly from the end
that we discern whether the will is good or evil. Now the end is
taken to be that in which the will reposes: and the repose of the
will and of every appetite in the good is pleasure. And therefore man
is reckoned to be good or bad chiefly according to the pleasure of
the human will; since that man is good and virtuous, who takes
pleasure in the works of virtue; and that man evil, who takes
pleasure in evil works.

On the other hand, pleasures of the sensitive appetite are not the
rule of moral goodness and malice; since food is universally
pleasurable to the sensitive appetite both of good and of evil men.
But the will of the good man takes pleasure in them in accordance
with reason, to which the will of the evil man gives no heed.

Reply Obj. 1: Love and desire precede pleasure in the order of
generation. But pleasure precedes them in the order of the end, which
serves a principle in actions; and it is by the principle, which is
the rule and measure of such matters, that we form our judgment.

Reply Obj. 2: All pleasures are uniform in the point of their being
the repose of the appetite in something good: and in this respect
pleasure can be a rule or measure. Because that man is good, whose
will rests in the true good: and that man evil, whose will rests in
evil.

Reply Obj. 3: Since pleasure perfects operation as its end, as stated
above (Q. 33, A. 4); an operation cannot be perfectly good, unless
there be also pleasure in good: because the goodness of a thing
depends on its end. And thus, in a way, the goodness of the pleasure
is the cause of goodness in the operation.
________________________

QUESTION 35

OF PAIN OR SORROW, IN ITSELF
(In Eight Articles)

We have now to consider pain and sorrow: concerning which we must
consider: (1) Sorrow or pain in itself; (2) Its cause; (3) Its
effects; (4) Its remedies; (5) Its goodness or malice.

Under the first head there are eight points of inquiry:

(1) Whether pain is a passion of the soul?

(2) Whether sorrow is the same as pain?

(3) Whether sorrow or pain is contrary [to] pleasure?

(4) Whether all sorrow is contrary to all pleasure?

(5) Whether there is a sorrow contrary to the pleasure of
contemplation?

(6) Whether sorrow is to be shunned more than pleasure is to be
sought?

(7) Whether exterior pain is greater than interior?

(8) Of the species of sorrow.
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 35, Art. 1]

Whether Pain Is a Passion of the Soul?

Objection 1: It would seem that pain is not a passion of the soul.
Because no passion of the soul is in the body. But pain can be in the
body, since Augustine says (De Vera Relig. xii), that "bodily pain is
a sudden corruption of the well-being of that thing which the soul,
by making evil use of it, made subject to corruption." Therefore pain
is not a passion of the soul.

Obj. 2: Further, every passion of the soul belongs to the appetitive
faculty. But pain does not belong to the appetitive, but rather to
the apprehensive part: for Augustine says (De Nat. Boni xx) that
"bodily pain is caused by the sense resisting a more powerful body."
Therefore pain is not a passion of the soul.

Obj. 3: Further, every passion of the soul belongs to the animal
appetite. But pain does not belong to the animal appetite, but rather
to the natural appetite; for Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. viii, 14):
"Had not some good remained in nature, we should feel no pain in
being punished by the loss of good." Therefore pain is not a passion
of the soul.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine (De Civ. Dei xiv, 8) reckons pain among
the passions of the soul; quoting Virgil (Aeneid, vi, 733):

"hence wild desires and grovelling fears
And human laughter, human tears."
[Translation: Conington.]

_I answer that,_ Just as two things are requisite for pleasure;
namely, conjunction with good and perception of this conjunction; so
also two things are requisite for pain: namely, conjunction with some
evil (which is in so far evil as it deprives one of some good), and
perception of this conjunction. Now whatever is conjoined, if it have
not the aspect of good or evil in regard to the being to which it is
conjoined, cannot cause pleasure or pain. Whence it is evident that
something under the aspect of good or evil is the object of the
pleasure or pain. But good and evil, as such, are objects of the
appetite. Consequently it is clear that pleasure and pain belong to
the appetite.

Now every appetitive movement or inclination consequent to
apprehension, belongs to the intellective or sensitive appetite:
since the inclination of the natural appetite is not consequent to an
apprehension of the subject of that appetite, but to the apprehension
of another, as stated in the First Part (Q. 103, AA. 1, 3). Since
then pleasure and pain presuppose some sense or apprehension in the
same subject, it is evident that pain, like pleasure, is in the
intellective or sensitive appetite.

Again every movement of the sensitive appetite is called a passion,
as stated above (Q. 22, AA. 1, 3): and especially those which tend to
some defect. Consequently pain, according as it is in the sensitive
appetite, is most properly called a passion of the soul: just as
bodily ailments are properly called passions of the body. Hence
Augustine (De Civ. Dei xiv, 7, 8 [*Quoting Cicero]) reckons pain
especially as being a kind of ailment.

Reply Obj. 1: We speak of the body, because the cause of pain is in
the body: as when we suffer something hurtful to the body. But the
movement of pain is always in the soul; since "the body cannot feel
pain unless the soul feel it," as Augustine says (Super Psalm. 87:4).

Reply Obj. 2: We speak of pain of the senses, not as though it were
an act of the sensitive power; but because the senses are required
for bodily pain, in the same way as for bodily pleasure.

Reply Obj. 3: Pain at the loss of good proves the goodness of the
nature, not because pain is an act of the natural appetite, but
because nature desires something as good, the removal of which being
perceived, there results the passion of pain in the sensitive
appetite.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 35, Art. 2]

Whether Sorrow Is the Same As Pain?

Objection 1: It would seem that sorrow is not pain. For Augustine says
(De Civ. Dei xiv, 7) that "pain is used to express bodily suffering."
But sorrow is used more in reference to the soul. Therefore sorrow is
not pain.

Obj. 2: Further, pain is only in respect of present evil. But sorrow
can refer to both past and future evil: thus repentance is sorrow for
the past, and anxiety for the future. Therefore sorrow is quite
different from pain.

Obj. 3: Further, pain seems not to follow save from the sense of
touch. But sorrow can arise from all the senses. Therefore sorrow is
not pain, and extends to more objects.

_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says (Rom. 9:2): "I have great sorrow
[Douay: 'sadness'] and continual pain [Douay: 'sorrow'] in my heart,"
thus denoting the same thing by sorrow and pain.

_I answer that,_ Pleasure and pain can arise from a twofold
apprehension, namely, from the apprehension of an exterior sense; and
from the interior apprehension of the intellect or of the
imagination. Now the interior apprehension extends to more objects
than the exterior apprehension: because whatever things come under
the exterior apprehension, come under the interior, but not
conversely. Consequently that pleasure alone which is caused by an
interior apprehension is called joy, as stated above (Q. 31, A. 3):
and in like manner that pain alone which is caused by an interior
apprehension, is called sorrow. And just as that pleasure which is
caused by an exterior apprehension, is called pleasure but not joy;
so too that pain which is caused by an exterior apprehension, is
called pain indeed but not sorrow. Accordingly sorrow is a species of
pain, as joy is a species of pleasure.

Reply Obj. 1: Augustine is speaking there of the use of the word:
because "pain" is more generally used in reference to bodily pains,
which are better known, than in reference to spiritual pains.

Reply Obj. 2: External sense perceives only what is present; but the
interior cognitive power can perceive the present, past and future.
Consequently sorrow can regard present, past and future: whereas
bodily pain, which follows apprehension of the external sense, can
only regard something present.

Reply Obj. 3: The sensibles of touch are painful, not only in so far
as they are disproportionate to the apprehensive power, but also in
so far as they are contrary to nature: whereas the objects of the
other senses can indeed be disproportionate to the apprehensive
power, but they are not contrary to nature, save as they are
subordinate to the sensibles of touch. Consequently man alone, who is
a perfectly cognizant animal, takes pleasure in the objects of the
other senses for their own sake; whereas other animals take no
pleasure in them save as referable to the sensibles of touch, as
stated in _Ethic._ iii, 10. Accordingly, in referring to the objects
of the other senses, we do not speak of pain in so far as it is
contrary to natural pleasure: but rather of sorrow, which is contrary
to joy. So then if pain be taken as denoting bodily pain, which is
its more usual meaning, then it is contrasted with sorrow, according
to the distinction of interior and exterior apprehension; although,
on the part of the objects, pleasure extends further than does bodily
pain. But if pain be taken in a wide sense, then it is the genus of
sorrow, as stated above.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 35, Art. 3]

Whether Sorrow or Pain Is Contrary to Pleasure?

Objection 1: It would seem that sorrow is not contrary to pleasure.
For one of two contraries is not the cause of the other. But sorrow
can be the cause of pleasure; for it is written (Matt. 5:5): "Blessed
are they that mourn, for they shall be comforted." Therefore they are
not contrary to one another.

Obj. 2: Further, one contrary does not denominate the other. But to
some, pain or sorrow gives pleasure: thus Augustine says (Confess.
iii, 2) that in stage-plays sorrow itself gives pleasure: and
(Confess. iv, 5) that "weeping is a bitter thing, and yet it
sometimes pleases us." Therefore pain is not contrary to pleasure.

Obj. 3: Further, one contrary is not the matter of the other; because
contraries cannot co-exist together. But sorrow can be the matter of
pleasure; for Augustine says (De Poenit. xiii): "The penitent should
ever sorrow, and rejoice in his sorrow." The Philosopher too says
(Ethic. ix, 4) that, on the other hand, "the evil man feels pain at
having been pleased." Therefore pleasure and pain are not contrary to
one another.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xiv, 6) that "joy is
the volition of consent to the things we wish: and that sorrow is the
volition of dissent from the things we do not wish." But consent and
dissent are contraries. Therefore pleasure and sorrow are contrary to
one another.

_I answer that,_ As the Philosopher says (Metaph. x, 4), contrariety
is a difference in respect of a form. Now the form or species of a
passion or movement is taken from the object or term. Consequently,
since the objects of pleasure and sorrow or pain, viz. present good
and present evil, are contrary to one another, it follows that pain
and pleasure are contrary to one another.

Reply Obj. 1: Nothing hinders one contrary causing the other
accidentally: and thus sorrow can be the cause of pleasure. In one
way, in so far as from sorrow at the absence of something, or at the
presence of its contrary, one seeks the more eagerly for something
pleasant: thus a thirsty man seeks more eagerly the pleasure of a
drink, as a remedy for the pain he suffers. In another way, in so far
as, from a strong desire for a certain pleasure, one does not shrink
from undergoing pain, so as to obtain that pleasure. In each of these
ways, the sorrows of the present life lead us to the comfort of the
future life. Because by the mere fact that man mourns for his sins,
or for the delay of glory, he merits the consolation of eternity. In
like manner a man merits it when he shrinks not from hardships and
straits in order to obtain it.

Reply Obj. 2: Pain itself can be pleasurable accidentally in so far
as it is accompanied by wonder, as in stage-plays; or in so far as it
recalls a beloved object to one's memory, and makes one feel one's
love for the thing, whose absence gives us pain. Consequently, since
love is pleasant, both pain and whatever else results from love,
forasmuch as they remind us of our love, are pleasant. And, for this
reason, we derive pleasure even from pains depicted on the stage: in
so far as, in witnessing them, we perceive ourselves to conceive a
certain love for those who are there represented.

Reply Obj. 3: The will and the reason reflect on their own acts,
inasmuch as the acts themselves of the will and reason are considered
under the aspect of good or evil. In this way sorrow can be the
matter of pleasure, or vice versa, not essentially but accidentally:
that is, in so far as either of them is considered under the aspect
of good or evil.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 35, Art. 4]

Whether All Sorrow Is Contrary to All Pleasure?

Objection 1: It would seem that all sorrow is contrary to all
pleasure. Because, just as whiteness and blackness are contrary
species of color, so pleasure and sorrow are contrary species of the
soul's passions. But whiteness and blackness are universally contrary
to one another. Therefore pleasure and sorrow are so too.

Obj. 2: Further, remedies are made of things contrary (to the evil).
But every pleasure is a remedy for all manner of sorrow, as the
Philosopher declares (Ethic. vii, 14). Therefore every pleasure is
contrary to every sorrow.

Obj. 3: Further, contraries are hindrances to one another. But every
sorrow hinders any kind of pleasure: as is evident from _Ethic._
x, 5. Therefore every sorrow is contrary to every pleasure.

_On the contrary,_ The same thing is not the cause of contraries. But
joy for one thing, and sorrow for the opposite thing, proceed from
the same habit: thus from charity it happens that we "rejoice with
them that rejoice," and "weep with them that weep" (Rom. 12:15).
Therefore not every sorrow is contrary to every pleasure.

_I answer that,_ As the Philosopher says (Metaph. x, 4), contrariety
is a difference in respect of a form. Now a form may be generic or
specific. Consequently things may be contraries in respect of a
generic form, as virtue and vice; or in respect of a specific form,
as justice and injustice.

Now we must observe that some things are specified by absolute forms,
e.g. substances and qualities; whereas other things are specified in
relation to something extrinsic, e.g. passions and movements, which
derive their species from their terms or objects. Accordingly in
those things that are specified by absolute forms, it happens that
species contained under contrary genera are not contrary as to their
specific nature: but it does not happen for them to have any affinity
or fittingness to one another. For intemperance and justice, which
are in the contrary genera of virtue and vice, are not contrary to
one another in respect of their specific nature; and yet they have no
affinity or fittingness to one another. On the other hand, in those
things that are specified in relation to something extrinsic, it
happens that species belonging to contrary genera, are not only not
contrary to one another, but also that they have a certain mutual
affinity or fittingness. The reason of this is that where there is
one same relation to two contraries, there is contrariety; e.g. to
approach to a white thing, and to approach to a black thing, are
contraries; whereas contrary relations to contrary things, implies a
certain likeness, e.g. to recede from something white, and to
approach to something black. This is most evident in the case of
contradiction, which is the principle of opposition: because
opposition consists in affirming and denying the same thing, e.g.
"white" and "non-white"; while there is fittingness and likeness in
the affirmation of one contrary and the denial of the other, as, if
I were to say "black" and "not white."

Now sorrow and pleasure, being passions, are specified by their
objects. According to their respective genera, they are contrary to
one another: since one is a kind of _pursuit,_ the other a kind of
_avoidance,_ which "are to the appetite, what affirmation and denial
are to the intellect" (Ethic. vi, 2). Consequently sorrow and
pleasure in respect of the same object, are specifically contrary to
one another: whereas sorrow and pleasure in respect of objects that
are not contrary but disparate, are not specifically contrary to one
another, but are also disparate; for instance, sorrow at the death of
a friend, and pleasure in contemplation. If, however, those diverse
objects be contrary to one another, then pleasure and sorrow are not
only specifically contrary, but they also have a certain mutual
fittingness and affinity: for instance to rejoice in good and to
sorrow for evil.

Reply Obj. 1: Whiteness and blackness do not take their species from
their relationship to something extrinsic, as pleasure and sorrow do:
wherefore the comparison does not hold.

Reply Obj. 2: Genus is taken from matter, as is stated in _Metaph._
viii, 2; and in accidents the subject takes the place of matter. Now
it has been said above that pleasure and sorrow are generically
contrary to one another. Consequently in every sorrow the subject has
a disposition contrary to the disposition of the subject of pleasure:
because in every pleasure the appetite is viewed as accepting what it
possesses, and in every sorrow, as avoiding it. And therefore on the
part of the subject every pleasure is a remedy for any kind of
sorrow, and every sorrow is a hindrance of all manner of pleasure:
but chiefly when pleasure is opposed to sorrow specifically.

Wherefore the Reply to the Third Objection is evident. Or we may say
that, although not every sorrow is specifically contrary to every
pleasure, yet they are contrary to one another in regard to their
effects: since one has the effect of strengthening the animal nature,
while the other results in a kind of discomfort.
________________________

FIFTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 35, Art. 5]

Whether There Is Any Sorrow Contrary to the Pleasure of Contemplation?

Objection 1: It would seem that there is a sorrow that is contrary to
the pleasure of contemplation. For the Apostle says (2 Cor. 7:10):
"The sorrow that is according to God, worketh penance steadfast unto
salvation." Now to look at God belongs to the higher reason, whose act
is to give itself to contemplation, according to Augustine (De Trin.
xii, 3, 4). Therefore there is a sorrow contrary to the pleasure of
contemplation.

Obj. 2: Further, contrary things have contrary effects. If therefore
the contemplation of one contrary gives pleasure, the other contrary
will give sorrow: and so there will be a sorrow contrary to the
pleasure of contemplation.

Obj. 3: Further, as the object of pleasure is good, so the object of
sorrow is evil. But contemplation can be an evil: since the
Philosopher says (Metaph. xii, 9) that "it is unfitting to think of
certain things." Therefore sorrow can be contrary to the pleasure of
contemplation.

Obj. 4: Further, any work, so far as it is unhindered, can be a cause
of pleasure, as stated in _Ethic._ vii, 12, 13; x, 4. But the work of
contemplation can be hindered in many ways, either so as to destroy
it altogether, or as to make it difficult. Therefore in contemplation
there can be a sorrow contrary to the pleasure.

Obj. 5: Further, affliction of the flesh is a cause of sorrow. But,
as it is written (Eccles. 12:12) "much study is an affliction of the
flesh." Therefore contemplation admits of sorrow contrary to its
pleasure.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Wis. 8:16): "Her," i.e. wisdom's,
"conversation hath no bitterness nor her company any tediousness; but
joy and gladness." Now the conversation and company of wisdom are
found in contemplation. Therefore there is no sorrow contrary to the
pleasure of contemplation.

_I answer that,_ The pleasure of contemplation can be understood in
two ways. In one way, so that contemplation is the cause, but not the
object of pleasure: and then pleasure is taken not in contemplating
but in the thing contemplated. Now it is possible to contemplate
something harmful and sorrowful, just as to contemplate something
suitable and pleasant. Consequently if the pleasure of contemplation
be taken in this way, nothing hinders some sorrow being contrary to
the pleasure of contemplation.

In another way, the pleasure of contemplation is understood, so that
contemplation is its object and cause; as when one takes pleasure in
the very act of contemplating. And thus, according to Gregory of
Nyssa [*Nemesius, De Nat. Hom. xviii.], "no sorrow is contrary to
that pleasure which is about contemplation": and the Philosopher says
the same (Topic. i, 13; Ethic. x, 3). This, however, is to be
understood as being the case properly speaking. The reason is because
sorrow is of itself contrary to pleasure in a contrary object: thus
pleasure in heat is contrary to sorrow caused by cold. But there is
no contrary to the object of contemplation: because contraries, as
apprehended by the mind, are not contrary, but one is the means of
knowing the other. Wherefore, properly speaking, there cannot be a
sorrow contrary to the pleasure of contemplation. Nor has it any
sorrow annexed to it, as bodily pleasures have, which are like
remedies against certain annoyances; thus a man takes pleasure in
drinking through being troubled with thirst, but when the thirst is
quite driven out, the pleasure of drinking ceases also. Because the
pleasure of contemplation is not caused by one's being quit of an
annoyance, but by the fact that contemplation is pleasant in itself:
for pleasure is not a "becoming" but a perfect operation, as stated
above (Q. 31, A. 1).

Accidentally, however, sorrow is mingled with the pleasure of
contemplation; and this in two ways: first, on the part of an organ,
secondly, through some impediment in the apprehension. On the part of
an organ, sorrow or pain is mingled with apprehension, directly, as
regards the apprehensive powers of the sensitive part, which have a
bodily organ; either from the sensible object disagreeing with the
normal condition of the organ, as the taste of something bitter, and
the smell of something foul; or from the sensible object, though
agreeable, being so continuous in its action on the sense, that it
exceeds the normal condition of the organ, as stated above (Q. 33, A.
2), the result being that an apprehension which at first was pleasant
becomes tedious. But these two things cannot occur directly in the
contemplation of the mind; because the mind has no corporeal organ:
wherefore it was said in the authority quoted above that intellectual
contemplation has neither "bitterness," nor "tediousness." Since,
however, the human mind, in contemplation, makes use of the sensitive
powers of apprehension, to whose acts weariness is incidental;
therefore some affliction or pain is indirectly mingled with
contemplation.

Nevertheless, in neither of these ways, is the pain thus accidentally
mingled with contemplation, contrary to the pleasure thereof. Because
pain caused by a hindrance to contemplation, is not contrary to the
pleasure of contemplation, but rather is in affinity and in harmony
with it, as is evident from what has been said above (A. 4): while
pain or sorrow caused by bodily weariness, does not belong to the
same genus, wherefore it is altogether disparate. Accordingly it is
evident that no sorrow is contrary to pleasure taken in the very act
of contemplation; nor is any sorrow connected with it save
accidentally.

Reply Obj. 1: The "sorrow which is according to God," is not caused
by the very act of intellectual contemplation, but by something which
the mind contemplates: viz. by sin, which the mind considers as
contrary to the love of God.

Reply Obj. 2: Things which are contrary according to nature are not
contrary according as they exist in the mind: for things that are
contrary in reality are not contrary in the order of thought; indeed
rather is one contrary the reason for knowing the other. Hence one
and the same science considers contraries.

Reply Obj. 3: Contemplation, in itself, is never evil, since it is
nothing else than the consideration of truth, which is the good of
the intellect: it can, however, be evil accidentally, i.e. in so far
as the contemplation of a less noble object hinders the contemplation
of a more noble object; or on the part of the object contemplated, to
which the appetite is inordinately attached.

Reply Obj. 4: Sorrow caused by a hindrance to contemplation, is not
contrary to the pleasure of contemplation, but is in harmony with it,
as stated above.

Reply Obj. 5: Affliction of the flesh affects contemplation
accidentally and indirectly, as stated above.
________________________

SIXTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 35, Art. 6]

Whether Sorrow Is to Be Shunned More Than Pleasure Is to Be Sought?

Objection 1: It would seem that sorrow is to be shunned more than
pleasure is to be sought. For Augustine says (QQ. 83, qu. 63): "There
is nobody that does not shun sorrow more than he seeks pleasure." Now
that which all agree in doing, seems to be natural. Therefore it is
natural and right for sorrow to be shunned more than pleasure is
sought.

Obj. 2: Further, the action of a contrary conduces to rapidity and
intensity of movement: for "hot water freezes quicker and harder," as
the Philosopher says (Meteor. i, 12). But the shunning of sorrow is
due to the contrariety of the cause of sorrow; whereas the desire for
pleasure does not arise from any contrariety, but rather from the
suitableness of the pleasant object. Therefore sorrow is shunned more
eagerly than pleasure is sought.

Obj. 3: Further, the stronger the passion which a man resists
according to reason, the more worthy is he of praise, and the more
virtuous: since "virtue is concerned with the difficult and the good"
(Ethic. ii, 3). But the brave man who resists the movement of
shunning sorrow, is more virtuous than the temperate man, who resists
the movement of desire for pleasure: since the Philosopher says
(Rhet. ii, 4) that "the brave and the just are chiefly praised."
Therefore the movement of shunning sorrow is more eager than the
movement of seeking pleasure.

_On the contrary,_ Good is stronger than evil, as Dionysius declares
(Div. Nom. iv). But pleasure is desirable for the sake of the good
which is its object; whereas the shunning of sorrow is on account of
evil. Therefore the desire for pleasure is more eager than the
shunning of sorrow.

_I answer that,_ The desire for pleasure is of itself more eager than
the shunning of sorrow. The reason of this is that the cause of
pleasure is a suitable good; while the cause of pain or sorrow is an
unsuitable evil. Now it happens that a certain good is suitable
without any repugnance at all: but it is not possible for any evil to
be so unsuitable as not to be suitable in some way. Wherefore
pleasure can be entire and perfect: whereas sorrow is always partial.
Therefore desire for pleasure is naturally greater than the shunning
of sorrow. Another reason is because the good, which is the object of
pleasure, is sought for its own sake: whereas the evil, which is the
object of sorrow, is to be shunned as being a privation of good: and
that which is by reason of itself is stronger than that which is by
reason of something else. Moreover we find a confirmation of this in
natural movements. For every natural movement is more intense in the
end, when a thing approaches the term that is suitable to its nature,
than at the beginning, when it leaves the term that is unsuitable to
its nature: as though nature were more eager in tending to what is
suitable to it, than in shunning what is unsuitable. Therefore the
inclination of the appetitive power is, of itself, more eager in
tending to pleasure than in shunning sorrow.

But it happens accidentally that a man shuns sorrow more eagerly than
he seeks pleasure: and this for three reasons. First, on the part of
the apprehension. Because, as Augustine says (De Trin. x, 12), "love
is felt more keenly, when we lack that which we love." Now from the
lack of what we love, sorrow results, which is caused either by the
loss of some loved good, or by the presence of some contrary evil.
But pleasure suffers no lack of the good loved, for it rests in
possession of it. Since then love is the cause of pleasure and
sorrow, the latter is the more shunned, according as love is the more
keenly felt on account of that which is contrary to it. Secondly, on
the part of the cause of sorrow or pain, which cause is repugnant to
a good that is more loved than the good in which we take pleasure.
For we love the natural well-being of the body more than the pleasure
of eating: and consequently we would leave the pleasure of eating and
the like, from fear of the pain occasioned by blows or other such
causes, which are contrary to the well-being of the body. Thirdly, on
the part of the effect: namely, in so far as sorrow hinders not only
one pleasure, but all.

Reply Obj. 1: The saying of Augustine that "sorrow is shunned more
than pleasure is sought" is true accidentally but not simply. And
this is clear from what he says after: "Since we see that the most
savage animals are deterred from the greatest pleasures by fear of
pain," which pain is contrary to life which is loved above all.

Reply Obj. 2: It is not the same with movement from within and
movement from without. For movement from within tends to what is
suitable more than it recedes from that which is unsuitable; as we
remarked above in regard to natural movement. But movement from
without is intensified by the very opposition: because each thing
strives in its own way to resist anything contrary to it, as aiming
at its own preservation. Hence violent movement is intense at first,
and slackens towards the end. Now the movement of the appetitive
faculty is from within: since it tends from the soul to the object.
Consequently pleasure is, of itself, more to be sought than sorrow is
to be shunned. But the movement of the sensitive faculty is from
without, as it were from the object of the soul. Consequently the
more contrary a thing is the more it is felt. And then too,
accidentally, in so far as the senses are requisite for pleasure and
pain, pain is shunned more than pleasure is sought.

Reply Obj. 3: A brave man is not praised because, in accordance with
reason, he is not overcome by any kind of sorrow or pain whatever,
but because he is not overcome by that which is concerned with the
dangers of death. And this kind of sorrow is more shunned, than
pleasures of the table or of sexual intercourse are sought, which
latter pleasures are the object of temperance: thus life is loved
more than food and sexual pleasure. But the temperate man is praised
for refraining from pleasures of touch, more than for not shunning
the pains which are contrary to them, as is stated in _Ethic._ iii,
11.
________________________

SEVENTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 35, Art. 7]

Whether Outward Pain Is Greater Than Interior Sorrow?

Objection 1: It would seem that outward pain is greater than interior
sorrow of the heart. Because outward pain arises from a cause
repugnant to the well-being of the body in which is life: whereas
interior sorrow is caused by some evil in the imagination. Since,
therefore, life is loved more than an imagined good, it seems that,
according to what has been said above (A. 6), outward pain is greater
than interior sorrow.

Obj. 2: Further, the reality moves more than its likeness does. But
outward pain arises from the real conjunction of some contrary;
whereas inward sorrow arises from the apprehended likeness of a
contrary. Therefore outward pain is greater than inward sorrow.

Obj. 3: Further, a cause is known by its effect. But outward pain has
more striking effects: since man dies sooner of outward pain than of
interior sorrow. Therefore outward pain is greater and is shunned
more than interior sorrow.

_On the contrary,_ it is written (Ecclus. 25:17): "The sadness of the
heart is every wound [Douay: 'plague'], and the wickedness of a woman
is all evil." Therefore, just as the wickedness of a woman surpasses
all other wickedness, as the text implies; so sadness of the heart
surpasses every outward wound.

_I answer that,_ Interior and exterior pain agree in one point and
differ in two. They agree in this, that each is a movement of the
appetitive power, as stated above (A. 1). But they differ in respect
of those two things which are requisite for pain and pleasure;
namely, in respect of the cause, which is a conjoined good or evil;
and in respect of the apprehension. For the cause of outward pain is
a conjoined evil repugnant to the body; while the cause of inward
pain is a conjoined evil repugnant to the appetite. Again, outward
pain arises from an apprehension of sense, chiefly of touch; while
inward pain arises from an interior apprehension, of the imagination
or of the reason.

If then we compare the cause of inward pain to the cause of outward
pain, the former belongs, of itself, to the appetite to which both
these pains belong: while the latter belongs to the appetite
directly. Because inward pain arises from something being repugnant
to the appetite itself, while outward pain arises from something
being repugnant to the appetite, through being repugnant to the body.
Now, that which is of itself is always prior to that which is by
reason of another. Wherefore, from this point of view, inward pain
surpasses outward pain. In like manner also on the part of
apprehension: because the apprehension of reason and imagination is
of a higher order than the apprehension of the sense of touch.
Consequently inward pain is, simply and of itself, more keen than
outward pain: a sign whereof is that one willingly undergoes outward
pain in order to avoid inward pain: and in so far as outward pain is
not repugnant to the interior appetite, it becomes in a manner
pleasant and agreeable by way of inward joy. Sometimes, however,
outward pain is accompanied by inward pain, and then the pain is
increased. Because inward pain is not only greater than outward pain,
it is also more universal: since whatever is repugnant to the body,
can be repugnant to the interior appetite; and whatever is
apprehended by sense may be apprehended by imagination and reason,
but not conversely. Hence in the passage quoted above it is said
expressively: "Sadness of the heart is every wound," because even the
pains of outward wounds are comprised in the interior sorrows of the
heart.

Reply Obj. 1: Inward pain can also arise from things that are
destructive of life. And then the comparison of inward to outward
pain must not be taken in reference to the various evils that cause
pain; but in regard to the various ways in which this cause of pain
is compared to the appetite.

Reply Obj. 2: Inward pain is not caused by the apprehended likeness
of a thing: for a man is not inwardly pained by the apprehended
likeness itself, but by the thing which the likeness represents. And
this thing is all the more perfectly apprehended by means of its
likeness, as this likeness is more immaterial and abstract.
Consequently inward pain is, of itself, greater, as being caused by a
greater evil, forasmuch as evil is better known by an inward
apprehension.

Reply Obj. 3: Bodily changes are more liable to be caused by outward
pain, both from the fact that outward pain is caused by a corruptive
conjoined corporally, which is a necessary condition of the sense of
touch; and from the fact that the outward sense is more material than
the inward sense, just as the sensitive appetite is more material
than the intellective. For this reason, as stated above (Q. 22, A. 3;
Q. 31, A. 5), the body undergoes a greater change from the movement
of the sensitive appetite: and, in like manner, from outward than
from inward pain.
________________________

EIGHTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 35, Art. 8]

Whether There Are Only Four Species of Sorrow?

Objection 1: It would seem that Damascene's (De Fide Orth. ii, 14)
division of sorrow into four species is incorrect; viz. into "torpor,
distress," which Gregory of Nyssa [*Nemesius, De Nat. Hom. xix.]
calls "anxiety,"--"pity," and "envy." For sorrow is contrary to
pleasure. But there are not several species of pleasure. Therefore it
is incorrect to assign different species of sorrow.

Obj. 2: Further, _Repentance_ is a species of sorrow; and so are
_indignation_ and _jealousy,_ as the Philosopher states (Rhet. ii, 9,
11). But these are not included in the above species. Therefore this
division is insufficient.

Obj. 3: Further, the members of a division should be things that are
opposed to one another. But these species are not opposed to one
another. For according to Gregory [*Nemesius, De Nat. Hom. xix.]
"torpor is sorrow depriving of speech; anxiety is the sorrow that
weighs down; envy is sorrow for another's good; pity is sorrow for
another's wrongs." But it is possible for one to sorrow for another's
wrongs, and for another's good, and at the same time to be weighed
down inwardly, and outwardly to be speechless. Therefore this
division is incorrect.

_On the contrary,_ stands the twofold authority of Gregory of Nyssa
[*Nemesius] and of Damascene.

_I answer that,_ It belongs to the notion of a species that it is
something added to the genus. But a thing can be added to a genus in
two ways. First, as something belonging of itself to the genus, and
virtually contained therein: thus "rational" is added to "animal."
Such an addition makes true species of a genus: as the Philosopher
says (Metaph. vii, 12; viii, 2, 3). But, secondly, a thing may be
added to a genus, that is, as it were, foreign to the notion conveyed
by that genus: thus "white" or something of the kind may be added to
"animal." Such an addition does not make true species of the genus,
according to the usual sense in which we speak of genera and species.
But sometimes a thing is said to be a species of a certain genus,
through having something foreign to that genus indeed, but to which
the notion of that genus is applicable: thus a live coal or a flame
is said to be a species of fire, because in each of them the nature
of fire is applied to a foreign matter. In like manner we speak of
astronomy and perspective as being species of mathematics, inasmuch
as the principles of mathematics are applied to natural matter.

In accordance with this manner of speaking, the species of sorrow
are reckoned by an application of the notion of sorrow to something
foreign to it. This foreign matter may be taken on the part of the
cause or the object, or of the effect. For the proper object of
sorrow is _one's own evil._ Hence sorrow may be concerned for an
object foreign to it either through one's being sorry for an evil
that is not one's own; and thus we have _pity_ which is sorrow for
another's evil, considered, however, as one's own: or through one's
being sorry for something that is neither evil nor one's own, but
another's good, considered, however, as one's own evil: and thus we
have _envy._ The proper effect of sorrow consists in a certain
_flight of the appetite._ Wherefore the foreign element in the effect
of sorrow, may be taken so as to affect the first part only, by
excluding flight: and thus we have _anxiety_ which weighs on the
mind, so as to make escape seem impossible: hence it is also called
_perplexity._ If, however, the mind be weighed down so much, that
even the limbs become motionless, which belongs to _torpor,_ then we
have the foreign element affecting both, since there is neither
flight, nor is the effect in the appetite. And the reason why torpor
especially is said to deprive one of speech is because of all the
external movements the voice is the best expression of the inward
thought and desire, not only in men, but also in other animals, as is
stated in _Polit._ i, 1.

Reply Obj. 1: Pleasure is caused by good, which has only one meaning:
and so pleasure is not divided into several species as sorrow is; for
the latter is caused by evil, which "happens in many ways," as
Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv).

Reply Obj. 2: Repentance is for one's own evil, which is the proper
object of sorrow: wherefore it does not belong to these species.
Jealousy and indignation are included in envy, as we shall explain
later (II-II, Q. 36, A. 2).

Reply Obj. 3: This division is not according to opposite species; but
according to the diversity of foreign matter to which the notion of
sorrow is applied, as stated above.
________________________

QUESTION 36

OF THE CAUSES OF SORROW OR PAIN
(In Four Articles)

We must now consider the causes of sorrow: under which head there are
four points of inquiry:

(1) Whether sorrow is caused by the loss of a good or rather by the
presence of an evil?

(2) Whether desire is a cause of sorrow?

(3) Whether the craving for unity is a cause of sorrow?

(4) Whether an irresistible power is a cause of sorrow?
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 36, Art. 1]

Whether Sorrow Is Caused by the Loss of Good or by the Presence of
Evil?

Objection 1: It would seem that sorrow is caused by the loss of a
good rather than by the presence of an evil. For Augustine says (De
viii QQ. Dulcit. qu. 1) that sorrow is caused by the loss of temporal
goods. Therefore, in like manner, every sorrow is caused by the loss
of some good.

Obj. 2: Further, it was said above (Q. 35, A. 4) that the sorrow
which is contrary to a pleasure, has the same object as that
pleasure. But the object of pleasure is good, as stated above (Q. 23,
A. 4; Q. 31, A. 1; Q. 35, A. 3). Therefore sorrow is caused chiefly
by the loss of good.

Obj. 3: Further, according to Augustine (De Civ. Dei xiv, 7, 9), love
is the cause of sorrow, as of the other emotions of the soul. But the
object of love is good. Therefore pain or sorrow is felt for the loss
of good rather than for an evil that is present.

_On the contrary,_ Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii, 12) that "the
dreaded evil gives rise to fear, the present evil is the cause of
sorrow."

_I answer that,_ If privations, as considered by the mind, were what
they are in reality, this question would seem to be of no importance.
For, as stated in the First Part (Q. 14, A. 10; Q. 48, A. 3), evil is
the privation of good: and privation is in reality nothing else than
the lack of the contrary habit; so that, in this respect, to sorrow
for the loss of good, would be the same as to sorrow for the presence
of evil. But sorrow is a movement of the appetite in consequence of
an apprehension: and even a privation, as apprehended, has the aspect
of a being, wherefore it is called "a being of reason." And in this
way evil, being a privation, is regarded as a "contrary."
Accordingly, so far as the movement of the appetite is concerned, it
makes a difference which of the two it regards chiefly, the present
evil or the good which is lost.

Again, since the movement of the animal appetite holds the same place
in the actions of the soul, as natural movement in natural things;
the truth of the matter is to be found by considering natural
movements. For if, in natural movements, we observe those of approach
and withdrawal, approach is of itself directed to something suitable
to nature; while withdrawal is of itself directed to something
contrary to nature; thus a heavy body, of itself, withdraws from a
higher place, and approaches naturally to a lower place. But if we
consider the cause of both these movements, viz. gravity, then
gravity itself inclines towards the lower place more than it
withdraws from the higher place, since withdrawal from the latter is
the reason for its downward tendency.

Accordingly, since, in the movements of the appetite, sorrow is a
kind of flight or withdrawal, while pleasure is a kind of pursuit or
approach; just as pleasure regards first the good possessed, as its
proper object, so sorrow regards the evil that is present. On the
other hand love, which is the cause of pleasure and sorrow, regards
good rather than evil: and therefore, forasmuch as the object is the
cause of a passion, the present evil is more properly the cause of
sorrow or pain, than the good which is lost.

Reply Obj. 1: The loss itself of good is apprehended as an evil, just
as the loss of evil is apprehended as a good: and in this sense
Augustine says that pain results from the loss of temporal goods.

Reply Obj. 2: Pleasure and its contrary pain have the same object,
but under contrary aspects: because if the presence of a particular
thing be the object of pleasure, the absence of that same thing is
the object of sorrow. Now one contrary includes the privation of the
other, as stated in _Metaph._ x, 4: and consequently sorrow in
respect of one contrary is, in a way, directed to the same thing
under a contrary aspect.

Reply Obj. 3: When many movements arise from one cause, it does not
follow that they all regard chiefly that which the cause regards
chiefly, but only the first of them. And each of the others regards
chiefly that which is suitable to it according to its own nature.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 36, Art. 2]

Whether Desire Is a Cause of Sorrow?

Objection 1: It would seem that desire is not a cause of pain or
sorrow. Because sorrow of itself regards evil, as stated above (A.
1): whereas desire is a movement of the appetite towards good. Now
movement towards one contrary is not a cause of movement towards the
other contrary. Therefore desire is not a cause of pain.

Obj. 2: Further, pain, according to Damascene (De Fide Orth. ii, 12),
is caused by something present; whereas the object of desire is
something future. Therefore desire is not a cause of pain.

Obj. 3: Further, that which is pleasant in itself is not a cause of
pain. But desire is pleasant in itself, as the Philosopher says
(Rhet. i, 11). Therefore desire is not a cause of pain or sorrow.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (Enchiridion xxiv): "When ignorance
of things necessary to be done, and desire of things hurtful, found
their way in: error and pain stole an entrance in their company." But
ignorance is the cause of error. Therefore desire is a cause of
sorrow.

_I answer that,_ Sorrow is a movement of the animal appetite. Now,
as stated above (A. 1), the appetitive movement is likened to the
natural appetite; a likeness, that may be assigned to a twofold
cause; one, on the part of the end, the other, on the part of the
principle of movement. Thus, on the part of the end, the cause of a
heavy body's downward movement is the lower place; while the
principle of that movement is a natural inclination resulting from
gravity.

Now the cause of the appetitive movement, on the part of the end, is
the object of that movement. And thus, it has been said above (A. 1)
that the cause of pain or sorrow is a present evil. On the other
hand, the cause, by way of principle, of that movement, is the inward
inclination of the appetite; which inclination regards, first of all,
the good, and in consequence, the rejection of a contrary evil. Hence
the first principle of this appetitive movement is love, which is the
first inclination of the appetite towards the possession of good:
while the second principle is hatred, which is the first inclination
of the appetite towards the avoidance of evil. But since
concupiscence or desire is the first effect of love, which gives rise
to the greatest pleasure, as stated above (Q. 32, A. 6); hence it is
that Augustine often speaks of desire or concupiscence in the sense
of love, as was also stated (Q. 30, A. 2, ad 2): and in this sense he
says that desire is the universal cause of sorrow. Sometimes,
however, desire taken in its proper sense, is the cause of sorrow.
Because whatever hinders a movement from reaching its end is contrary
to that movement. Now that which is contrary to the movement of the
appetite, is a cause of sorrow. Consequently, desire becomes a cause
of sorrow, in so far as we sorrow for the delay of a desired good, or
for its entire removal. But it cannot be a universal cause of sorrow:
since we sorrow more for the loss of present good, in which we have
already taken pleasure, than for the withdrawal of future good which
we desire to have.

Reply Obj. 1: The inclination of the appetite to the possession of
good causes the inclination of the appetite to fly from evil, as
stated above. And hence it is that the appetitive movements that
regard good, are reckoned as causing the appetitive movements that
regard evil.

Reply Obj. 2: That which is desired, though really future, is,
nevertheless, in a way, present, inasmuch as it is hoped for. Or we
may say that although the desired good itself is future, yet the
hindrance is reckoned as present, and so gives rise to sorrow.

Reply Obj. 3: Desire gives pleasure, so long as there is hope of
obtaining that which is desired. But, when hope is removed through
the presence of an obstacle, desire causes sorrow.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 36, Art. 3]

Whether the Craving for Unity Is a Cause of Sorrow?

Objection 1: It would seem that the craving for unity is not a cause
of sorrow. For the Philosopher says (Ethic. x, 3) that "this
opinion," which held repletion to be the cause of pleasure, and
division [*Aristotle wrote _endeian_, 'want'; St. Thomas, in the
Latin version, read 'incisionem'; should he have read
'indigentiam'?], the cause of sorrow, "seems to have originated in
pains and pleasures connected with food." But not every pleasure or
sorrow is of this kind. Therefore the craving for unity is not the
universal cause of sorrow; since repletion pertains to unity, and
division is the cause of multitude.

Obj. 2: Further, every separation is opposed to unity. If therefore
sorrow were caused by a craving for unity, no separation would be
pleasant: and this is clearly untrue as regards the separation of
whatever is superfluous.

Obj. 3: Further, for the same reason we desire the conjunction of
good and the removal of evil. But as conjunction regards unity, since
it is a kind of union; so separation is contrary to unity. Therefore
the craving for unity should not be reckoned, rather than the craving
for separation, as causing sorrow.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Lib. Arb. iii, 23), that "from
the pain that dumb animals feel, it is quite evident how their souls
desire unity, in ruling and quickening their bodies. For what else is
pain but a feeling of impatience of division or corruption?"

_I answer that,_ Forasmuch as the desire or craving for good is
reckoned as a cause of sorrow, so must a craving for unity, and love,
be accounted as causing sorrow. Because the good of each thing
consists in a certain unity, inasmuch as each thing has, united in
itself, the elements of which its perfection consists: wherefore the
Platonists held that _one_ is a principle, just as _good_ is. Hence
everything naturally desires unity, just as it desires goodness: and
therefore, just as love or desire for good is a cause of sorrow, so
also is the love or craving for unity.

Reply Obj. 1: Not every kind of union causes perfect goodness, but
only that on which the perfect being of a thing depends. Hence
neither does the desire of any kind of unity cause pain or sorrow, as
some have maintained: whose opinion is refuted by the Philosopher
from the fact that repletion is not always pleasant; for instance,
when a man has eaten to repletion, he takes no further pleasure in
eating; because repletion or union of this kind, is repugnant rather
than conducive to perfect being. Consequently sorrow is caused by the
craving, not for any kind of unity, but for that unity in which the
perfection of nature consists.

Reply Obj. 2: Separation can be pleasant, either because it removes
something contrary to a thing's perfection, or because it has some
union connected with it, such as union of the sense to its object.

Reply Obj. 3: Separation from things hurtful and corruptive is
desired, in so far as they destroy the unity which is due. Wherefore
the desire for such like separation is not the first cause of sorrow,
whereas the craving for unity is.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 36, Art. 4]

Whether an Irresistible Power Is a Cause of Sorrow?

Objection 1: It would seem that a greater power should not be
reckoned a cause of sorrow. For that which is in the power of the
agent is not present but future. But sorrow is for present evil.
Therefore a greater power is not a cause of sorrow.

Obj. 2: Further, hurt inflicted is the cause of sorrow. But hurt can
be inflicted even by a lesser power. Therefore a greater power should
not be reckoned as a cause of sorrow.

Obj. 3: Further, the interior inclinations of the soul are the causes
of the movements of appetite. But a greater power is something
external. Therefore it should not be reckoned as a cause of sorrow.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Nat. Boni xx): "Sorrow in the
soul is caused by the will resisting a stronger power: while pain in
the body is caused by sense resisting a stronger body."

_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1), a present evil, is cause of
sorrow or pain, by way of object. Therefore that which is the cause
of the evil being present, should be reckoned as causing pain or
sorrow. Now it is evident that it is contrary to the inclination of
the appetite to be united with a present evil: and whatever is
contrary to a thing's inclination does not happen to it save by the
action of something stronger. Wherefore Augustine reckons a greater
power as being the cause of sorrow.

But it must be noted that if the stronger power goes so far as to
transform the contrary inclination into its own inclination there
will be no longer repugnance or violence: thus if a stronger agent,
by its action on a heavy body, deprives it of its downward tendency,
its consequent upward tendency is not violent but natural to it.

Accordingly if some greater power prevail so far as to take away from
the will or the sensitive appetite, their respective inclinations,
pain or sorrow will not result therefrom; such is the result only
when the contrary inclination of the appetite remains. And hence
Augustine says (De Nat. Boni xx) that sorrow is caused by the will
"resisting a stronger power": for were it not to resist, but to yield
by consenting, the result would be not sorrow but pleasure.

Reply Obj. 1: A greater power causes sorrow, as acting not
potentially but actually, i.e. by causing the actual presence of the
corruptive evil.

Reply Obj. 2: Nothing hinders a power which is not simply greater,
from being greater in some respect: and accordingly it is able to
inflict some harm. But if it be nowise stronger, it can do no harm at
all: wherefore it cannot bring about that which causes sorrow.

Reply Obj. 3: External agents can be the causes of appetitive
movements, in so far as they cause the presence of the object: and it
is thus that a greater power is reckoned to be the cause of sorrow.
________________________

QUESTION 37

OF THE EFFECTS OF PAIN OR SORROW
(In Four Articles)

We must now consider the effects of pain or of sorrow: under which
head there are four points of inquiry:

(1) Whether pain deprives one of the power to learn?

(2) Whether the effect of sorrow or pain is to burden the soul?

(3) Whether sorrow or pain weakens all activity?

(4) Whether sorrow is more harmful to the body than all the other
passions of the soul?
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 37, Art. 1]

Whether Pain Deprives One of the Power to Learn?

Objection 1: It would seem that pain does not deprive one of the
power to learn. For it is written (Isa. 26:9): "When Thou shalt do
Thy judgments on the earth, the inhabitants of the world shall learn
justice": and further on (verse 16): "In the tribulation of murmuring
Thy instruction was with them." But the judgments of God and
tribulation cause sorrow in men's hearts. Therefore pain or sorrow,
far from destroying, increases the power of learning.

Obj. 2: Further, it is written (Isa. 28:9): "Whom shall He teach
knowledge? And whom shall He make to understand the hearing? Them
that are weaned from the milk, that are drawn away from the breasts,"
i.e. from pleasures. But pain and sorrow are most destructive of
pleasure; since sorrow hinders all pleasure, as stated in _Ethic._
vii, 14: and (Ecclus. 11:29) it is stated that "the affliction of an
hour maketh one forget great delights." Therefore pain, instead of
taking away, increases the faculty of learning.

Obj. 3: Further, inward sorrow surpasses outward pain, as stated
above (Q. 35, A. 7). But man can learn while sorrowful. Much more,
therefore, can he learn while in bodily pain.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (Soliloq. i, 12): "Although during
those days I was tormented with a violent tooth-ache, I was not able
to turn over in my mind other things than those I had already learnt;
and as to learning anything, I was quite unequal to it, because it
required undivided attention."

_I answer that,_ Since all the powers of the soul are rooted in the
one essence of the soul, it must needs happen, when the intention of
the soul is strongly drawn towards the action of one power, that it
is withdrawn from the action of another power: because the soul,
being one, can only have one intention. The result is that if one
thing draws upon itself the entire intention of the soul, or a great
portion thereof, anything else requiring considerable attention is
incompatible therewith.

Now it is evident that sensible pain above all draws the soul's
attention to itself; because it is natural for each thing to tend
wholly to repel whatever is contrary to it, as may be observed even
in natural things. It is likewise evident that in order to learn
anything new, we require study and effort with a strong intention,
as is clearly stated in Prov. 2:4, 5: "If thou shalt seek wisdom as
money, and shall dig for her as for a treasure, then shalt thou
understand learning" [Vulg: 'the fear of the Lord']. Consequently if
the pain be acute, man is prevented at the time from learning
anything: indeed it can be so acute, that, as long as it lasts, a man
is unable to give his attention even to that which he knew already.
However a difference is to be observed according to the difference of
love that a man has for learning or for considering: because the
greater his love, the more will he retain the intention of his mind
so as to prevent it from turning entirely to the pain.

Reply Obj. 1: Moderate sorrow, that does not cause the mind to
wander, can conduce to the acquisition of learning especially in
regard to those things by which a man hopes to be freed from sorrow.
And thus, "in the tribulation of murmuring," men are more apt to be
taught by God.

Reply Obj. 2: Both pleasure and pain, in so far as they draw upon
themselves the soul's intention, hinder the reason from the act of
consideration, wherefore it is stated in _Ethic._ vii, 11 that "in
the moment of sexual pleasure, a man cannot understand anything."
Nevertheless pain attracts the soul's intention more than pleasure
does: thus we observe in natural things that the action of a natural
body is more intense in regard to its contrary; for instance, hot
water is more accessible to the action of cold, and in consequence
freezes harder. If therefore pain or sorrow be moderate, it can
conduce accidentally to the facility of learning, in so far as it
takes away an excess of pleasure. But, of itself, it is a hindrance;
and if it be intense, it prevents it altogether.

Reply Obj. 3: External pain arises from hurt done to the body, so
that it involves bodily transmutation more than inward sorrow does:
and yet the latter is greater in regard to the formal element of pain,
which belongs to the soul. Consequently bodily pain is a greater
hindrance to contemplation which requires complete repose, than inward
sorrow is. Nevertheless if inward sorrow be very intense, it attracts
the intention, so that man is unable to learn anything for the first
time: wherefore on account of sorrow Gregory interrupted his
commentary on Ezechiel (Hom. xxii in Ezechiel).
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 37, Art. 2]

Whether the Effect of Sorrow or Pain Is to Burden the Soul?

Objection 1: It would seem that it is not an effect of sorrow to
burden the soul. For the Apostle says (2 Cor. 7:11): "Behold this
self-same thing, that you were made sorrowful according to God, how
great carefulness it worketh in you: yea, defence, yea indignation,"
etc. Now carefulness and indignation imply that the soul is uplifted,
which is contrary to being depressed. Therefore depression is not an
effect of sorrow.

Obj. 2: Further, sorrow is contrary to pleasure. But the effect of
pleasure is expansion: the opposite of which is not depression but
contraction. Therefore depression should not be reckoned as an effect
of sorrow.

Obj. 3: Further, sorrow consumes those who are inflicted therewith,
as may be gathered from the words of the Apostle (2 Cor. 2:7): "Lest
perhaps such an one be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow." But that
which is depressed is not consumed; nay, it is weighed down by
something heavy, whereas that which is consumed enters within the
consumer. Therefore depression should not be reckoned an effect of
sorrow.

_On the contrary,_ Gregory of Nyssa [*Nemesius, De Nat. Hom. xix.]
and Damascene (De Fide Orth. ii, 14) speak of "depressing sorrow."

_I answer that,_ The effects of the soul's passions are sometimes
named metaphorically, from a likeness to sensible bodies: for the
reason that the movements of the animal appetite are like the
inclinations of the natural appetite. And in this way fervor is
ascribed to love, expansion to pleasure, and depression to sorrow.
For a man is said to be depressed, through being hindered in his own
movement by some weight. Now it is evident from what has been said
above (Q. 23, A. 4; Q. 25, A. 4; Q. 36, A. 1) that sorrow is caused
by a present evil: and this evil, from the very fact that it is
repugnant to the movement of the will, depresses the soul, inasmuch
as it hinders it from enjoying that which it wishes to enjoy. And if
the evil which is the cause of sorrow be not so strong as to deprive
one of the hope of avoiding it, although the soul be depressed in so
far as, for the present, it fails to grasp that which it craves for;
yet it retains the movement whereby to repulse that evil. If, on the
other hand, the strength of the evil be such as to exclude the hope
of evasion, then even the interior movement of the afflicted soul is
absolutely hindered, so that it cannot turn aside either this way or
that. Sometimes even the external movement of the body is paralyzed,
so that a man becomes completely stupefied.

Reply Obj. 1: That uplifting of the soul ensues from the sorrow which
is according to God, because it brings with it the hope of the
forgiveness of sin.

Reply Obj. 2: As far as the movement of the appetite is concerned,
contraction and depression amount to the same: because the soul,
through being depressed so as to be unable to attend freely to
outward things, withdraws to itself, closing itself up as it were.

Reply Obj. 3: Sorrow is said to consume man, when the force of the
afflicting evil is such as to shut out all hope of evasion: and thus
also it both depresses and consumes at the same time. For certain
things, taken metaphorically, imply one another, which taken
literally, appear to exclude one another.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 37, Art. 3]

Whether Sorrow or Pain Weakens All Activity?

Objection 1: It would seem that sorrow does not weaken all activity.
Because carefulness is caused by sorrow, as is clear from the passage
of the Apostle quoted above (A. 2, Obj. 1). But carefulness conduces
to good work: wherefore the Apostle says (2 Tim. 2:15): "Carefully
study to present thyself . . . a workman that needeth not to be
ashamed." Therefore sorrow is not a hindrance to work, but helps one
to work well.

Obj. 2: Further, sorrow causes desire in many cases, as stated in
_Ethic._ vii, 14. But desire causes intensity of action. Therefore
sorrow does too.

Obj. 3: Further, as some actions are proper to the joyful, so are
others proper to the sorrowful; for instance, to mourn. Now a thing
is improved by that which is suitable to it. Therefore certain
actions are not hindered but improved by reason of sorrow.

_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher says (Ethic. x, 4) that "pleasure
perfects action," whereas on the other hand, "sorrow hinders it"
(Ethic. x, 5).

_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 2), sorrow at times does not
depress or consume the soul, so as to shut out all movement, internal
or external; but certain movements are sometimes caused by sorrow
itself. Accordingly action stands in a twofold relation to sorrow.
First, as being the object of sorrow: and thus sorrow hinders any
action: for we never do that which we do with sorrow, so well as that
which we do with pleasure, or without sorrow. The reason for this is
that the will is the cause of human actions: and consequently when we
do something that gives pain, the action must of necessity be
weakened in consequence. Secondly, action stands in relation to
sorrow, as to its principle and cause: and such action must needs be
improved by sorrow: thus the more one sorrows on account of a certain
thing, the more one strives to shake off sorrow, provided there is a
hope of shaking it off: otherwise no movement or action would result
from that sorrow.

From what has been said the replies to the objections are evident.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 37, Art. 4]

Whether Sorrow Is More Harmful to the Body Than the Other Passions of
the Soul?

Objection 1: It would seem that sorrow is not most harmful to the
body. For sorrow has a spiritual existence in the soul. But those
things which have only a spiritual existence do not cause a
transmutation in the body: as is evident with regard to the images of
colors, which images are in the air and do not give color to bodies.
Therefore sorrow is not harmful to the body.

Obj. 2: Further if it be harmful to the body, this can only be due to
its having a bodily transmutation in conjunction with it. But bodily
transmutation takes place in all the passions of the soul, as stated
above (Q. 22, AA. 1, 3). Therefore sorrow is not more harmful to the
body than the other passions of the soul.

Obj. 3: Further, the Philosopher says (Ethic. vii, 3) that "anger and
desire drive some to madness": which seems to be a very great harm,
since reason is the most excellent thing in man. Moreover, despair
seems to be more harmful than sorrow; for it is the cause of sorrow.
Therefore sorrow is not more harmful to the body than the other
passions of the soul.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Prov. 17:22): "A joyful mind maketh
age flourishing: a sorrowful spirit drieth up the bones": and (Prov.
25:20): "As a moth doth by a garment, and a worm by the wood: so the
sadness of a man consumeth the heart": and (Ecclus. 38:19): "Of
sadness cometh death."

_I answer that,_ Of all the soul's passions, sorrow is most harmful
to the body. The reason of this is because sorrow is repugnant to
man's life in respect of the species of its movement, and not merely
in respect of its measure or quantity, as is the case with the other
passions of the soul. For man's life consists in a certain movement,
which flows from the heart to the other parts of the body: and this
movement is befitting to human nature according to a certain fixed
measure. Consequently if this movement goes beyond the right measure,
it will be repugnant to man's life in respect of the measure of
quantity; but not in respect of its specific character: whereas if
this movement be hindered in its progress, it will be repugnant to
life in respect of its species.

Now it must be noted that, in all the passions of the soul, the
bodily transmutation which is their material element, is in
conformity with and in proportion to the appetitive movement, which
is the formal element: just as in everything matter is proportionate
to form. Consequently those passions that imply a movement of the
appetite in pursuit of something, are not repugnant to the vital
movement as regards its species, but they may be repugnant thereto as
regards its measure: such are love, joy, desire and the like;
wherefore these passions conduce to the well-being of the body;
though, if they be excessive, they may be harmful to it. On the other
hand, those passions which denote in the appetite a movement of
flight or contraction, are repugnant to the vital movement, not only
as regards its measure, but also as regards its species; wherefore
they are simply harmful: such are fear and despair, and above all
sorrow which depresses the soul by reason of a present evil, which
makes a stronger impression than future evil.

Reply Obj. 1: Since the soul naturally moves the body, the spiritual
movement of the soul is naturally the cause of bodily transmutation.
Nor is there any parallel with spiritual images, because they are not
naturally ordained to move such other bodies as are not naturally
moved by the soul.

Reply Obj. 2: Other passions imply a bodily transmutation
which is specifically in conformity with the vital movement: whereas
sorrow implies a transmutation that is repugnant thereto, as stated
above.

Reply Obj. 3: A lesser cause suffices to hinder the use of
reason, than to destroy life: since we observe that many ailments
deprive one of the use of reason, before depriving one of life.
Nevertheless fear and anger cause very great harm to the body, by
reason of the sorrow which they imply, and which arises from the
absence of the thing desired. Moreover sorrow too sometimes deprives
man of the use of reason: as may be seen in those who through sorrow
become a prey to melancholy or madness.
________________________

QUESTION 38

OF THE REMEDIES OF SORROW OR PAIN
(In Four Articles)

We must now consider the remedies of pain or sorrow: under which head
there are five points of inquiry:

(1) Whether pain or sorrow is assuaged by every pleasure?

(2) Whether it is assuaged by weeping?

(3) Whether it is assuaged by the sympathy of friends?

(4) Whether it is assuaged by contemplating the truth?

(5) Whether it is assuaged by sleep and baths?
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 38, Art. 1]

Whether Pain or Sorrow Is Assuaged by Every Pleasure?

Objection 1: It would seem that not every pleasure assuages every
pain or sorrow. For pleasure does not assuage sorrow, save in so far
as it is contrary to it: for "remedies work by contraries" (Ethic.
ii, 3). But not every pleasure is contrary to every sorrow; as stated
above (Q. 35, A. 4). Therefore not every pleasure assuages every
sorrow.

Obj. 2: Further, that which causes sorrow does not assuage it. But
some pleasures cause sorrow; since, as stated in _Ethic._ ix, 4, "the
wicked man feels pain at having been pleased." Therefore not every
pleasure assuages sorrow.

Obj. 3: Further, Augustine says (Confess. iv, 7) that he fled from
his country, where he had been wont to associate with his friend, now
dead: "for so should his eyes look for him less, where they were not
wont to see him." Hence we may gather that those things which united
us to our dead or absent friends, become burdensome to us when we
mourn their death or absence. But nothing united us more than the
pleasures we enjoyed in common. Therefore these very pleasures become
burdensome to us when we mourn. Therefore not every pleasure assuages
every sorrow.

_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher says (Ethic. vii, 14) that "sorrow
is driven forth by pleasure, both by a contrary pleasure and by any
other, provided it be intense."

_I answer that,_ As is evident from what has been said above (Q. 23,
A. 4), pleasure is a kind of repose of the appetite in a suitable
good; while sorrow arises from something unsuited to the appetite.
Consequently in movements of the appetite pleasure is to sorrow,
what, in bodies, repose is to weariness, which is due to a
non-natural transmutation; for sorrow itself implies a certain
weariness or ailing of the appetitive faculty. Therefore just as all
repose of the body brings relief to any kind of weariness, ensuing
from any non-natural cause; so every pleasure brings relief by
assuaging any kind of sorrow, due to any cause whatever.

Reply Obj. 1: Although not every pleasure is specifically contrary to
every sorrow, yet it is generically, as stated above (Q. 35, A. 4).
And consequently, on the part of the disposition of the subject, any
sorrow can be assuaged by any pleasure.

Reply Obj. 2: The pleasures of wicked men are not a cause of sorrow
while they are enjoyed, but afterwards: that is to say, in so far as
wicked men repent of those things in which they took pleasure. This
sorrow is healed by contrary pleasures.

Reply Obj. 3: When there are two causes inclining to contrary
movements, each hinders the other; yet the one which is stronger and
more persistent, prevails in the end. Now when a man is made
sorrowful by those things in which he took pleasure in common with a
deceased or absent friend, there are two causes producing contrary
movements. For the thought of the friend's death or absence, inclines
him to sorrow: whereas the present good inclines him to pleasure.
Consequently each is modified by the other. And yet, since the
perception of the present moves more strongly than the memory of the
past, and since love of self is more persistent than love of another;
hence it is that, in the end, the pleasure drives out the sorrow.
Wherefore a little further on (Confess. iv, 8) Augustine says that
his "sorrow gave way to his former pleasures."
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 38, Art. 2]

Whether Pain or Sorrow Is Assuaged by Tears?

Objection 1: It would seem that tears do not assuage sorrow. Because
no effect diminishes its cause. But tears or groans are an effect of
sorrow. Therefore they do not diminish sorrow.

Obj. 2: Further, just as tears or groans are an effect of sorrow, so
laughter is an effect of joy. But laughter does not lessen joy.
Therefore tears do not lessen sorrow.

Obj. 3: Further, when we weep, the evil that saddens us is present to
the imagination. But the image of that which saddens us increases
sorrow, just as the image of a pleasant thing adds to joy. Therefore
it seems that tears do not assuage sorrow.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (Confess. iv, 7) that when he
mourned the death of his friend, "in groans and in tears alone did he
find some little refreshment."

_I answer that,_ Tears and groans naturally assuage sorrow: and this
for two reasons. First, because a hurtful thing hurts yet more if we
keep it shut up, because the soul is more intent on it: whereas if it
be allowed to escape, the soul's intention is dispersed as it were on
outward things, so that the inward sorrow is lessened. This is why
men, burdened with sorrow, make outward show of their sorrow, by
tears or groans or even by words, their sorrow is assuaged. Secondly,
because an action, that befits a man according to his actual
disposition, is always pleasant to him. Now tears and groans are
actions befitting a man who is in sorrow or pain; and consequently
they become pleasant to him. Since then, as stated above (A. 1),
every pleasure assuages sorrow or pain somewhat, it follows that
sorrow is assuaged by weeping and groans.

Reply Obj. 1: This relation of the cause to effect is opposed to the
relation existing between the cause of sorrow and the sorrowing man.
For every effect is suited to its cause, and consequently is pleasant
to it; but the cause of sorrow is disagreeable to him that sorrows.
Hence the effect of sorrow is not related to him that sorrows in the
same way as the cause of sorrow is. For this reason sorrow is
assuaged by its effect, on account of the aforesaid contrariety.

Reply Obj. 2: The relation of effect to cause is like the relation of
the object of pleasure to him that takes pleasure in it: because in
each case the one agrees with the other. Now every like thing
increases its like. Therefore joy is increased by laughter and the
other effects of joy: except they be excessive, in which case,
accidentally, they lessen it.

Reply Obj. 3: The image of that which saddens us, considered in
itself, has a natural tendency to increase sorrow: yet from the very
fact that a man imagines himself to be doing that which is fitting
according to his actual state, he feels a certain amount of pleasure.
For the same reason if laughter escapes a man when he is so disposed
that he thinks he ought to weep, he is sorry for it, as having done
something unbecoming to him, as Cicero says (De Tusc. Quaest. iii,
27).
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 38, Art. 3]

Whether Pain or Sorrow Are Assuaged by the Sympathy of Friends?

Objection 1: It would seem that the sorrow of sympathizing friends
does not assuage our own sorrow. For contraries have contrary
effects. Now as Augustine says (Confess. viii, 4), "when many rejoice
together, each one has more exuberant joy, for they are kindled and
inflamed one by the other." Therefore, in like manner, when many are
sorrowful, it seems that their sorrow is greater.

Obj. 2: Further, friendship demands mutual love, as Augustine
declares (Confess. iv, 9). But a sympathizing friend is pained at the
sorrow of his friend with whom he sympathizes. Consequently the pain
of a sympathizing friend becomes, to the friend in sorrow, a further
cause of sorrow: so that, his pain being doubled his sorrow seems to
increase.

Obj. 3: Further, sorrow arises from every evil affecting a friend, as
though it affected oneself: since "a friend is one's other self"
(Ethic. ix, 4, 9). But sorrow is an evil. Therefore the sorrow of the
sympathizing friend increases the sorrow of the friend with whom he
sympathizes.

_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher says (Ethic. ix, 11) that those
who are in pain are consoled when their friends sympathize with them.

_I answer that,_ When one is in pain, it is natural that the sympathy
of a friend should afford consolation: whereof the Philosopher
indicates a twofold reason (Ethic. ix, 11). The first is because,
since sorrow has a depressing effect, it is like a weight whereof we
strive to unburden ourselves: so that when a man sees others saddened
by his own sorrow, it seems as though others were bearing the burden
with him, striving, as it were, to lessen its weight; wherefore the
load of sorrow becomes lighter for him: something like what occurs in
the carrying of bodily burdens. The second and better reason is
because when a man's friends condole with him, he sees that he is
loved by them, and this affords him pleasure, as stated above (Q. 32,
A. 5). Consequently, since every pleasure assuages sorrow, as stated
above (A. 1), it follows that sorrow is mitigated by a sympathizing
friend.

Reply Obj. 1: In either case there is a proof of friendship, viz.
when a man rejoices with the joyful, and when he sorrows with the
sorrowful. Consequently each becomes an object of pleasure by reason
of its cause.

Reply Obj. 2: The friend's sorrow itself would be a cause of sorrow:
but consideration of its cause, viz. his love, gives rise rather to
pleasure.

And this suffices for the reply to the Third Objection.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 38, Art. 4]

Whether Pain and Sorrow Are Assuaged by the Contemplation of Truth?

Objection 1: It would seem that the contemplation of truth does not
assuage sorrow. For it is written (Eccles. 1:18): "He that addeth
knowledge addeth also sorrow" [Vulg.: 'labor']. But knowledge
pertains to the contemplation of truth. Therefore the contemplation
of truth does not assuage sorrow.

Obj. 2: Further, the contemplation of truth belongs to the
speculative intellect. But "the speculative intellect is not a
principle of movement"; as stated in _De Anima_ iii, 11. Therefore,
since joy and sorrow are movements of the soul, it seems that the
contemplation of truth does not help to assuage sorrow.

Obj. 3: Further, the remedy for an ailment should be applied to the
part which ails. But contemplation of truth is in the intellect.
Therefore it does not assuage bodily pain, which is in the senses.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (Soliloq. i, 12): "It seemed to me
that if the light of that truth were to dawn on our minds, either I
should not feel that pain, or at least that pain would seem nothing
to me."

_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 3, A. 5), the greatest of all
pleasures consists in the contemplation of truth. Now every pleasure
assuages pain as stated above (A. 1): hence the contemplation of
truth assuages pain or sorrow, and the more so, the more perfectly
one is a lover of wisdom. And therefore in the midst of tribulations
men rejoice in the contemplation of Divine things and of future
Happiness, according to James 1:2: "My brethren, count it all joy,
when you shall fall into divers temptations": and, what is more, even
in the midst of bodily tortures this joy is found; as the "martyr
Tiburtius, when he was walking barefoot on the burning coals, said:
Methinks, I walk on roses, in the name of Jesus Christ." [*Cf.
Dominican Breviary, August 11th, commemoration of St. Tiburtius.]

Reply Obj. 1: "He that addeth knowledge, addeth sorrow," either on
account of the difficulty and disappointment in the search for truth;
or because knowledge makes man acquainted with many things that are
contrary to his will. Accordingly, on the part of the things known,
knowledge causes sorrow: but on the part of the contemplation of
truth, it causes pleasure.

Reply Obj. 2: The speculative intellect does not move the mind on the
part of the thing contemplated: but on the part of contemplation
itself, which is man's good and naturally pleasant to him.

Reply Obj. 3: In the powers of the soul there is an overflow from the
higher to the lower powers: and accordingly, the pleasure of
contemplation, which is in the higher part, overflows so as to
mitigate even that pain which is in the senses.
________________________

FIFTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 38, Art. 5]

Whether Pain and Sorrow Are Assuaged by Sleep and Baths?

Objection 1: It would seem that sleep and baths do not assuage
sorrow. For sorrow is in the soul: whereas sleep and baths regard the
body. Therefore they do not conduce to the assuaging of sorrow.

Obj. 2: Further, the same effect does not seem to ensue from contrary
causes. But these, being bodily things, are incompatible with the
contemplation of truth which is a cause of the assuaging of sorrow,
as stated above (A. 4). Therefore sorrow is not mitigated by the like.

Obj. 3: Further, sorrow and pain, in so far as they affect the body,
denote a certain transmutation of the heart. But such remedies as
these seem to pertain to the outward senses and limbs, rather than to
the interior disposition of the heart. Therefore they do not assuage
sorrow.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (Confess. ix, 12): "I had heard
that the bath had its name [*_Balneum,_ from the Greek _balaneion_]
. . . from the fact of its driving sadness from the mind." And
further on, he says: "I slept, and woke up again, and found my grief
not a little assuaged": and quotes the words from the hymn of Ambrose
[*Cf. Sarum Breviary: First Sunday after the octave of the Epiphany,
Hymn for first Vespers], in which it is said that "Sleep restores the
tired limbs to labor, refreshes the weary mind, and banishes sorrow."

_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 37, A. 4), sorrow, by reason of
its specific nature, is repugnant to the vital movement of the body;
and consequently whatever restores the bodily nature to its due state
of vital movement, is opposed to sorrow and assuages it. Moreover
such remedies, from the very fact that they bring nature back to its
normal state, are causes of pleasure; for this is precisely in what
pleasure consists, as stated above (Q. 31, A. 1). Therefore, since
every pleasure assuages sorrow, sorrow is assuaged by such like
bodily remedies.

Reply Obj. 1: The normal disposition of the body, so far as it is
felt, is itself a cause of pleasure, and consequently assuages sorrow.

Reply Obj. 2: As stated above (Q. 31, A. 8), one pleasure hinders
another; and yet every pleasure assuages sorrow. Consequently it is
not unreasonable that sorrow should be assuaged by causes which
hinder one another.

Reply Obj. 3: Every good disposition of the body reacts somewhat on
the heart, which is the beginning and end of bodily movements, as
stated in _De Causa Mot. Animal._ xi.
________________________

QUESTION 39

OF THE GOODNESS AND MALICE OF SORROW OR PAIN
(In Four Articles)

We must now consider the goodness and malice of pain or sorrow:
under which head there are four points of inquiry:

(1) Whether all sorrow is evil?

(2) Whether sorrow can be a virtuous good?

(3) Whether it can be a useful good?

(4) Whether bodily pain is the greatest evil?
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 39, Art. 1]

Whether All Sorrow Is Evil?

Objection 1: It would seem that all sorrow is evil. For Gregory of
Nyssa [*Nemesius, De Nat. Hom. xix.] says: "All sorrow is evil, from
its very nature." Now what is naturally evil, is evil always and
everywhere. Therefore, all sorrow is evil.

Obj. 2: Further, that which all, even the virtuous, avoid, is evil.
But all avoid sorrow, even the virtuous, since as stated in _Ethic._
vii, 11, "though the prudent man does not aim at pleasure, yet he
aims at avoiding sorrow." Therefore sorrow is evil.

Obj. 3: Further, just as bodily evil is the object and cause of
bodily pain, so spiritual evil is the object and cause of sorrow in
the soul. But every bodily pain is a bodily evil. Therefore every
spiritual sorrow is an evil of the soul.

_On the contrary,_ Sorrow for evil is contrary to pleasure in evil.
But pleasure in evil is evil: wherefore in condemnation of certain
men, it is written (Prov. 2:14), that "they were glad when they had
done evil." Therefore sorrow for evil is good.

_I answer that,_ A thing may be good or evil in two ways: first
considered simply and in itself; and thus all sorrow is an evil,
because the mere fact of a man's appetite being uneasy about a
present evil, is itself an evil, because it hinders the response of
the appetite in good. Secondly, a thing is said to be good or evil,
on the supposition of something else: thus shame is said to be good,
on the supposition of a shameful deed done, as stated in _Ethic._ iv,
9. Accordingly, supposing the presence of something saddening or
painful, it is a sign of goodness if a man is in sorrow or pain on
account of this present evil. For if he were not to be in sorrow or
pain, this could only be either because he feels it not, or because
he does not reckon it as something unbecoming, both of which are
manifest evils. Consequently it is a condition of goodness, that,
supposing an evil to be present, sorrow or pain should ensue.
Wherefore Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. viii, 14): "It is also a good
thing that he sorrows for the good he has lost: for had not some good
remained in his nature, he could not be punished by the loss of
good." Because, however, in the science of Morals, we consider things
individually--for actions are concerned about individuals--that which
is good on some supposition, should be considered as good: just as
that which is voluntary on some supposition, is judged to be
voluntary, as stated in _Ethic._ iii, 1, and likewise above (Q. 6, A.
6).

Reply Obj. 1: Gregory of Nyssa [*Nemesius] is speaking of sorrow on
the part of the evil that causes it, but not on the part of the
subject that feels and rejects the evil. And from this point of view,
all shun sorrow, inasmuch as they shun evil: but they do not shun the
perception and rejection of evil. The same also applies to bodily
pain: because the perception and rejection of bodily evil is the
proof of the goodness of nature.

This suffices for the Replies to the Second and Third Objections.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 39, Art. 2]

Whether Sorrow Can Be a Virtuous Good?

Objection 1: It would seem that sorrow is not a virtuous good. For
that which leads to hell is not a virtuous good. But, as Augustine
says (Gen. ad lit. xii, 33), "Jacob seems to have feared lest he
should be troubled overmuch by sorrow, and so, instead of entering
into the rest of the blessed, be consigned to the hell of sinners."
Therefore sorrow is not a virtuous good.

Obj. 2: Further, the virtuous good is praiseworthy and meritorious.
But sorrow lessens praise or merit: for the Apostle says (2 Cor.
9:7): "Everyone, as he hath determined in his heart, not with
sadness, or of necessity." Therefore sorrow is not a virtuous good.

Obj. 3: Further, as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xiv, 15), "sorrow is
concerned about those things which happen against our will." But not
to will those things which are actually taking place, is to have a
will opposed to the decree of God, to Whose providence whatever is
done is subject. Since, then, conformity of the human to the Divine
will is a condition of the rectitude of the will, as stated above (Q.
19, A. 9), it seems that sorrow is incompatible with rectitude of the
will, and that consequently it is not virtuous.

_On the contrary,_ Whatever merits the reward of eternal life is
virtuous. But such is sorrow; as is evident from Matt. 5:5: "Blessed
are they that mourn, for they shall be comforted." Therefore sorrow
is a virtuous good.

_I answer that,_ In so far as sorrow is good, it can be a virtuous
good. For it has been said above (A. 1) that sorrow is a good
inasmuch as it denotes perception and rejection of evil. These two
things, as regards bodily pain, are a proof of the goodness of
nature, to which it is due that the senses perceive, and that nature
shuns, the harmful thing that causes pain. As regards interior
sorrow, perception of the evil is sometimes due to a right judgment
of reason; while the rejection of the evil is the act of the will,
well disposed and detesting that evil. Now every virtuous good
results from these two things, the rectitude of the reason and the
will. Wherefore it is evident that sorrow may be a virtuous good.

Reply Obj. 1: All the passions of the soul should be regulated
according to the rule of reason, which is the root of the virtuous
good; but excessive sorrow, of which Augustine is speaking, oversteps
this rule, and therefore it fails to be a virtuous good.

Reply Obj. 2: Just as sorrow for an evil arises from a right will and
reason, which detest the evil, so sorrow for a good is due to a
perverse reason and will, which detest the good. Consequently such
sorrow is an obstacle to the praise and merit of the virtuous good;
for instance, when a man gives an alms sorrowfully.

Reply Obj. 3: Some things do actually happen, not because God wills,
but because He permits them to happen--such as sins. Consequently a
will that is opposed to sin, whether in oneself or in another, is not
discordant from the Divine will. Penal evils happen actually, even by
God's will. But it is not necessary for the rectitude of his will,
that man should will them in themselves: but only that he should not
revolt against the order of Divine justice, as stated above (Q. 19,
A. 10).
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 39, Art. 3]

Whether Sorrow Can Be a Useful Good?

Objection 1: It would seem that sorrow cannot be a useful good. For
it is written (Ecclus. 30:25): "Sadness hath killed many, and there
is no profit in it."

Obj. 2: Further, choice is of that which is useful to an end. But
sorrow is not an object of choice; in fact, "a thing without sorrow
is to be chosen rather than the same thing with sorrow" (Topic. iii,
2). Therefore sorrow is not a useful good.

Obj. 3: Further, "Everything is for the sake of its own operation,"
as stated in _De Coelo_ ii, 3. But "sorrow hinders operation," as
stated in _Ethic._ x, 5. Therefore sorrow is not a useful good.

_On the contrary,_ The wise man seeks only that which is useful. But
according to Eccles. 7:5, "the heart of the wise is where there is
mourning, and the heart of fools where there is mirth." Therefore
sorrow is useful.

_I answer that,_ A twofold movement of the appetite ensues from a
present evil. One is that whereby the appetite is opposed to the
present evil; and, in this respect, sorrow is of no use; because that
which is present, cannot be not present. The other movement arises in
the appetite to the effect of avoiding or expelling the saddening
evil: and, in this respect, sorrow is of use, if it be for something
which ought to be avoided. Because there are two reasons for which it
may be right to avoid a thing. First, because it should be avoided in
itself, on account of its being contrary to good; for instance, sin.
Wherefore sorrow for sin is useful as inducing a man to avoid sin:
hence the Apostle says (2 Cor. 7:9): "I am glad: not because you were
made sorrowful, but because you were made sorrowful unto penance."
Secondly, a thing is to be avoided, not as though it were evil in
itself, but because it is an occasion of evil; either through one's
being attached to it, and loving it too much, or through one's being
thrown headlong thereby into an evil, as is evident in the case of
temporal goods. And, in this respect, sorrow for temporal goods may
be useful; according to Eccles. 7:3: "It is better to go to the house
of mourning, than to the house of feasting: for in that we are put in
mind of the end of all."

Moreover, sorrow for that which ought to be avoided is always useful,
since it adds another motive for avoiding it. Because the very evil
is in itself a thing to be avoided: while everyone avoids sorrow for
its own sake, just as everyone seeks the good, and pleasure in the
good. Therefore just as pleasure in the good makes one seek the good
more earnestly, so sorrow for evil makes one avoid evil more eagerly.

Reply Obj. 1: This passage is to be taken as referring to excessive
sorrow, which consumes the soul: for such sorrow paralyzes the soul,
and hinders it from shunning evil, as stated above (Q. 37, A. 2).

Reply Obj. 2: Just as any object of choice becomes less eligible by
reason of sorrow, so that which ought to be shunned is still more to
be shunned by reason of sorrow: and, in this respect, sorrow is
useful.

Reply Obj. 3: Sorrow caused by an action hinders that action: but
sorrow for the cessation of an action, makes one do it more earnestly.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 39, Art. 4]

Whether Bodily Pain Is the Greatest Evil?

Objection 1: It would seem that pain is the greatest evil. Because
"the worst is contrary to the best" (Ethic. viii, 10). But a certain
pleasure is the greatest good, viz. the pleasure of bliss. Therefore
a certain pain is the greatest evil.

Obj. 2: Further, happiness is man's greatest good, because it is his
last end. But man's Happiness consists in his "having whatever he
will, and in willing naught amiss," as stated above (Q. 3, A. 4, Obj.
5; Q. 5, A. 8, Obj. 3). Therefore man's greatest good consists in the
fulfilment of his will. Now pain consists in something happening
contrary to the will, as Augustine declares (De Civ. Dei xiv, 6, 15).
Therefore pain is man's greatest evil.

Obj. 3: Further, Augustine argues thus (Soliloq. i, 12): "We are
composed of two parts, i.e. of a soul and a body, whereof the body is
the inferior. Now the sovereign good is the greatest good of the
better part: while the supreme evil is the greatest evil of the
inferior part. But wisdom is the greatest good of the soul; while the
worst thing in the body is pain. Therefore man's greatest good is to
be wise: while his greatest evil is to suffer pain."

_On the contrary,_ Guilt is a greater evil than punishment, as was
stated in the First Part (Q. 48, A. 6). But sorrow or pain belongs to
the punishment of sin, just as the enjoyment of changeable things is
an evil of guilt. For Augustine says (De Vera Relig. xii): "What is
pain of the soul, except for the soul to be deprived of that which it
was wont to enjoy, or had hoped to enjoy? And this is all that is
called evil, i.e. sin, and the punishment of sin." Therefore sorrow
or pain is not man's greatest evil.

_I answer that,_ It is impossible for any sorrow or pain to be man's
greatest evil. For all sorrow or pain is either for something that is
truly evil, or for something that is apparently evil, but good in
reality. Now pain or sorrow for that which is truly evil cannot be
the greatest evil: for there is something worse, namely, either not
to reckon as evil that which is really evil, or not to reject it.
Again, sorrow or pain, for that which is apparently evil, but really
good, cannot be the greatest evil, for it would be worse to be
altogether separated from that which is truly good. Hence it is
impossible for any sorrow or pain to be man's greatest evil.

Reply Obj. 1: Pleasure and sorrow have two good points in common:
namely, a true judgment concerning good and evil; and the right order
of the will in approving of good and rejecting evil. Thus it is clear
that in pain or sorrow there is a good, by the removal of which they
become worse: and yet there is not an evil in every pleasure, by the
removal of which the pleasure is better. Consequently, a pleasure can
be man's highest good, in the way above stated (Q. 34, A. 3): whereas
sorrow cannot be man's greatest evil.

Reply Obj. 2: The very fact of the will being opposed to evil is a
good. And for this reason, sorrow or pain cannot be the greatest
evil; because it has an admixture of good.

Reply Obj. 3: That which harms the better thing is worse than that
which harms the worse. Now a thing is called evil "because it harms,"
as Augustine says (Enchiridion xii). Therefore that which is an evil
to the soul is a greater evil than that which is an evil to the body.
Therefore this argument does not prove: nor does Augustine give it as
his own, but as taken from another [*Cornelius Celsus].
________________________

QUESTION 40

OF THE IRASCIBLE PASSIONS, AND FIRST, OF HOPE AND DESPAIR
(In Eight Articles)

We must now consider the irascible passions: (1) Hope and despair;
(2) Fear and daring; (3) Anger. Under first head there are eight
points of inquiry:

(1) Whether hope is the same as desire or cupidity?

(2) Whether hope is in the apprehensive, or in the appetitive
faculty?

(3) Whether hope is in dumb animals?

(4) Whether despair is contrary to hope?

(5) Whether experience is a cause of hope?

(6) Whether hope abounds in young men and drunkards?

(7) Concerning the order of hope to love;

(8) Whether love conduces to action?
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 40, Art. 1]

Whether Hope Is the Same As Desire or Cupidity?

Objection 1: It would seem that hope is the same as desire or
cupidity. Because hope is reckoned as one of the four principal
passions. But Augustine in setting down the four principal passions
puts cupidity in the place of hope (De Civ. Dei xiv, 3, 7). Therefore
hope is the same as cupidity or desire.

Obj. 2: Further, passions differ according to their objects. But the
object of hope is the same as the object of cupidity or desire, viz.
the future good. Therefore hope is the same as cupidity or desire.

Obj. 3: If it be said that hope, in addition to desire, denotes the
possibility of obtaining the future good; on the contrary, whatever
is accidental to the object does not make a different species of
passion. But possibility of acquisition is accidental to a future
good, which is the object of cupidity or desire, and of hope.
Therefore hope does not differ specifically from desire or cupidity.

_On the contrary,_ To different powers belong different species of
passions. But hope is in the irascible power; whereas desire or
cupidity is in the concupiscible. Therefore hope differs specifically
from desire or cupidity.

_I answer that,_ The species of a passion is taken from the object.
Now, in the object of hope, we may note four conditions. First, that
it is something good; since, properly speaking, hope regards only the
good; in this respect, hope differs from fear, which regards evil.
Secondly, that it is future; for hope does not regard that which is
present and already possessed: in this respect, hope differs from joy
which regards a present good. Thirdly, that it must be something
arduous and difficult to obtain, for we do not speak of any one
hoping for trifles, which are in one's power to have at any time: in
this respect, hope differs from desire or cupidity, which regards the
future good absolutely: wherefore it belongs to the concupiscible,
while hope belongs to the irascible faculty. Fourthly, that this
difficult thing is something possible to obtain: for one does not
hope for that which one cannot get at all: and, in this respect, hope
differs from despair. It is therefore evident that hope differs from
desire, as the irascible passions differ from the concupiscible. For
this reason, moreover, hope presupposes desire: just as all irascible
passions presuppose the passions of the concupiscible faculty, as
stated above (Q. 25, A. 1).

Reply Obj. 1: Augustine mentions desire instead of hope, because each
regards future good; and because the good which is not arduous is
reckoned as nothing: thus implying that desire seems to tend chiefly
to the arduous good, to which hope tends likewise.

Reply Obj. 2: The object of hope is the future good considered, not
absolutely, but as arduous and difficult of attainment, as stated
above.

Reply Obj. 3: The object of hope adds not only possibility to the
object of desire, but also difficulty: and this makes hope belong to
another power, viz. the irascible, which regards something difficult,
as stated in the First Part (Q. 81, A. 2). Moreover, possibility and
impossibility are not altogether accidental to the object of the
appetitive power: because the appetite is a principle of movement;
and nothing is moved to anything except under the aspect of being
possible; for no one is moved to that which he reckons impossible to
get. Consequently hope differs from despair according to the
difference of possible and impossible.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 40, Art. 2]

Whether Hope Is in the Apprehensive or in the Appetitive Power?

Objection 1: It would seem that hope belongs to the cognitive power.
Because hope, seemingly, is a kind of awaiting; for the Apostle says
(Rom. 8:25): "If we hope for that which we see not; we wait for it
with patience." But awaiting seems to belong to the cognitive power,
which we exercise by _looking out._ Therefore hope belongs to the
cognitive power.

Obj. 2: Further, apparently hope is the same as confidence; hence
when a man hopes he is said to be confident, as though to hope and to
be confident were the same thing. But confidence, like faith, seems
to belong to the cognitive power. Therefore hope does too.

Obj. 3: Further, certainty is a property of the cognitive power. But
certainty is ascribed to hope. Therefore hope belongs to the
cognitive power.

_On the contrary,_ Hope regards good, as stated above (A. 1). Now
good, as such, is not the object of the cognitive, but of the
appetitive power. Therefore hope belongs, not to the cognitive, but
to the appetitive power.

_I answer that,_ Since hope denotes a certain stretching out of the
appetite towards good, it evidently belongs to the appetitive power;
since movement towards things belongs properly to the appetite:
whereas the action of the cognitive power is accomplished not by the
movement of the knower towards things, but rather according as the
things known are in the knower. But since the cognitive power moves
the appetite, by presenting its object to it; there arise in the
appetite various movements according to various aspects of the
apprehended object. For the apprehension of good gives rise to one
kind of movement in the appetite, while the apprehension of evil
gives rise to another: in like manner various movements arise from
the apprehension of something present and of something future; of
something considered absolutely, and of something considered as
arduous; of something possible, and of something impossible. And
accordingly hope is a movement of the appetitive power ensuing from
the apprehension of a future good, difficult but possible to obtain;
namely, a stretching forth of the appetite to such a good.

Reply Obj. 1: Since hope regards a possible good, there arises in man
a twofold movement of hope; for a thing may be possible to him in two
ways, viz. by his own power, or by another's. Accordingly when a man
hopes to obtain something by his own power, he is not said to wait
for it, but simply to hope for it. But, properly speaking, he is said
to await that which he hopes to get by another's help, as though to
await (_exspectare_) implied keeping one's eyes on another (_ex alio
spectare_), in so far as the apprehensive power, by going ahead, not
only keeps its eye on the good which man intends to get, but also on
the thing by whose power he hopes to get it; according to Ecclus.
51:10, "I looked for the succor of men." Wherefore the movement of
hope is sometimes called expectation, on account of the preceding
inspection of the cognitive power.

Reply Obj. 2: When a man desires a thing and reckons that he can get
it, he believes that he can get it, he believes that he will get it;
and from this belief which precedes in the cognitive power, the
ensuing movement in the appetite is called confidence. Because the
movement of the appetite takes its name from the knowledge that
precedes it, as an effect from a cause which is better known; for the
apprehensive power knows its own act better than that of the appetite.

Reply Obj. 3: Certainty is ascribed to the movement, not only of the
sensitive, but also of the natural appetite; thus we say that a stone
is certain to tend downwards. This is owing to the inerrancy which
the movement of the sensitive or even natural appetite derives from
the certainty of the knowledge that precedes it.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 40, Art. 3]

Whether Hope Is in Dumb Animals?

Objection 1: It would seem that there is no hope in dumb animals.
Because hope is for some future good, as Damascene says (De Fide
Orth. ii, 12). But knowledge of the future is not in the competency
of dumb animals, whose knowledge is confined to the senses and does
not extend to the future. Therefore there is no hope in dumb animals.

Obj. 2: Further, the object of hope is a future good, possible of
attainment. But possible and impossible are differences of the true
and the false, which are only in the mind, as the Philosopher states
(Metaph. vi, 4). Therefore there is no hope in dumb animals, since
they have no mind.

Obj. 3: Further, Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. ix, 14) that "animals
are moved by the things that they see." But hope is of things unseen:
"for what a man seeth, why doth he hope for?" (Rom. 8:24). Therefore
there is no hope in dumb animals.

_On the contrary,_ Hope is an irascible passion. But the irascible
faculty is in dumb animals. Therefore hope is also.

_I answer that,_ The internal passions of animals can be gathered
from their outward movements: from which it is clear that hope is in
dumb animals. For if a dog see a hare, or a hawk see a bird, too far
off, it makes no movement towards it, as having no hope to catch it:
whereas, if it be near, it makes a movement towards it, as being in
hopes of catching it. Because as stated above (Q. 1, A. 2; Q. 26, A.
1; Q. 35, A. 1), the sensitive appetite of dumb animals, and
likewise the natural appetite of insensible things, result from the
apprehension of an intellect, just as the appetite of the
intellectual nature, which is called the will. But there is a
difference, in that the will is moved by an apprehension of the
intellect in the same subject; whereas the movement of the natural
appetite results from the apprehension of the separate Intellect, Who
is the Author of nature; as does also the sensitive appetite of dumb
animals, who act from a certain natural instinct. Consequently, in
the actions of irrational animals and of other natural things, we
observe a procedure which is similar to that which we observe in the
actions of art: and in this way hope and despair are in dumb animals.

Reply Obj. 1: Although dumb animals do not know the future, yet an
animal is moved by its natural instinct to something future, as
though it foresaw the future. Because this instinct is planted in
them by the Divine Intellect that foresees the future.

Reply Obj. 2: The object of hope is not the possible as
differentiating the true, for thus the possible ensues from the
relation of a predicate to a subject. The object of hope is the
possible as compared to a power. For such is the division of the
possible given in _Metaph._ v, 12, i.e. into the two kinds we have
just mentioned.

Reply Obj. 3: Although the thing which is future does not come under
the object of sight; nevertheless through seeing something present,
an animal's appetite is moved to seek or avoid something future.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 40, Art. 4]

Whether Despair Is Contrary to Hope?

Objection 1: It would seem that despair is not contrary to hope.
Because "to one thing there is one contrary" (Metaph. x, 5). But fear
is contrary to hope. Therefore despair is not contrary to hope.

Obj. 2: Further, contraries seem to bear on the same thing. But hope
and despair do not bear on the same thing: since hope regards the
good, whereas despair arises from some evil that is in the way of
obtaining good. Therefore hope is not contrary to despair.

Obj. 3: Further, movement is contrary to movement: while repose is in
opposition to movement as a privation thereof. But despair seems to
imply immobility rather than movement. Therefore it is not contrary
to hope, which implies movement of stretching out towards the
hoped-for good.

_On the contrary,_ The very name of despair (_desperatio_) implies that
it is contrary to hope (_spes_).

_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 23, A. 2), there is a twofold
contrariety of movements. One is in respect of approach to contrary
terms: and this contrariety alone is to be found in the concupiscible
passions, for instance between love and hatred. The other is
according to approach and withdrawal with regard to the same term;
and is to be found in the irascible passions, as stated above (Q. 23,
A. 2). Now the object of hope, which is the arduous good, has the
character of a principle of attraction, if it be considered in the
light of something attainable; and thus hope tends thereto, for it
denotes a kind of approach. But in so far as it is considered as
unobtainable, it has the character of a principle of repulsion,
because, as stated in _Ethic._ iii, 3, "when men come to an
impossibility they disperse." And this is how despair stands in
regard to this object, wherefore it implies a movement of withdrawal:
and consequently it is contrary to hope, as withdrawal is to approach.

Reply Obj. 1: Fear is contrary to hope, because their objects, i.e.
good and evil, are contrary: for this contrariety is found in the
irascible passions, according as they ensue from the passions of the
concupiscible. But despair is contrary to hope, only by contrariety
of approach and withdrawal.

Reply Obj. 2: Despair does not regard evil as such; sometimes however
it regards evil accidentally, as making the difficult good impossible
to obtain. But it can arise from the mere excess of good.

Reply Obj. 3: Despair implies not only privation of hope, but also a
recoil from the thing desired, by reason of its being esteemed
impossible to get. Hence despair, like hope, presupposes desire;
because we neither hope for nor despair of that which we do not
desire to have. For this reason, too, each of them regards the good,
which is the object of desire.
________________________

FIFTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 40, Art. 5]

Whether Experience Is a Cause of Hope?

Objection 1: It would seem that experience is not a cause of hope.
Because experience belongs to the cognitive power; wherefore the
Philosopher says (Ethic. ii, 1) that "intellectual virtue needs
experience and time." But hope is not in the cognitive power, but in
the appetite, as stated above (A. 2). Therefore experience is not a
cause of hope.

Obj. 2: Further, the Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 13) that "the old
are slow to hope, on account of their experience"; whence it seems to
follow that experience causes want of hope. But the same cause is not
productive of opposites. Therefore experience is not a cause of hope.

Obj. 3: Further, the Philosopher says (De Coel. ii, 5) that "to have
something to say about everything, without leaving anything out, is
sometimes a proof of folly." But to attempt everything seems to point
to great hopes; while folly arises from inexperience. Therefore
inexperience, rather than experience, seems to be a cause of hope.

_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher says (Ethic. iii, 8) "some are
hopeful, through having been victorious often and over many
opponents": which seems to pertain to experience. Therefore
experience is a cause of hope.

_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1), the object of hope is a
future good, difficult but possible to obtain. Consequently a thing
may be a cause of hope, either because it makes something possible to
a man: or because it makes him think something possible. In the first
way hope is caused by everything that increases a man's power; e.g.
riches, strength, and, among others, experience: since by experience
man acquires the faculty of doing something easily, and the result of
this is hope. Wherefore Vegetius says (De Re Milit. i): "No one fears
to do that which he is sure of having learned well."

In the second way, hope is caused by everything that makes man think
that he can obtain something: and thus both teaching and persuasion
may be a cause of hope. And then again experience is a cause of hope,
in so far as it makes him reckon something possible, which before his
experience he looked upon as impossible. However, in this way,
experience can cause a lack of hope: because just as it makes a man
think possible what he had previously thought impossible; so,
conversely, experience makes a man consider as impossible that which
hitherto he had thought possible. Accordingly experience causes hope
in two ways, despair in one way: and for this reason we may say
rather that it causes hope.

Reply Obj. 1: Experience in matters pertaining to action not only
produces knowledge; it also causes a certain habit, by reason of
custom, which renders the action easier. Moreover, the intellectual
virtue itself adds to the power of acting with ease: because it
shows something to be possible; and thus is a cause of hope.

Reply Obj. 2: The old are wanting in hope because of their
experience, in so far as experience makes them think something
impossible. Hence he adds (Rhet. ii, 13) that "many evils have
befallen them."

Reply Obj. 3: Folly and inexperience can be a cause of hope
accidentally as it were, by removing the knowledge which would help
one to judge truly a thing to be impossible. Wherefore inexperience
is a cause of hope, for the same reason as experience causes lack of
hope.
________________________

SIXTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 40, Art. 6]

Whether Hope Abounds in Young Men and Drunkards?

Objection 1: It would seem that youth and drunkenness are not causes
of hope. Because hope implies certainty and steadiness; so much so
that it is compared to an anchor (Heb. 6:19). But young men and
drunkards are wanting in steadiness; since their minds are easily
changed. Therefore youth and drunkenness are not causes of hope.

Obj. 2: Further, as stated above (A. 5), the cause of hope is chiefly
whatever increases one's power. But youth and drunkenness are united
to weakness. Therefore they are not causes of hope.

Obj. 3: Further, experience is a cause of hope, as stated above (A.
5). But youth lacks experience. Therefore it is not a cause of hope.

_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher says (Ethic. iii, 8) that "drunken
men are hopeful": and (Rhet. ii, 12) that "the young are full of
hope."

_I answer that,_ Youth is a cause of hope for three reasons, as the
Philosopher states in _Rhet._ ii, 12: and these three reasons may be
gathered from the three conditions of the good which is the object of
hope--namely, that it is future, arduous and possible, as stated
above (A. 1). For youth has much of the future before it, and little
of the past: and therefore since memory is of the past, and hope of
the future, it has little to remember and lives very much in hope.
Again, youths, on account of the heat of their nature, are full of
spirit; so that their heart expands: and it is owing to the heart
being expanded that one tends to that which is arduous; wherefore
youths are spirited and hopeful. Likewise they who have not suffered
defeat, nor had experience of obstacles to their efforts, are prone
to count a thing possible to them. Wherefore youths, through
inexperience of obstacles and of their own shortcomings, easily count
a thing possible; and consequently are of good hope. Two of these
causes are also in those who are in drink--viz. heat and high
spirits, on account of wine, and heedlessness of dangers and
shortcomings. For the same reason all foolish and thoughtless persons
attempt everything and are full of hope.

Reply Obj. 1: Although youths and men in drink lack steadiness in
reality, yet they are steady in their own estimation, for they think
that they will steadily obtain that which they hope for.

In like manner, in reply to the Second Objection, we must observe
that young people and men in drink are indeed unsteady in reality:
but, in their own estimation, they are capable, for they know not
their shortcomings.

Reply Obj. 3: Not only experience, but also lack of experience, is,
in some way, a cause of hope, as explained above (A. 5, ad 3).
________________________

SEVENTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 40, Art. 7]

Whether Hope Is a Cause of Love?

Objection 1: It would seem that hope is not a cause of love. Because,
according to Augustine (De Civ. Dei xiv, 7, 9), love is the first of
the soul's emotions. But hope is an emotion of the soul. Therefore
love precedes hope, and consequently hope does not cause love.

Obj. 2: Further, desire precedes hope. But desire is caused by love,
as stated above (Q. 25, A. 2). Therefore hope, too, follows love, and
consequently is not its cause.

Obj. 3: Further, hope causes pleasure, as stated above (Q. 32, A. 3).
But pleasure is only of the good that is loved. Therefore love
precedes hope.

_On the contrary,_ The gloss commenting on Matt. 1:2, "Abraham begot
Isaac, and Isaac begot Jacob," says, i.e. "faith begets hope, and
hope begets charity." But charity is love. Therefore love is caused
by hope.

_I answer that,_ Hope can regard two things. For it regards as its
object, the good which one hopes for. But since the good we hope for
is something difficult but possible to obtain; and since it happens
sometimes that what is difficult becomes possible to us, not through
ourselves but through others; hence it is that hope regards also that
by which something becomes possible to us.

In so far, then, as hope regards the good we hope to get, it is
caused by love: since we do not hope save for that which we desire
and love. But in so far as hope regards one through whom something
becomes possible to us, love is caused by hope, and not vice versa.
Because by the very fact that we hope that good will accrue to us
through someone, we are moved towards him as to our own good; and
thus we begin to love him. Whereas from the fact that we love someone
we do not hope in him, except accidentally, that is, in so far as we
think that he returns our love. Wherefore the fact of being loved by
another makes us hope in him; but our love for him is caused by the
hope we have in him.

Wherefore the Replies to the Objections are evident.
________________________

EIGHTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 40, Art. 8]

Whether Hope Is a Help or a Hindrance to Action?

Objection 1: It would seem that hope is not a help but a hindrance to
action. Because hope implies security. But security begets negligence
which hinders action. Therefore hope is a hindrance to action.

Obj. 2: Further, sorrow hinders action, as stated above (Q. 37, A.
3). But hope sometimes causes sorrow: for it is written (Prov.
13:12): "Hope that is deferred afflicteth the soul." Therefore hope
hinders action.

Obj. 3: Further, despair is contrary to hope, as stated above (A. 4).
But despair, especially in matters of war, conduces to action; for it
is written (2 Kings 2:26), that "it is dangerous to drive people to
despair." Therefore hope has a contrary effect, namely, by hindering
action.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (1 Cor. 9:10) that "he that
plougheth should plough in hope . . . to receive fruit": and the same
applies to all other actions.

_I answer that,_ Hope of its very nature is a help to action by
making it more intense: and this for two reasons. First, by reason of
its object, which is a good, difficult but possible. For the thought
of its being difficult arouses our attention; while the thought that
it is possible is no drag on our effort. Hence it follows that by
reason of hope man is intent on his action. Secondly, on account of
its effect. Because hope, as stated above (Q. 32, A. 3), causes
pleasure; which is a help to action, as stated above (Q. 33, A. 4).
Therefore hope is conducive to action.

Reply Obj. 1: Hope regards a good to be obtained; security regards an
evil to be avoided. Wherefore security seems to be contrary to fear
rather than to belong to hope. Yet security does not beget
negligence, save in so far as it lessens the idea of difficulty:
whereby it also lessens the character of hope: for the things in
which a man fears no hindrance, are no longer looked upon as
difficult.

Reply Obj. 2: Hope of itself causes pleasure; it is by accident that
it causes sorrow, as stated above (Q. 32, A. 3, ad 2).

Reply Obj. 3: Despair threatens danger in war, on account of a
certain hope that attaches to it. For they who despair of flight,
strive less to fly, but hope to avenge their death: and therefore
in this hope they fight the more bravely, and consequently prove
dangerous to the foe.
________________________

QUESTION 41

OF FEAR, IN ITSELF
(In Four Articles)

We must now consider, in the first place, fear; and, secondly, daring.
With regard to fear, four things must be considered: (1) Fear, in
itself; (2) Its object; (3) Its cause; (4) Its effect. Under the first
head there are four points of inquiry:

(1) Whether fear is a passion of the soul?

(2) Whether fear is a special passion?

(3) Whether there is a natural fear?

(4) Of the species of fear.
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 41, Art. 1]

Whether Fear Is a Passion of the Soul?

Objection 1: It would seem that fear is not a passion of the soul.
For Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 23) that "fear is a power, by
way of _systole_"--i.e. of contraction--"desirous of vindicating
nature." But no virtue is a passion, as is proved in _Ethic._ ii, 5.
Therefore fear is not a passion.

Obj. 2: Further, every passion is an effect due to the presence of an
agent. But fear is not of something present, but of something future,
as Damascene declares (De Fide Orth. ii, 12). Therefore fear is not a
passion.

Obj. 3: Further, every passion of the soul is a movement of the
sensitive appetite, in consequence of an apprehension of the senses.
But sense apprehends, not the future but the present. Since, then,
fear is of future evil, it seems that it is not a passion of the soul.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine (De Civ. Dei xiv, 5, seqq.) reckons fear
among the other passions of the soul.

_I answer that,_ Among the other passions of the soul, after sorrow,
fear chiefly has the character of passion. For as we have stated
above (Q. 22), the notion of passion implies first of all a movement
of a passive power--i.e. of a power whose object is compared to it as
its active principle: since passion is the effect of an agent. In
this way, both _to feel_ and _to understand_ are passions. Secondly,
more properly speaking, passion is a movement of the appetitive
power; and more properly still, it is a movement of an appetitive
power that has a bodily organ, such movement being accompanied by a
bodily transmutation. And, again, most properly those movements are
called passions, which imply some deterioration. Now it is evident
that fear, since it regards evil, belongs to the appetitive power,
which of itself regards good and evil. Moreover, it belongs to the
sensitive appetite: for it is accompanied by a certain
transmutation--i.e. contraction--as Damascene says (Cf. Obj. 1).
Again, it implies relation to evil as overcoming, so to speak, some
particular good. Wherefore it has most properly the character of
passion; less, however, than sorrow, which regards the present evil:
because fear regards future evil, which is not so strong a motive as
present evil.

Reply Obj. 1: Virtue denotes a principle of action: wherefore, in so
far as the interior movements of the appetitive faculty are
principles of external action, they are called virtues. But the
Philosopher denies that passion is a virtue by way of habit.

Reply Obj. 2: Just as the passion of a natural body is due to the
bodily presence of an agent, so is the passion of the soul due to the
agent being present to the soul, although neither corporally nor
really present: that is to say, in so far as the evil which is really
future, is present in the apprehension of the soul.

Reply Obj. 3: The senses do not apprehend the future: but from
apprehending the present, an animal is moved by natural instinct to
hope for a future good, or to fear a future evil.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 41, Art. 2]

Whether Fear Is a Special Passion?

Objection 1: It would seem that fear is not a special passion. For
Augustine says (QQ. 83, qu. 33) that "the man who is not distraught
by fear, is neither harassed by desire, nor wounded by
sickness"--i.e. sorrow--"nor tossed about in transports of empty
joys." Wherefore it seems that, if fear be set aside, all the other
passions are removed. Therefore fear is not a special but a general
passion.

Obj. 2: Further, the Philosopher says (Ethic. vi, 2) that "pursuit
and avoidance in the appetite are what affirmation and denial are in
the intellect." But denial is nothing special in the intellect, as
neither is affirmation, but something common to many. Therefore
neither is avoidance anything special in the appetite. But fear is
nothing but a kind of avoidance of evil. Therefore it is not a
special passion.

Obj. 3: Further, if fear were a special passion, it would be chiefly
in the irascible part. But fear is also in the concupiscible: since
the Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 5) that "fear is a kind of sorrow";
and Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 23) that fear is "a power of
desire": and both sorrow and desire are in the concupiscible faculty,
as stated above (Q. 23, A. 4). Therefore fear is not a special
passion, since it belongs to different powers.

_On the contrary,_ Fear is condivided with the other passions of the
soul, as is clear from Damascene (De Fide Orth. ii, 12, 15).

_I answer that,_ The passions of the soul derive their species from
their objects: hence that is a special passion, which has a special
object. Now fear has a special object, as hope has. For just as the
object of hope is a future good, difficult but possible to obtain; so
the object of fear is a future evil, difficult and irresistible.
Consequently fear is a special passion of the soul.

Reply Obj. 1: All the passions of the soul arise from one source,
viz. love, wherein they are connected with one another. By reason of
this connection, when fear is put aside, the other passions of the
soul are dispersed; not, however, as though it were a general passion.

Reply Obj. 2: Not every avoidance in the appetite is fear, but
avoidance of a special object, as stated. Wherefore, though avoidance
be something common, yet fear is a special passion.

Reply Obj. 3: Fear is nowise in the concupiscible: for it regards
evil, not absolutely, but as difficult or arduous, so as to be almost
unavoidable. But since the irascible passions arise from the passions
of the concupiscible faculty, and terminate therein, as stated above
(Q. 25, A. 1); hence it is that what belongs to the concupiscible is
ascribed to fear. For fear is called sorrow, in so far as the object
of fear causes sorrow when present: wherefore the Philosopher says
(Rhet. ii, 5) that fear arises "from the representation of a future
evil which is either corruptive or painful." In like manner desire is
ascribed by Damascene to fear, because just as hope arises from the
desire of good, so fear arises from avoidance of evil; while
avoidance of evil arises from the desire of good, as is evident from
what has been said above (Q. 25, A. 2; Q. 29, A. 2; Q. 36, A. 2).
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 41, Art. 3]

Whether There Is a Natural Fear?

Objection 1: It would seem that there is a natural fear. For
Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 23) that "there is a natural fear,
through the soul refusing to be severed from the body."

Obj. 2: Further, fear arises from love, as stated above (A. 2, ad 1).
But there is a natural love, as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv).
Therefore there is also a natural fear.

Obj. 3: Further, fear is opposed to hope, as stated above (Q. 40, A.
4, ad 1). But there is a hope of nature, as is evident from Rom.
4:18, where it is said of Abraham that "against hope" of nature, "he
believed in hope" of grace. Therefore there is also a fear of nature.

_On the contrary,_ That which is natural is common to things animate
and inanimate. But fear is not in things inanimate. Therefore there
is no natural fear.

_I answer that,_ A movement is said to be natural, because nature
inclines thereto. Now this happens in two ways. First, so that it is
entirely accomplished by nature, without any operation of the
apprehensive faculty: thus to have an upward movement is natural to
fire, and to grow is the natural movement of animals and plants.
Secondly, a movement is said to be natural, if nature inclines
thereto, though it be accomplished by the apprehensive faculty alone:
since, as stated above (Q. 10, A. 1), the movements of the cognitive
and appetitive faculties are reducible to nature as to their first
principle. In this way, even the acts of the apprehensive power, such
as understanding, feeling, and remembering, as well as the movements
of the animal appetite, are sometimes said to be natural.

And in this sense we may say that there is a natural fear; and it is
distinguished from non-natural fear, by reason of the diversity of
its object. For, as the Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 5), there is a
fear of "corruptive evil," which nature shrinks from on account of
its natural desire to exist; and such fear is said to be natural.
Again, there is a fear of "painful evil," which is repugnant not to
nature, but to the desire of the appetite; and such fear is not
natural. In this sense we have stated above (Q. 26, A. 1; Q. 30, A.
3; Q. 31, A. 7) that love, desire, and pleasure are divisible into
natural and non-natural.

But in the first sense of the word "natural," we must observe that
certain passions of the soul are sometimes said to be natural, as
love, desire, and hope; whereas the others cannot be called natural.
The reason of this is because love and hatred, desire and avoidance,
imply a certain inclination to pursue what is good or to avoid what
is evil; which inclination is to be found in the natural appetite
also. Consequently there is a natural love; while we may also speak
of desire and hope as being even in natural things devoid of
knowledge. On the other hand the other passions of the soul denote
certain movements, whereto the natural inclination is nowise
sufficient. This is due either to the fact that perception or
knowledge is essential to these passions (thus we have said, Q. 31,
AA. 1, 3; Q. 35, A. 1, that apprehension is a necessary condition of
pleasure and sorrow), wherefore things devoid of knowledge cannot be
said to take pleasure or to be sorrowful: or else it is because such
like movements are contrary to the very nature of natural
inclination: for instance, despair flies from good on account of some
difficulty; and fear shrinks from repelling a contrary evil; both of
which are contrary to the inclination of nature. Wherefore such like
passions are in no way ascribed to inanimate beings.

Thus the Replies to the Objections are evident.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 41, Art. 4]

Whether the Species of Fear Are Suitably Assigned?

Objection 1: It would seem that six species of fear are unsuitably
assigned by Damascene (De Fide Orth. ii, 15); namely, "laziness,
shamefacedness, shame, amazement, stupor, and anxiety." Because, as
the Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 5), "fear regards a saddening evil."
Therefore the species of fear should correspond to the species of
sorrow. Now there are four species of sorrow, as stated above (Q. 35,
A. 8). Therefore there should only be four species of fear
corresponding to them.

Obj. 2: Further, that which consists in an action of our own is in
our power. But fear regards an evil that surpasses our power, as
stated above (A. 2). Therefore laziness, shamefacedness, and shame,
which regard our own actions, should not be reckoned as species of
fear.

Obj. 3: Further, fear is of the future, as stated above (AA. 1, 2).
But "shame regards a disgraceful deed already done," as Gregory of
Nyssa [*Nemesius, De Nat. Hom. xx.] says. Therefore shame is not a
species of fear.

Obj. 4: Further, fear is only of evil. But amazement and stupor
regard great and unwonted things, whether good or evil. Therefore
amazement and stupor are not species of fear.

Obj. 5: Further, Philosophers have been led by amazement to seek the
truth, as stated in the beginning of _Metaph._ But fear leads to
flight rather than to search. Therefore amazement is not a species of
fear.

On the contrary suffices the authority of Damascene and Gregory of
Nyssa [*Nemesius] (Cf. Obj. 1, 3).

_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 2), fear regards a future evil
which surpasses the power of him that fears, so that it is
irresistible. Now man's evil, like his good, may be considered either
in his action or in external things. In his action he has a twofold
evil to fear. First, there is the toil that burdens his nature: and
hence arises _laziness,_ as when a man shrinks from work for fear of
too much toil. Secondly, there is the disgrace which damages him in
the opinion of others. And thus, if disgrace is feared in a deed that
is yet to be done, there is _shamefacedness_; if, however, it be a
deed already done, there is _shame._

On the other hand, the evil that consists in external things may
surpass man's faculty of resistance in three ways. First by reason of
its magnitude; when, that is to say, a man considers some great evil
the outcome of which he is unable to gauge: and then there is
_amazement._ Secondly, by reason of its being unwonted; because, to
wit, some unwonted evil arises before us, and on that account is
great in our estimation: and then there is _stupor,_ which is caused
by the representation of something unwonted. Thirdly, by reason of
its being unforeseen: thus future misfortunes are feared, and fear of
this kind is called _anxiety._

Reply Obj. 1: Those species of sorrow given above are not derived
from the diversity of objects, but from the diversity of effects, and
for certain special reasons. Consequently there is no need for those
species of sorrow to correspond with these species of fear, which are
derived from the proper division of the object of fear itself.

Reply Obj. 2: A deed considered as being actually done, is in the
power of the doer. But it is possible to take into consideration
something connected with the deed, and surpassing the faculty of the
doer, for which reason he shrinks from the deed. It is in this sense
that laziness, shamefacedness, and shame are reckoned as species of
fear.

Reply Obj. 3: The past deed may be the occasion of fear of future
reproach or disgrace: and in this sense shame is a species of fear.

Reply Obj. 4: Not every amazement and stupor are species of fear, but
that amazement which is caused by a great evil, and that stupor which
arises from an unwonted evil. Or else we may say that, just as
laziness shrinks from the toil of external work, so amazement and
stupor shrink from the difficulty of considering a great and unwonted
thing, whether good or evil: so that amazement and stupor stand in
relation to the act of the intellect, as laziness does to external
work.

Reply Obj. 5: He who is amazed shrinks at present from forming a
judgment of that which amazes him, fearing to fall short of the
truth, but inquires afterwards: whereas he who is overcome by stupor
fears both to judge at present, and to inquire afterwards. Wherefore
amazement is a beginning of philosophical research: whereas stupor
is a hindrance thereto.
________________________

QUESTION 42

OF THE OBJECT OF FEAR
(In Six Articles)

We must now consider the object of fear: under which head there are
six points of inquiry:

(1) Whether good or evil is the object of fear?

(2) Whether evil of nature is the object of fear?

(3) Whether the evil of sin is an object of fear?

(4) Whether fear itself can be feared?

(5) Whether sudden things are especially feared?

(6) Whether those things are more feared against which there is no
remedy?
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 42, Art. 1]

Whether the Object of Fear Is Good or Evil?

Objection 1: It would seem that good is the object of fear. For
Augustine says (QQ. 83, qu. 83) that "we fear nothing save to lose
what we love and possess, or not to obtain that which we hope for."
But that which we love is good. Therefore fear regards good as its
proper object.

Obj. 2: Further, the Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 5) that "power and
to be above another is a thing to be feared." But this is a good
thing. Therefore good is the object of fear.

Obj. 3: Further, there can be no evil in God. But we are commanded to
fear God, according to Ps. 33:10: "Fear the Lord, all ye saints."
Therefore even the good is an object of fear.

_On the contrary,_ Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii, 12) that fear is
of future evil.

_I answer that,_ Fear is a movement of the appetitive power. Now it
belongs to the appetitive power to pursue and to avoid, as stated in
_Ethic._ vi, 2: and pursuit is of good, while avoidance is of evil.
Consequently whatever movement of the appetitive power implies
pursuit, has some good for its object: and whatever movement implies
avoidance, has an evil for its object. Wherefore, since fear implies
an avoidance, in the first place and of its very nature it regards
evil as its proper object.

It can, however, regard good also, in so far as referable to evil.
This can be in two ways. In one way, inasmuch as an evil causes
privation of good. Now a thing is evil from the very fact that it is
a privation of some good. Wherefore, since evil is shunned because it
is evil, it follows that it is shunned because it deprives one of the
good that one pursues through love thereof. And in this sense
Augustine says that there is no cause for fear, save loss of the good
we love.

In another way, good stands related to evil as its cause: in so far
as some good can by its power bring harm to the good we love: and so,
just as hope, as stated above (Q. 40, A. 7), regards two things,
namely, the good to which it tends, and the thing through which there
is a hope of obtaining the desired good; so also does fear regard two
things, namely, the evil from which it shrinks, and that good which,
by its power, can inflict that evil. In this way God is feared by
man, inasmuch as He can inflict punishment, spiritual or corporal. In
this way, too, we fear the power of man; especially when it has been
thwarted, or when it is unjust, because then it is more likely to do
us a harm.

In like manner one fears _to be over another,_ i.e. to lean on
another, so that it is in his power to do us a harm: thus a man fears
another, who knows him to be guilty of a crime, lest he reveal it to
others.

This suffices for the Replies to the Objections.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 42, Art. 2]

Whether Evil of Nature Is an Object of Fear?

Objection 1: It would seem that evil of nature is not an object of
fear. For the Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 5) that "fear makes us take
counsel." But we do not take counsel about things which happen
naturally, as stated in _Ethic._ iii, 3. Therefore evil of nature is
not an object of fear.

Obj. 2: Further, natural defects such as death and the like are
always threatening man. If therefore such like evils were an object
of fear, man would needs be always in fear.

Obj. 3: Further, nature does not move to contraries. But evil of
nature is an effect of nature. Therefore if a man shrinks from such
like evils through fear thereof, this is not an effect of nature.
Therefore natural fear is not of the evil of nature; and yet it seems
that it should be.

_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher says (Ethic. iii, 6) that "the
most terrible of all things is death," which is an evil of nature.

_I answer that,_ As the Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 5), fear is
caused by the "imagination of a future evil which is either
corruptive or painful." Now just as a painful evil is that which is
contrary to the will, so a corruptive evil is that which is contrary
to nature: and this is the evil of nature. Consequently evil of
nature can be the object of fear.

But it must be observed that evil of nature sometimes arises from a
natural cause; and then it is called evil of nature, not merely from
being a privation of the good of nature, but also from being an
effect of nature; such are natural death and other like defects. But
sometimes evil of nature arises from a non-natural cause; such as
violent death inflicted by an assailant. In either case evil of
nature is feared to a certain extent, and to a certain extent not.
For since fear arises "from the imagination of future evil," as the
Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 5), whatever removes the imagination of
the future evil, removes fear also. Now it may happen in two ways
that an evil may not appear as about to be. First, through being
remote and far off: for, on account of the distance, such a thing is
considered as though it were not to be. Hence we either do not fear
it, or fear it but little; for, as the Philosopher says (Rhet. ii,
5), "we do not fear things that are very far off; since all know that
they shall die, but as death is not near, they heed it not."
Secondly, a future evil is considered as though it were not to be, on
account of its being inevitable, wherefore we look upon it as already
present. Hence the Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 5) that "those who are
already on the scaffold, are not afraid," seeing that they are on the
very point of a death from which there is no escape; "but in order
that a man be afraid, there must be some hope of escape for him."

Consequently evil of nature is not feared if it be not apprehended as
future: but if evil of nature, that is corruptive, be apprehended as
near at hand, and yet with some hope of escape, then it will be
feared.

Reply Obj. 1: The evil of nature sometimes is not an effect of
nature, as stated above. But in so far as it is an effect of nature,
although it may be impossible to avoid it entirely, yet it may be
possible to delay it. And with this hope one may take counsel about
avoiding it.

Reply Obj. 2: Although evil of nature ever threatens, yet it does not
always threaten from near at hand: and consequently it is not always
feared.

Reply Obj. 3: Death and other defects of nature are the effects of
the common nature; and yet the individual nature rebels against them
as far as it can. Accordingly, from the inclination of the individual
nature arise pain and sorrow for such like evils, when present; fear
when threatening in the future.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 42, Art. 3]

Whether the Evil of Sin Is an Object of Fear?

Objection 1: It would seem that the evil of sin can be an object of
fear. For Augustine says on the canonical Epistle of John (Tract.
ix), that "by chaste fear man fears to be severed from God." Now
nothing but sin severs us from God; according to Isa. 59:2: "Your
iniquities have divided between you and your God." Therefore the evil
of sin can be an object of fear.

Obj. 2: Further, Cicero says (Quaest. Tusc. iv, 4, 6) that "we fear
when they are yet to come, those things which give us pain when they
are present." But it is possible for one to be pained or sorrowful on
account of the evil of sin. Therefore one can also fear the evil of
sin.

Obj. 3: Further, hope is contrary to fear. But the good of virtue can
be the object of hope, as the Philosopher declares (Ethic. ix, 4):
and the Apostle says (Gal. 5:10): "I have confidence in you in the
Lord, that you will not be of another mind." Therefore fear can
regard evil of sin.

Obj. 4: Further, shame is a kind of fear, as stated above (Q. 41, A.
4). But shame regards a disgraceful deed, which is an evil of sin.
Therefore fear does so likewise.

_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 5) that "not all
evils are feared, for instance that someone be unjust or slow."

_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 40, A. 1; Q. 41, A. 2), as the
object of hope is a future good difficult but possible to obtain, so
the object of fear is a future evil, arduous and not to be easily
avoided. From this we may gather that whatever is entirely subject to
our power and will, is not an object of fear; and that nothing gives
rise to fear save what is due to an external cause. Now human will is
the proper cause of the evil of sin: and consequently evil of sin,
properly speaking, is not an object of fear.

But since the human will may be inclined to sin by an extrinsic
cause; if this cause have a strong power of inclination, in that
respect a man may fear the evil of sin, in so far as it arises from
that extrinsic cause: as when he fears to dwell in the company of
wicked men, lest he be led by them to sin. But, properly speaking, a
man thus disposed, fears the being led astray rather than the sin
considered in its proper nature, i.e. as a voluntary act; for
considered in this light it is not an object of fear to him.

Reply Obj. 1: Separation from God is a punishment resulting from sin:
and every punishment is, in some way, due to an extrinsic cause.

Reply Obj. 2: Sorrow and fear agree in one point, since each regards
evil: they differ, however, in two points. First, because sorrow is
about present evil, whereas fear is future evil. Secondly, because
sorrow, being in the concupiscible faculty, regards evil absolutely;
wherefore it can be about any evil, great or small; whereas fear,
being in the irascible part, regards evil with the addition of a
certain arduousness or difficulty; which difficulty ceases in so far
as a thing is subject to the will. Consequently not all things that
give us pain when they are present, make us fear when they are yet to
come, but only some things, namely, those that are difficult.

Reply Obj. 3: Hope is of good that is obtainable. Now one may obtain
a good either of oneself, or through another: and so, hope may be of
an act of virtue, which lies within our own power. On the other hand,
fear is of an evil that does not lie in our own power: and
consequently the evil which is feared is always from an extrinsic
cause; while the good that is hoped for may be both from an intrinsic
and from an extrinsic cause.

Reply Obj. 4: As stated above (Q. 41, A. 4, ad 2, 3), shame is not
fear of the very act of sin, but of the disgrace or ignominy which
arises therefrom, and which is due to an extrinsic cause.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 42, Art. 4]

Whether Fear Itself Can Be Feared?

Objection 1: It would seem that fear cannot be feared. For whatever
is feared, is prevented from being lost, through fear thereof: thus a
man who fears to lose his health, keeps it, through fearing its loss.
If therefore a man be afraid of fear, he will keep himself from fear
by being afraid: which seems absurd.

Obj. 2: Further, fear is a kind of flight. But nothing flies from
itself. Therefore fear cannot be the object of fear.

Obj. 3: Further, fear is about the future. But fear is present to him
that fears. Therefore it cannot be the object of his fear.

_On the contrary,_ A man can love his own love, and can grieve at his
own sorrow. Therefore, in like manner, he can fear his own fear.

_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 3), nothing can be an object of
fear, save what is due to an extrinsic cause; but not that which
ensues from our own will. Now fear partly arises from an extrinsic
cause, and is partly subject to the will. It is due to an extrinsic
cause, in so far as it is a passion resulting from the imagination of
an imminent evil. In this sense it is possible for fear to be the
object of fear, i.e. a man may fear lest he should be threatened by
the necessity of fearing, through being assailed by some great evil.
It is subject to the will, in so far as the lower appetite obeys
reason; wherefore man is able to drive fear away. In this sense fear
cannot be the object of fear, as Augustine says (QQ. 83, qu. 33).
Lest, however, anyone make use of his arguments, in order to prove
that fear cannot be at all be the object of fear, we must add a
solution to the same.

Reply Obj. 1: Not every fear is identically the same; there are
various fears according to the various objects of fear. Nothing,
then, prevents a man from keeping himself from fearing one thing, by
fearing another, so that the fear which he has preserves him from the
fear which he has not.

Reply Obj. 2: Since fear of an imminent evil is not identical with
the fear of the fear of imminent evil; it does not follow that a
thing flies from itself, or that it is the same flight in both cases.

Reply Obj. 3: On account of the various kinds of fear already alluded
to (ad 2) a man's present fear may have a future fear for its object.
________________________

FIFTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 42, Art. 5]

Whether Sudden Things Are Especially Feared?

Objection 1: It would seem that unwonted and sudden things are not
especially feared. Because, as hope is about good things, so fear is
about evil things. But experience conduces to the increase of hope in
good things. Therefore it also adds to fear in evil things.

Obj. 2: Further, the Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 5) that "those are
feared most, not who are quick-tempered, but who are gentle and
cunning." Now it is clear that those who are quick-tempered are more
subject to sudden emotions. Therefore sudden things are less to be
feared.

Obj. 3: Further, we think less about things that happen suddenly. But
the more we think about a thing, the more we fear it; hence the
Philosopher says (Ethic. iii, 8) that "some appear to be courageous
through ignorance, but as soon as they discover that the case is
different from what they expected, they run away." Therefore sudden
things are feared less.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (Confess. ii, 6): "Fear is startled
at things unwonted and sudden, which endanger things beloved, and
takes forethought for their safety."

_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 3; Q. 41, A. 2), the object of
fear is an imminent evil, which can be repelled, but with difficulty.
Now this is due to one of two causes: to the greatness of the evil,
or to the weakness of him that fears; while unwontedness and
suddenness conduce to both of these causes. First, it helps an
imminent evil to seem greater. Because all material things, whether
good or evil, the more we consider them, the smaller they seem.
Consequently, just as sorrow for a present evil is mitigated in
course of time, as Cicero states (De Quaest. Tusc. iii, 30); so, too,
fear of a future evil is diminished by thinking about it beforehand.
Secondly, unwontedness and suddenness increase the weakness of him
that fears, in so far as they deprive him of the remedies with which
he might otherwise provide himself to forestall the coming evil, were
it not for the evil taking him by surprise.

Reply Obj. 1: The object of hope is a good that is possible to
obtain. Consequently whatever increases a man's power, is of a nature
to increase hope, and, for the same reason, to diminish fear, since
fear is about an evil which cannot be easily repelled. Since,
therefore, experience increases a man's power of action, therefore,
as it increases hope, so does it diminish fear.

Reply Obj. 2: Those who are quick-tempered do not hide their anger;
wherefore the harm they do others is not so sudden, as not to be
foreseen. On the other hand, those who are gentle or cunning hide
their anger; wherefore the harm which may be impending from them,
cannot be foreseen, but takes one by surprise. For this reason the
Philosopher says that such men are feared more than others.

Reply Obj. 3: Bodily good or evil, considered in itself, seems
greater at first. The reason for this is that a thing is more obvious
when seen in juxtaposition with its contrary. Hence, when a man
passes unexpectedly from penury to wealth, he thinks more of his
wealth on account of his previous poverty: while, on the other hand,
the rich man who suddenly becomes poor, finds poverty all the more
disagreeable. For this reason sudden evil is feared more, because it
seems more to be evil. However, it may happen through some accident
that the greatness of some evil is hidden; for instance if the foe
hides himself in ambush: and then it is true that evil inspires
greater fear through being much thought about.
________________________

SIXTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 42, Art. 6]

Whether Those Things Are More Feared, for Which There Is No Remedy?

Objection 1: It would seem that those things are not more to be
feared, for which there is no remedy. Because it is a condition of
fear, that there be some hope of safety, as stated above (A. 2). But
an evil that cannot be remedied leaves no hope of escape. Therefore
such things are not feared at all.

Obj. 2: Further, there is no remedy for the evil of death: since, in
the natural course of things, there is no return from death to life.
And yet death is not the most feared of all things, as the
Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 5). Therefore those things are not feared
most, for which there is no remedy.

Obj. 3: Further, the Philosopher says (Ethic. i, 6) that "a thing
which lasts long is no better than that which lasts but one day: nor
is that which lasts for ever any better than that which is not
everlasting": and the same applies to evil. But things that cannot be
remedied seem to differ from other things, merely in the point of
their lasting long or for ever. Consequently they are not therefore
any worse or more to be feared.

_On the contrary,_ the Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 5) that "those
things are most to be feared which when done wrong cannot be put
right . . . or for which there is no help, or which are not easy."

_I answer that,_ The object of fear is evil: consequently whatever
tends to increase evil, conduces to the increase of fear. Now evil
is increased not only in its species of evil, but also in respect of
circumstances, as stated above (Q. 18, A. 3). And of all the
circumstances, longlastingness, or even everlastingness, seems to
have the greatest bearing on the increase of evil. Because things
that exist in time are measured, in a way, according to the duration
of time: wherefore if it be an evil to suffer something for a certain
length of time, we should reckon the evil doubled, if it be suffered
for twice that length of time. And accordingly, to suffer the same
thing for an infinite length of time, i.e. for ever, implies, so to
speak, an infinite increase. Now those evils which, after they have
come, cannot be remedied at all, or at least not easily, are
considered as lasting for ever or for a long time: for which reason
they inspire the greatest fear.

Reply Obj. 1: Remedy for an evil is twofold. One, by which a future
evil is warded off from coming. If such a remedy be removed, there is
an end to hope and consequently to fear; wherefore we do not speak
now of remedies of that kind. The other remedy is one by which an
already present evil is removed: and of such a remedy we speak now.

Reply Obj. 2: Although death be an evil without remedy, yet, since it
threatens not from near, it is not feared, as stated above (A. 2).

Reply Obj. 3: The Philosopher is speaking there of things that are
good in themselves, i.e., good specifically. And such like good is no
better for lasting long or for ever: its goodness depends on its very
nature.
________________________

QUESTION 43

OF THE CAUSE OF FEAR
(In Two Articles)

We must now consider the cause of fear: under which head there are
two points of inquiry:

(1) Whether love is the cause of fear?

(2) Whether defect is the cause of fear?
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 43, Art. 1]

Whether Love Is the Cause of Fear?

Objection 1: It would seem that love is not the cause of fear. For
that which leads to a thing is its cause. But "fear leads to the love
of charity" as Augustine says on the canonical epistle of John
(Tract. ix). Therefore fear is the cause of love, and not conversely.

Obj. 2: Further, the Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 5) that "those are
feared most from whom we dread the advent of some evil." But the
dread of evil being caused by someone, makes us hate rather than love
him. Therefore fear is caused by hate rather than by love.

Obj. 3: Further, it has been stated above (Q. 42, A. 3) that those
things which occur by our own doing are not fearful. But that which
we do from love, is done from our inmost heart. Therefore fear is not
caused by love.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (QQ. 83, qu. 33): "There can be no
doubt that there is no cause for fear save the loss of what we love,
when we possess it, or the failure to obtain what we hope for."
Therefore all fear is caused by our loving something: and
consequently love is the cause of fear.

_I answer that,_ The objects of the soul's passions stand in relation
thereto as the forms to things natural or artificial: because the
passions of the soul take their species from their objects, as the
aforesaid things do from their forms. Therefore, just as whatever is
a cause of the form, is a cause of the thing constituted by that
form, so whatever is a cause, in any way whatever, of the object, is
a cause of the passion. Now a thing may be a cause of the object,
either by way of efficient cause, or by way of material disposition.
Thus the object of pleasure is good apprehended as suitable and
conjoined: and its efficient cause is that which causes the
conjunction, or the suitableness, or goodness, or apprehension of
that good thing; while its cause by way of material disposition, is a
habit or any sort of disposition by reason of which this conjoined
good becomes suitable or is apprehended as such.

Accordingly, as to the matter in question, the object of fear is
something reckoned as an evil to come, near at hand and difficult to
avoid. Therefore that which can inflict such an evil, is the
efficient cause of the object of fear, and, consequently, of fear
itself. While that which renders a man so disposed that thing is such
an evil to him, is a cause of fear and of its object, by way of
material disposition. And thus it is that love causes fear: since it
is through his loving a certain good, that whatever deprives a man of
that good is an evil to him, and that consequently he fears it as an
evil.

Reply Obj. 1: As stated above (Q. 42, A. 1), fear, of itself and in
the first place, regards the evil from which it recoils as being
contrary to some loved good: and thus fear, of itself, is born of
love. But, in the second place, it regards the cause from which that
evil ensues: so that sometimes, accidentally, fear gives rise to
love; in so far as, for instance, through fear of God's punishments,
man keeps His commandments, and thus begins to hope, while hope leads
to love, as stated above (Q. 40, A. 7).

Reply Obj. 2: He, from whom evil is expected, is indeed hated at
first; but afterwards, when once we begin to hope for good from him,
we begin to love him. But the good, the contrary evil of which is
feared, was loved from the beginning.

Reply Obj. 3: This argument is true of that which is the efficient
cause of the evil to be feared: whereas love causes fear by way of
material disposition, as stated above.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 43, Art. 2]

Whether Defect Is the Cause of Fear?

Objection 1: It would seem that defect is not a cause of fear.
Because those who are in power are very much feared. But defect is
contrary to power. Therefore defect is not a cause of fear.

Obj. 2: Further, the defect of those who are already being executed
is extreme. But such like do not fear as stated in _Rhet._ ii, 5.
Therefore defect is not a cause of fear.

Obj. 3: Further, contests arise from strength not from defect. But
"those who contend fear those who contend with them" (Rhet. ii, 5).
Therefore defect is not a cause of fear.

_On the contrary,_ Contraries ensue from contrary causes. But
"wealth, strength, a multitude of friends, and power drive fear away"
(Rhet. ii, 5). Therefore fear is caused by lack of these.

_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1), fear may be set down to a
twofold cause: one is by way of a material disposition, on the part
of him that fears; the other is by way of efficient cause, on the
part of the person feared. As to the first then, some defect is, of
itself, the cause of fear: for it is owing to some lack of power that
one is unable easily to repulse a threatening evil. And yet, in order
to cause fear, this defect must be according to a measure. For the
defect which causes fear of a future evil, is less than the defect
caused by evil present, which is the object of sorrow. And still
greater would be the defect, if perception of the evil, or love of
the good whose contrary is feared, were entirely absent.

But as to the second, power and strength are, of themselves, the
cause of fear: because it is owing to the fact that the cause
apprehended as harmful is powerful, that its effect cannot be
repulsed. It may happen, however, in this respect, that some defect
causes fear accidentally, in so far as owing to some defect someone
wishes to hurt another; for instance, by reason of injustice, either
because that other has already done him a harm, or because he fears
to be harmed by him.

Reply Obj. 1: This argument is true of the cause of fear, on the part
of the efficient cause.

Reply Obj. 2: Those who are already being executed, are actually
suffering from a present evil; wherefore their defect exceeds the
measure of fear.

Reply Obj. 3: Those who contend with one another are afraid, not on
account of the power which enables them to contend: but on account of
the lack of power, owing to which they are not confident of victory.
________________________

QUESTION 44

OF THE EFFECTS OF FEAR
(In Four Articles)

We must now consider the effects of fear: under which head there are
four points of inquiry:

(1) Whether fear causes contraction?

(2) Whether it makes men suitable for counsel?

(3) Whether it makes one tremble?

(4) Whether it hinders action?
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 44, Art. 1]

Whether Fear Causes Contraction?

Objection 1: It would seem that fear does not cause contraction. For
when contraction takes place, the heat and vital spirits are
withdrawn inwardly. But accumulation of heat and vital spirits in the
interior parts of the body, dilates the heart unto endeavors of
daring, as may be seen in those who are angered: while the contrary
happens in those who are afraid. Therefore fear does not cause
contraction.

Obj. 2: Further, when, as a result of contraction, the vital spirits
and heat are accumulated in the interior parts, man cries out, as may
be seen in those who are in pain. But those who fear utter nothing:
on the contrary they lose their speech. Therefore fear does not cause
contraction.

Obj. 3: Further, shame is a kind of fear, as stated above (Q. 41, A.
4). But "those who are ashamed blush," as Cicero (De Quaest. Tusc.
iv, 8), and the Philosopher (Ethic. iv, 9) observe. But blushing is
an indication, not of contraction, but of the reverse. Therefore
contraction is not an effect of fear.

_On the contrary,_ Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii, 23) that "fear
is a power according to _systole_," i.e. contraction.

_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 28, A. 5), in the passions of
the soul, the formal element is the movement of the appetitive power,
while the bodily transmutation is the material element. Both of these
are mutually proportionate; and consequently the bodily transmutation
assumes a resemblance to and the very nature of the appetitive
movement. Now, as to the appetitive movement of the soul, fear
implies a certain contraction: the reason of which is that fear
arises from the imagination of some threatening evil which is
difficult to repel, as stated above (Q. 41, A. 2). But that a thing
be difficult to repel is due to lack of power, as stated above (Q.
43, A. 2): and the weaker a power is, the fewer the things to which
it extends. Wherefore from the very imagination that causes fear
there ensues a certain contraction in the appetite. Thus we observe
in one who is dying that nature withdraws inwardly, on account of the
lack of power: and again we see the inhabitants of a city, when
seized with fear, leave the outskirts, and, as far as possible, make
for the inner quarters. It is in resemblance to this contraction,
which pertains to the appetite of the soul, that in fear a similar
contraction of heat and vital spirits towards the inner parts takes
place in regard to the body.

Reply Obj. 1: As the Philosopher says (De Problem. xxvii, 3),
although in those who fear, the vital spirits recede from outer to
the inner parts of the body, yet the movement of vital spirits is not
the same in those who are angry and those who are afraid. For in
those who are angry, by reason of the heat and subtlety of the vital
spirits, which result from the craving for vengeance, the inward
movement has an upward direction: wherefore the vital spirits and
heat concentrate around the heart: the result being that an angry man
is quick and brave in attacking. But in those who are afraid, on
account of the condensation caused by cold, the vital spirits have a
downward movement; the said cold being due to the imagined lack of
power. Consequently the heat and vital spirits abandon the heart
instead of concentrating around it: the result being that a man who
is afraid is not quick to attack, but is more inclined to run away.

Reply Obj. 2: To everyone that is in pain, whether man or animal, it
is natural to use all possible means of repelling the harmful thing
that causes pain but its presence: thus we observe that animals, when
in pain, attack with their jaws or with their horns. Now the greatest
help for all purposes, in animals, is heat and vital spirits:
wherefore when they are in pain, their nature stores up the heat and
vital spirits within them, in order to make use thereof in repelling
the harmful object. Hence the Philosopher says (De Problem. xxvii, 9)
when the vital spirits and heat are concentrated together within,
they require to find a vent in the voice: for which reason those who
are in pain can scarcely refrain from crying aloud. On the other
hand, in those who are afraid, the internal heat and vital spirits
move from the heart downwards, as stated above (ad 1): wherefore fear
hinders speech which ensues from the emission of the vital spirits in
an upward direction through the mouth: the result being that fear
makes its subject speechless. For this reason, too, fear "makes its
subject tremble," as the Philosopher says (De Problem. xxvii, 1, 6,
7).

Reply Obj. 3: Mortal perils are contrary not only to the appetite of
the soul, but also to nature. Consequently in such like fear, there
is contraction not only in the appetite, but also in the corporeal
nature: for when an animal is moved by the imagination of death, it
experiences a contraction of heat towards the inner parts of the
body, as though it were threatened by a natural death. Hence it is
that "those who are in fear of death turn pale" (Ethic. iv, 9). But
the evil that shame fears, is contrary, not to nature, but only to
the appetite of the soul. Consequently there results a contraction in
this appetite, but not in the corporeal nature; in fact, the soul, as
though contracted in itself, is free to set the vital spirits and
heat in movement, so that they spread to the outward parts of the
body: the result being that those who are ashamed blush.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 44, Art. 2]

Whether Fear Makes One Suitable for Counsel?

Objection 1: It would seem that fear does not make one suitable for
counsel. For the same thing cannot be conducive to counsel, and a
hindrance thereto. But fear hinders counsel: because every passion
disturbs repose, which is requisite for the good use of reason.
Therefore fear does not make a man suitable for counsel.

Obj. 2: Further, counsel is an act of reason, in thinking and
deliberating about the future. But a certain fear "drives away all
thought, and dislocates the mind," as Cicero observes (De Quaest.
Tusc. iv, 8). Therefore fear does not conduce to counsel, but
hinders it.

Obj. 3: Further, just as we have recourse to counsel in order to
avoid evil, so do we, in order to attain good things. But whereas
fear is of evil to be avoided, so is hope of good things to be
obtained. Therefore fear is not more conducive to counsel, than hope
is.

_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 5) that "fear
makes men of counsel."

_I answer that,_ A man of counsel may be taken in two ways. First,
from his being willing or anxious to take counsel. And thus fear
makes men of counsel. Because, as the Philosopher says (Ethic. iii,
3), "we take counsel on great matters, because therein we distrust
ourselves." Now things which make us afraid, are not simply evil, but
have a certain magnitude, both because they seem difficult to repel,
and because they are apprehended as near to us, as stated above (Q.
42, A. 2). Wherefore men seek for counsel especially when they are
afraid.

Secondly, a man of counsel means one who is apt for giving good
counsel: and in this sense, neither fear nor any passion makes men of
counsel. Because when a man is affected by a passion, things seem to
him greater or smaller than they really are: thus to a lover, what he
loves seems better; to him that fears, what he fears seems more
dreadful. Consequently owing to the want of right judgment, every
passion, considered in itself, hinders the faculty of giving good
counsel.

This suffices for the Reply to the First Objection.

Reply Obj. 2: The stronger a passion is, the greater the hindrance is
it to the man who is swayed by it. Consequently, when fear is
intense, man does indeed wish to take counsel, but his thoughts are
so disturbed, that he can find no counsel. If, however, the fear be
slight, so as to make a man wish to take counsel, without gravely
disturbing the reason; it may even make it easier for him to take
good counsel, by reason of his ensuing carefulness.

Reply Obj. 3: Hope also makes man a good counsellor: because, as the
Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 5), "no man takes counsel in matters he
despairs of," nor about impossible things, as he says in _Ethic._
iii, 3. But fear incites to counsel more than hope does. Because hope
is of good things, as being possible of attainment; whereas fear is
of evil things, as being difficult to repel, so that fear regards the
aspect of difficulty more than hope does. And it is in matters of
difficulty, especially when we distrust ourselves, that we take
counsel, as stated above.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 44, Art. 3]

Whether Fear Makes One Tremble?

Objection 1: It would seem that trembling is not an effect of fear.
Because trembling is occasioned by cold; thus we observe that a cold
person trembles. Now fear does not seem to make one cold, but rather
to cause a parching heat: a sign whereof is that those who fear are
thirsty, especially if their fear be very great, as in the case of
those who are being led to execution. Therefore fear does not cause
trembling.

Obj. 2: Further, faecal evacuation is occasioned by heat; hence
laxative medicines are generally warm. But these evacuations are
often caused by fear. Therefore fear apparently causes heat; and
consequently does not cause trembling.

Obj. 3: Further, in fear, the heat is withdrawn from the outer to the
inner parts of the body. If, therefore, man trembles in his outward
parts, through the heat being withdrawn thus; it seems that fear
should cause this trembling in all the external members. But such is
not the case. Therefore trembling of the body is not caused by fear.

_On the contrary,_ Cicero says (De Quaest. Tusc. iv, 8) that "fear is
followed by trembling, pallor and chattering of the teeth."

_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1), in fear there takes place a
certain contraction from the outward to the inner parts of the body,
the result being that the outer parts become cold; and for this
reason trembling is occasioned in these parts, being caused by a lack
of power in controlling the members: which lack of power is due to
the want of heat, which is the instrument whereby the soul moves
those members, as stated in _De Anima_ ii, 4.

Reply Obj. 1: When the heat withdraws from the outer to the inner
parts, the inward heat increases, especially in the inferior or
nutritive parts. Consequently the humid element being spent, thirst
ensues; sometimes indeed the result is a loosening of the bowels, and
urinary or even seminal evacuation. Or else such like evacuations are
due to contraction of the abdomen and testicles, as the Philosopher
says (De Problem. xxii, 11).

This suffices for the Reply to the Second Objection.

Reply Obj. 3: In fear, heat abandons the heart, with a downward
movement: hence in those who are afraid the heart especially
trembles, as also those members which are connected with the breast
where the heart resides. Hence those who fear tremble especially in
their speech, on account of the tracheal artery being near the heart.
The lower lip, too, and the lower jaw tremble, through their
connection with the heart; which explains the chattering of the
teeth. For the same reason the arms and hands tremble. Or else
because the aforesaid members are more mobile. For which reason the
knees tremble in those who are afraid, according to Isa. 35:3:
"Strengthen ye the feeble hands, and confirm the trembling [Vulg.:
'weak'] knees."
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 44, Art. 4]

Whether Fear Hinders Action?

Objection 1: It would seem that fear hinders action. For action is
hindered chiefly by a disturbance in the reason, which directs
action. But fear disturbs reason, as stated above (A. 2). Therefore
fear hinders action.

Obj. 2: Further, those who fear while doing anything, are more apt to
fail: thus a man who walks on a plank placed aloft, easily falls
through fear; whereas, if he were to walk on the same plank down
below, he would not fall, through not being afraid. Therefore fear
hinders action.

Obj. 3: Further, laziness or sloth is a kind of fear. But laziness
hinders action. Therefore fear does too.

_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says (Phil. 2:12): "With fear and
trembling work out your salvation": and he would not say this if fear
were a hindrance to a good work. Therefore fear does not hinder a
good action.

_I answer that,_ Man's exterior actions are caused by the soul as
first mover, but by the bodily members as instruments. Now action may
be hindered both by defect of the instrument, and by defect of the
principal mover. On the part of the bodily instruments, fear,
considered in itself, is always apt to hinder exterior action, on
account of the outward members being deprived, through fear, of their
heat. But on the part of the soul, if the fear be moderate, without
much disturbance of the reason, it conduces to working well, in so
far as it causes a certain solicitude, and makes a man take counsel
and work with greater attention. If, however, fear increases so much
as to disturb the reason, it hinders action even on the part of the
soul. But of such a fear the Apostle does not speak.

This suffices for the Reply to the First Objection.

Reply Obj. 2: He that falls from a plank placed aloft, suffers a
disturbance of his imagination, through fear of the fall that is
pictured to his imagination.

Reply Obj. 3: Everyone in fear shuns that which he fears: and
therefore, since laziness is a fear of work itself as being toilsome,
it hinders work by withdrawing the will from it. But fear of other
things conduces to action, in so far as it inclines the will to do
that whereby a man escapes from what he fears.
________________________

QUESTION 45

OF DARING
(In Four Articles)

We must now consider daring: under which head there are four points
of inquiry:

(1) Whether daring is contrary to fear?

(2) How is daring related to hope?

(3) Of the cause of daring;

(4) Of its effect.
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 45, Art. 1]

Whether Daring Is Contrary to Fear?

Objection 1: It would seem that daring is not contrary to fear. For
Augustine says (QQ. 83, qu. 31) that "daring is a vice." Now vice is
contrary to virtue. Since, therefore, fear is not a virtue but a
passion, it seems that daring is not contrary to fear.

Obj. 2: Further, to one thing there is one contrary. But hope is
contrary to fear. Therefore daring is not contrary to fear.

Obj. 3: Further, every passion excludes its opposite. But fear
excludes safety; for Augustine says (Confess. ii, 6) that "fear takes
forethought for safety." Therefore safety is contrary to fear.
Therefore daring is not contrary to fear.

_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 5) that "daring is
contrary to fear."

_I answer that,_ It is of the essence of contraries to be "farthest
removed from one another," as stated in _Metaph._ x, 4. Now that
which is farthest removed from fear, is daring: since fear turns away
from the future hurt, on account of its victory over him that fears
it; whereas daring turns on threatened danger because of its own
victory over that same danger. Consequently it is evident that daring
is contrary to fear.

Reply Obj. 1: Anger, daring and all the names of the passions can be
taken in two ways. First, as denoting absolutely movements of the
sensitive appetite in respect of some object, good or bad: and thus
they are names of passions. Secondly, as denoting besides this
movement, a straying from the order of reason: and thus they are
names of vices. It is in this sense that Augustine speaks of daring:
but we are speaking of it in the first sense.

Reply Obj. 2: To one thing, in the same respect, there are not
several contraries; but in different respects nothing prevents one
thing having several contraries. Accordingly it has been said above
(Q. 23, A. 2; Q. 40, A. 4) that the irascible passions admit of a
twofold contrariety: one, according to the opposition of good and
evil, and thus fear is contrary to hope: the other, according to the
opposition of approach and withdrawal, and thus daring is contrary to
fear, and despair contrary to hope.

Reply Obj. 3: Safety does not denote something contrary to fear, but
merely the exclusion of fear: for he is said to be safe, who fears
not. Wherefore safety is opposed to fear, as a privation: while
daring is opposed thereto as a contrary. And as contrariety implies
privation, so daring implies safety.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 45, Art. 2]

Whether Daring Ensues from Hope?

Objection 1: It would seem that daring does not ensue from hope.
Because daring regards evil and fearful things, as stated in _Ethic._
iii, 7. But hope regards good things, as stated above (Q. 40, A. 1).
Therefore they have different objects and are not in the same order.
Therefore daring does not ensue from hope.

Obj. 2: Further, just as daring is contrary to fear, so is despair
contrary to hope. But fear does not ensue from despair: in fact,
despair excludes fear, as the Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 5).
Therefore daring does not result from hope.

Obj. 3: Further, daring is intent on something good, viz. victory.
But it belongs to hope to tend to that which is good and difficult.
Therefore daring is the same as hope; and consequently does not
result from it.

_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher says (Ethic. iii, 8) that "those
are hopeful are full of daring." Therefore it seems that daring
ensues from hope.

_I answer that,_ As we have often stated (Q. 22, A. 2; Q. 35, A. 1;
Q. 41, A. 1), all these passions belong to the appetitive power. Now
every movement of the appetitive power is reducible to one either of
pursuit or of avoidance. Again, pursuit or avoidance is of something
either by reason of itself or by reason of something else. By reason
of itself, good is the object of pursuit, and evil, the object of
avoidance: but by reason of something else, evil can be the object of
pursuit, through some good attaching to it; and good can be the
object of avoidance, through some evil attaching to it. Now that
which is by reason of something else, follows that which is by reason
of itself. Consequently pursuit of evil follows pursuit of good; and
avoidance of good follows avoidance of evil. Now these four things
belong to four passions, since pursuit of good belongs to hope,
avoidance of evil to fear, the pursuit of the fearful evil belongs to
daring, and the avoidance of good to despair. It follows, therefore,
that daring results from hope; since it is in the hope of overcoming
the threatening object of fear, that one attacks it boldly. But
despair results from fear: since the reason why a man despairs is
because he fears the difficulty attaching to the good he should hope
for.

Reply Obj. 1: This argument would hold, if good and evil were not
co-ordinate objects. But because evil has a certain relation to good,
since it comes after good, as privation comes after habit;
consequently daring which pursues evil, comes after hope which
pursues good.

Reply Obj. 2: Although good, absolutely speaking, is prior to evil,
yet avoidance of evil precedes avoidance of good; just as the pursuit
of good precedes the pursuit of evil. Consequently just as hope
precedes daring, so fear precedes despair. And just as fear does not
always lead to despair, but only when it is intense; so hope does not
always lead to daring, save only when it is strong.

Reply Obj. 3: Although the object of daring is an evil to which, in
the estimation of the daring man, the good of victory is conjoined;
yet daring regards the evil, and hope regards the conjoined good. In
like manner despair regards directly the good which it turns away
from, while fear regards the conjoined evil. Hence, properly
speaking, daring is not a part of hope, but its effect: just as
despair is an effect, not a part, of fear. For this reason, too,
daring cannot be a principal passion.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 45, Art. 3]

Whether Some Defect Is a Cause of Daring?

Objection 1: It would seem that some defect is a cause of daring. For
the Philosopher says (De Problem. xxvii, 4) that "lovers of wine are
strong and daring." But from wine ensues the effect of drunkenness.
Therefore daring is caused by a defect.

Obj. 2: Further, the Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 5) that "those who
have no experience of danger are bold." But want of experience is a
defect. Therefore daring is caused by a defect.

Obj. 3: Further, those who have suffered wrongs are wont to be
daring; "like the beasts when beaten," as stated in _Ethic._ iii, 5.
But the suffering of wrongs pertains to defect. Therefore daring is
caused by a defect.

_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 5) that the cause
of daring "is the presence in the imagination of the hope that the
means of safety are nigh, and that the things to be feared are either
non-existent or far off." But anything pertaining to defect implies
either the removal of the means of safety, or the proximity of
something to be feared. Therefore nothing pertaining to defect is a
cause of daring.

_I answer that,_ As stated above (AA. 1, 2) daring results from hope
and is contrary to fear: wherefore whatever is naturally apt to cause
hope or banish fear, is a cause of daring. Since, however, fear and
hope, and also daring, being passions, consist in a movement of the
appetite, and in a certain bodily transmutation; a thing may be
considered as the cause of daring in two ways, whether by raising
hope, or by banishing fear; in one way, in the part of the appetitive
movement; in another way, on the part of the bodily transmutation.

On the part of the appetitive movement which follows apprehension,
hope that leads to daring is roused by those things that make us
reckon victory as possible. Such things regard either our own power,
as bodily strength, experience of dangers, abundance of wealth, and
the like; or they regard the powers of others, such as having a great
number of friends or any other means of help, especially if a man
trust in the Divine assistance: wherefore "those are more daring,
with whom it is well in regard to godlike things," as the Philosopher
says (Rhet. ii, 5). Fear is banished, in this way, by the removal of
threatening causes of fear; for instance, by the fact that a man has
no enemies, through having harmed nobody, so that he is not aware of
any imminent danger; since those especially appear to be threatened
by danger, who have harmed others.

On the part of the bodily transmutation, daring is caused through the
incitement of hope and the banishment of fear, by those things which
raise the temperature about the heart. Wherefore the Philosopher says
(De Part. Animal. iii, 4) that "those whose heart is small in size,
are more daring; while animals whose heart is large are timid;
because the natural heat is unable to give the same degree of
temperature to a large as to a small heart; just as a fire does not
heat a large house as well as it does a small house." He says also
(De Problem. xxvii, 4), that "those whose lungs contain much blood,
are more daring, through the heat in the heart that results
therefrom." He says also in the same passage that "lovers of wine are
more daring, on account of the heat of the wine": hence it has been
said above (Q. 40, A. 6) that drunkenness conduces to hope, since the
heat in the heart banishes fear and raises hope, by reason of the
dilatation and enlargement of the heart.

Reply Obj. 1: Drunkenness causes daring, not through being a defect,
but through dilating the heart: and again through making a man think
greatly of himself.

Reply Obj. 2: Those who have no experience of dangers are more
daring, not on account of a defect, but accidentally, i.e. in so far
as through being inexperienced they do not know their own failings,
nor the dangers that threaten. Hence it is that the removal of the
cause of fear gives rise to daring.

Reply Obj. 3: As the Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 5) "those who have
been wronged are courageous, because they think that God comes to the
assistance of those who suffer unjustly."

Hence it is evident that no defect causes daring except accidentally,
i.e. in so far as some excellence attaches thereto, real or
imaginary, either in oneself or in another.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 45, Art. 4]

Whether the Brave Are More Eager at First Than in the Midst of Danger?

Objection 1: It would seem that the daring are not more eager at
first than in the midst of danger. Because trembling is caused by
fear, which is contrary to daring, as stated above (A. 1; Q. 44, A.
3). But the daring sometimes tremble at first, as the Philosopher
says (De Problem. xxvii, 3). Therefore they are not more eager at
first than in the midst of danger.

Obj. 2: Further, passion is intensified by an increase in its object:
thus since a good is lovable, what is better is yet more lovable. But
the object of daring is something difficult. Therefore the greater
the difficulty, the greater the daring. But danger is more arduous
and difficult when present. It is then therefore that daring is
greatest.

Obj. 3: Further, anger is provoked by the infliction of wounds. But
anger causes daring; for the Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 5) that
"anger makes man bold." Therefore when man is in the midst of danger
and when he is being beaten, then is he most daring.

_On the contrary,_ It is said in _Ethic._ iii, 7 that "the daring are
precipitate and full of eagerness before the danger, yet in the midst
of dangers they stand aloof."

_I answer that,_ Daring, being a movement of the sensitive appetite,
follows an apprehension of the sensitive faculty. But the sensitive
faculty cannot make comparisons, nor can it inquire into
circumstances; its judgment is instantaneous. Now it happens
sometimes that it is impossible for a man to take note in an instant
of all the difficulties of a certain situation: hence there arises
the movement of daring to face the danger; so that when he comes to
experience the danger, he feels the difficulty to be greater than he
expected, and so gives way.

On the other hand, reason discusses all the difficulties of a
situation. Consequently men of fortitude who face danger according to
the judgment of reason, at first seem slack, because they face the
danger not from passion but with due deliberation. Yet when they are
in the midst of danger, they experience nothing unforeseen, but
sometimes the difficulty turns out to be less than they anticipated;
wherefore they are more persevering. Moreover, it may be because they
face the danger on account of the good of virtue which is the abiding
object of their will, however great the danger may prove: whereas men
of daring face the danger on account of a mere thought giving rise to
hope and banishing fear, as stated above (A. 3).

Reply Obj. 1: Trembling does occur in men of daring, on account of
the heat being withdrawn from the outer to the inner parts of the
body, as occurs also in those who are afraid. But in men of daring
the heat withdraws to the heart; whereas in those who are afraid, it
withdraws to the inferior parts.

Reply Obj. 2: The object of love is good simply, wherefore if it be
increased, love is increased simply. But the object of daring is a
compound of good and evil; and the movement of daring towards evil
presupposes the movement of hope towards good. If, therefore, so much
difficulty be added to the danger that it overcomes hope, the
movement of daring does not ensue, but fails. But if the movement of
daring does ensue, the greater the danger, the greater is the daring
considered to be.

Reply Obj. 3: Hurt does not give rise to anger unless there be some
kind of hope, as we shall see later on (Q. 46, A. 1). Consequently if
the danger be so great as to banish all hope of victory, anger does
not ensue. It is true, however, that if anger does ensue, there will
be greater daring.
________________________

QUESTION 46

OF ANGER, IN ITSELF
(In Eight Articles)

We must now consider anger: and (1) anger in itself; (2) the cause of
anger and its remedy; (3) the effect of anger.

Under the first head there are eight points of inquiry:

(1) Whether anger is a special passion?

(2) Whether the object of anger is good or evil?

(3) Whether anger is in the concupiscible faculty?

(4) Whether anger is accompanied by an act of reason?

(5) Whether anger is more natural than desire?

(6) Whether anger is more grievous than hatred?

(7) Whether anger is only towards those with whom we have a relation
of justice?

(8) Of the species of anger.
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 46, Art. 1]

Whether Anger Is a Special Passion?

Objection 1: It would seem that anger is not a special passion. For
the irascible power takes its name from anger (_ira_). But there are
several passions in this power, not only one. Therefore anger is not
one special passion.

Obj. 2: Further, to every special passion there is a contrary
passion; as is evident by going through them one by one. But no
passion is contrary to anger, as stated above (Q. 23, A. 3).
Therefore anger is not a special passion.

Obj. 3: Further, one special passion does not include another. But
anger includes several passions: since it accompanies sorrow,
pleasure, and hope, as the Philosopher states (Rhet. ii, 2).
Therefore anger is not a special passion.

_On the contrary,_ Damascene (De Fide Orth. ii, 16) calls anger a
special passion: and so does Cicero (De Quaest. Tusc. iv, 7).

_I answer that,_ A thing is said to be general in two ways. First,
by predication; thus "animal" is general in respect of all animals.
Secondly, by causality; thus the sun is the general cause of all
things generated here below, according to Dionysius (Div. Nom. iv).
Because just as a genus contains potentially many differences,
according to a likeness of matter; so an efficient cause contains
many effects according to its active power. Now it happens that an
effect is produced by the concurrence of various causes; and since
every cause remains somewhat in its effect, we may say that, in yet
a third way, an effect which is due to the concurrence of several
causes, has a certain generality, inasmuch as several causes are,
in a fashion, actually existing therein.

Accordingly in the first way, anger is not a general passion but is
condivided with the other passions, as stated above (Q. 23, A. 4). In
like manner, neither is it in the second way: since it is not a cause
of the other passions. But in this way, love may be called a general
passion, as Augustine declares (De Civ. Dei xiv, 7, 9), because love
is the primary root of all the other passions, as stated above (Q.
27, A. 4). But, in a third way, anger may be called a general
passion, inasmuch as it is caused by a concurrence of several
passions. Because the movement of anger does not arise save on
account of some pain inflicted, and unless there be desire and hope
of revenge: for, as the Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 2), "the angry
man hopes to punish; since he craves for revenge as being possible."
Consequently if the person, who inflicted the injury, excel very
much, anger does not ensue, but only sorrow, as Avicenna states (De
Anima iv, 6).

Reply Obj. 1: The irascible power takes its name from "ira" (anger),
not because every movement of that power is one of anger; but because
all its movements terminate in anger; and because, of all these
movements, anger is the most patent.

Reply Obj. 2: From the very fact that anger is caused by contrary
passions, i.e. by hope, which is of good, and by sorrow, which is of
evil, it includes in itself contrariety: and consequently it has no
contrary outside itself. Thus also in mixed colors there is no
contrariety, except that of the simple colors from which they are
made.

Reply Obj. 3: Anger includes several passions, not indeed as a genus
includes several species; but rather according to the inclusion of
cause and effect.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 46, Art. 2]

Whether the Object of Anger Is Good or Evil?

Objection 1: It would seem that the object of anger is evil. For
Gregory of Nyssa says [*Nemesius, De Nat. Hom. xxi.] that anger is
"the sword-bearer of desire," inasmuch, to wit, as it assails
whatever obstacle stands in the way of desire. But an obstacle has
the character of evil. Therefore anger regards evil as its object.

Obj. 2: Further, anger and hatred agree in their effect, since each
seeks to inflict harm on another. But hatred regards evil as its
object, as stated above (Q. 29, A. 1). Therefore anger does also.

Obj. 3: Further, anger arises from sorrow; wherefore the Philosopher
says (Ethic. viii, 6) that "anger acts with sorrow." But evil is the
object of sorrow. Therefore it is also the object of anger.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (Confess. ii, 6) that "anger craves
for revenge." But the desire for revenge is a desire for something
good: since revenge belongs to justice. Therefore the object of anger
is good.

Moreover, anger is always accompanied by hope, wherefore it causes
pleasure, as the Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 2). But the object of
hope and of pleasure is good. Therefore good is also the object of
anger.

_I answer that,_ The movement of the appetitive power follows an act
of the apprehensive power. Now the apprehensive power apprehends a
thing in two ways. First, by way of an incomplex object, as when we
understand what a man is; secondly, by way of a complex object, as
when we understand that whiteness is in a man. Consequently in each
of these ways the appetitive power can tend to both good and evil: by
way of a simple and incomplex object, when the appetite simply
follows and adheres to good, or recoils from evil: and such movements
are desire, hope, pleasure, sorrow, and so forth: by way of a complex
object, as when the appetite is concerned with some good or evil
being in, or being done to, another, either seeking this or recoiling
from it. This is evident in the case of love and hatred: for we love
someone, in so far as we wish some good to be in him; and we hate
someone, in so far as we wish some evil to be in him. It is the same
with anger; for when a man is angry, he wishes to be avenged on
someone. Hence the movement of anger has a twofold tendency: viz. to
vengeance itself, which it desires and hopes for as being a good,
wherefore it takes pleasure in it; and to the person on whom it seeks
vengeance, as to something contrary and hurtful, which bears the
character of evil.

We must, however, observe a twofold difference in this respect,
between anger on the one side, and hatred and love on the other. The
first difference is that anger always regards two objects: whereas
love and hatred sometimes regard but one object, as when a man is
said to love wine or something of the kind, or to hate it. The second
difference is, that both the objects of love are good: since the
lover wishes good to someone, as to something agreeable to himself:
while both the objects of hatred bear the character of evil: for the
man who hates, wishes evil to someone, as to something disagreeable
to him. Whereas anger regards one object under the aspect of evil,
viz. the noxious person, on whom it seeks to be avenged. Consequently
it is a passion somewhat made up of contrary passions.

This suffices for the Replies to the Objections.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 46, Art. 3]

Whether Anger Is in the Concupiscible Faculty?

Objection 1: It would seem that anger is in the concupiscible
faculty. For Cicero says (De Quaest. Tusc. iv, 9) that anger is a
kind of "desire." But desire is in the concupiscible faculty.
Therefore anger is too.

Obj. 2: Further, Augustine says in his Rule, that "anger grows into
hatred": and Cicero says (De Quaest. Tusc. iv, 9) that "hatred is
inveterate anger." But hatred, like love, is a concupiscible passion.
Therefore anger is in the concupiscible faculty.

Obj. 3: Further, Damascene (De Fide Orth. ii, 16) and Gregory of
Nyssa [*Nemesius, De Nat. Hom. xxi.] say that "anger is made up of
sorrow and desire." Both of these are in the concupiscible faculty.
Therefore anger is a concupiscible passion.

_On the contrary,_ The concupiscible is distinct from the irascible
faculty. If, therefore, anger were in the concupiscible power, the
irascible would not take its name from it.

_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 23, A. 1), the passions of the
irascible part differ from the passions of the concupiscible faculty,
in that the objects of the concupiscible passions are good and evil
absolutely considered, whereas the objects of the irascible passions
are good and evil in a certain elevation or arduousness. Now it has
been stated (A. 2) that anger regards two objects: viz. the vengeance
that it seeks; and the person on whom it seeks vengeance; and in
respect of both, anger requires a certain arduousness: for the
movement of anger does not arise, unless there be some magnitude
about both these objects; since "we make no ado about things that are
naught or very minute," as the Philosopher observes (Rhet. ii, 2). It
is therefore evident that anger is not in the concupiscible, but in
the irascible faculty.

Reply Obj. 1: Cicero gives the name of desire to any kind of craving
for a future good, without discriminating between that which is
arduous and that which is not. Accordingly he reckons anger as a kind
of desire, inasmuch as it is a desire of vengeance. In this sense,
however, desire is common to the irascible and concupiscible
faculties.

Reply Obj. 2: Anger is said to grow into hatred, not as though the
same passion which at first was anger, afterwards becomes hatred by
becoming inveterate; but by a process of causality. For anger when it
lasts a long time engenders hatred.

Reply Obj. 3: Anger is said to be composed of sorrow and desire, not
as though they were its parts, but because they are its causes: and
it has been said above (Q. 25, A. 2) that the concupiscible passions
are the causes of the irascible passions.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 46, Art. 4]

Whether Anger Requires an Act of Reason?

Objection 1: It would seem that anger does not require an act of
reason. For, since anger is a passion, it is in the sensitive
appetite. But the sensitive appetite follows an apprehension, not of
reason, but of the sensitive faculty. Therefore anger does not
require an act of reason.

Obj. 2: Further, dumb animals are devoid of reason: and yet they are
seen to be angry. Therefore anger does not require an act of reason.

Obj. 3: Further, drunkenness fetters the reason; whereas it is
conducive to anger. Therefore anger does not require an act of reason.

_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher says (Ethic. vii, 6) that "anger
listens to reason somewhat."

_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 2), anger is a desire for
vengeance. Now vengeance implies a comparison between the punishment
to be inflicted and the hurt done; wherefore the Philosopher says
(Ethic. vii, 6) that "anger, as if it had drawn the inference that it
ought to quarrel with such a person, is therefore immediately
exasperated." Now to compare and to draw an inference is an act of
reason. Therefore anger, in a fashion, requires an act of reason.

Reply Obj. 1: The movement of the appetitive power may follow an act
of reason in two ways. In the first way, it follows the reason in so
far as the reason commands: and thus the will follows reason,
wherefore it is called the rational appetite. In another way, it
follows reason in so far as the reason denounces, and thus anger
follows reason. For the Philosopher says (De Problem. xxviii, 3) that
"anger follows reason, not in obedience to reason's command, but as a
result of reason's denouncing the injury." Because the sensitive
appetite is subject to the reason, not immediately but through the
will.

Reply Obj. 2: Dumb animals have a natural instinct imparted to them
by the Divine Reason, in virtue of which they are gifted with
movements, both internal and external, like unto rational movements,
as stated above (Q. 40, A. 3).

Reply Obj. 3: As stated in _Ethic._ vii, 6, "anger listens somewhat
to reason" in so far as reason denounces the injury inflicted, "but
listens not perfectly," because it does not observe the rule of
reason as to the measure of vengeance. Anger, therefore, requires an
act of reason; and yet proves a hindrance to reason. Wherefore the
Philosopher says (De Problem. iii, 2, 27) that whose who are very
drunk, so as to be incapable of the use of reason, do not get angry:
but those who are slightly drunk, do get angry, through being still
able, though hampered, to form a judgment of reason.
________________________

FIFTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 46, Art. 5]

Whether Anger Is More Natural Than Desire?

Objection 1: It would seem that anger is not more natural than
desire. Because it is proper to man to be by nature a gentle animal.
But "gentleness is contrary to anger," as the Philosopher states
(Rhet. ii, 3). Therefore anger is no more natural than desire, in
fact it seems to be altogether unnatural to man.

Obj. 2: Further, reason is contrasted with nature: since those things
that act according to reason, are not said to act according to
nature. Now "anger requires an act of reason, but desire does not,"
as stated in _Ethic._ vii, 6. Therefore desire is more natural than
anger.

Obj. 3: Further, anger is a craving for vengeance: while desire is a
craving for those things especially which are pleasant to the touch,
viz. for pleasures of the table and for sexual pleasures. But these
things are more natural to man than vengeance. Therefore desire is
more natural than anger.

_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher says (Ethic. vii, 6) that "anger
is more natural than desire."

_I answer that,_ By "natural" we mean that which is caused by nature,
as stated in _Phys._ ii, 1. Consequently the question as to whether a
particular passion is more or less natural cannot be decided without
reference to the cause of that passion. Now the cause of a passion,
as stated above (Q. 36, A. 2), may be considered in two ways: first,
on the part of the object; secondly, on the part of the subject. If
then we consider the cause of anger and of desire, on the part of the
object, thus desire, especially of pleasures of the table, and of
sexual pleasures, is more natural than anger; in so far as these
pleasures are more natural to man than vengeance.

If, however, we consider the cause of anger on the part of the
subject, thus anger, in a manner, is more natural; and, in a manner,
desire is more natural. Because the nature of an individual man may
be considered either as to the generic, or as to the specific nature,
or again as to the particular temperament of the individual. If then
we consider the generic nature, i.e. the nature of this man
considered as an animal; thus desire is more natural than anger;
because it is from this very generic nature that man is inclined to
desire those things which tend to preserve in him the life both of
the species and of the individual. If, however, we consider the
specific nature, i.e. the nature of this man as a rational being;
then anger is more natural to man than desire, in so far as anger
follows reason more than desire does. Wherefore the Philosopher says
(Ethic. iv, 5) that "revenge" which pertains to anger "is more
natural to man than meekness": for it is natural to everything to
rise up against things contrary and hurtful. And if we consider the
nature of the individual, in respect of his particular temperament,
thus anger is more natural than desire; for the reason that anger is
prone to ensue from the natural tendency to anger, more than desire,
or any other passion, is to ensue from a natural tendency to desire,
which tendencies result from a man's individual temperament. Because
disposition to anger is due to a bilious temperament; and of all the
humors, the bile moves quickest; for it is like fire. Consequently he
that is temperamentally disposed to anger is sooner incensed with
anger, than he that is temperamentally disposed to desire, is
inflamed with desire: and for this reason the Philosopher says
(Ethic. vii, 6) that a disposition to anger is more liable to be
transmitted from parent to child, than a disposition to desire.

Reply Obj. 1: We may consider in man both the natural temperament on
the part of the body, and the reason. On the part of the bodily
temperament, a man, considered specifically, does not naturally excel
others either in anger or in any other passion, on account of the
moderation of his temperament. But other animals, for as much as
their temperament recedes from this moderation and approaches to an
extreme disposition, are naturally disposed to some excess of
passion, such as the lion in daring, the hound in anger, the hare in
fear, and so forth. On the part of reason, however, it is natural to
man, both to be angry and to be gentle: in so far as reason somewhat
causes anger, by denouncing the injury which causes anger; and
somewhat appeases anger, in so far as the angry man "does not listen
perfectly to the command of reason," as stated above (A. 4, ad 3).

Reply Obj. 2: Reason itself belongs to the nature of man: wherefore
from the very fact that anger requires an act of reason, it follows
that it is, in a manner, natural to man.

Reply Obj. 3: This argument regards anger and desire on the part of
the object.
________________________

SIXTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 46, Art. 6]

Whether Anger Is More Grievous Than Hatred?

Objection 1: It would seem that anger is more grievous than hatred.
For it is written (Prov. 27:4) that "anger hath no mercy, nor fury
when it breaketh forth." But hatred sometimes has mercy. Therefore
anger is more grievous than hatred.

Obj. 2: Further, it is worse to suffer evil and to grieve for it,
than merely to suffer it. But when a man hates, he is contented if
the object of his hatred suffer evil: whereas the angry man is not
satisfied unless the object of his anger know it and be aggrieved
thereby, as the Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 4). Therefore, anger is
more grievous than hatred.

Obj. 3: Further, a thing seems to be so much the more firm according
as more things concur to set it up: thus a habit is all the more
settled through being caused by several acts. But anger is caused by
the concurrence of several passions, as stated above (A. 1): whereas
hatred is not. Therefore anger is more settled and more grievous than
hatred.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine, in his Rule, compares hatred to "a
beam," but anger to "a mote."

_I answer that,_ The species and nature of a passion are taken from
its object. Now the object of anger is the same in substance as the
object of hatred; since, just as the hater wishes evil to him whom he
hates, so does the angry man wish evil to him with whom he is angry.
But there is a difference of aspect: for the hater wishes evil to his
enemy, as evil, whereas the angry man wishes evil to him with whom he
is angry, not as evil but in so far as it has an aspect of good, that
is, in so far as he reckons it as just, since it is a means of
vengeance. Wherefore also it has been said above (A. 2) that hatred
implies application of evil to evil, whereas anger denotes
application of good to evil. Now it is evident that to seek evil
under the aspect of justice, is a lesser evil, than simply to seek
evil to someone. Because to wish evil to someone under the aspect of
justice, may be according to the virtue of justice, if it be in
conformity with the order of reason; and anger fails only in this,
that it does not obey the precept of reason in taking vengeance.
Consequently it is evident that hatred is far worse and graver than
anger.

Reply Obj. 1: In anger and hatred two points may be considered:
namely, the thing desired, and the intensity of the desire. As to the
thing desired, anger has more mercy than hatred has. For since hatred
desires another's evil for evil's sake, it is satisfied with no
particular measure of evil: because those things that are desired for
their own sake, are desired without measure, as the Philosopher
states (Polit. i, 3), instancing a miser with regard to riches. Hence
it is written (Ecclus. 12:16): "An enemy . . . if he find an
opportunity, will not be satisfied with blood." Anger, on the other
hand, seeks evil only under the aspect of a just means of vengeance.
Consequently when the evil inflicted goes beyond the measure of
justice according to the estimate of the angry man, then he has
mercy. Wherefore the Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 4) that "the angry
man is appeased if many evils befall, whereas the hater is never
appeased."

As to the intensity of the desire, anger excludes mercy more than
hatred does; because the movement of anger is more impetuous, through
the heating of the bile. Hence the passage quoted continues: "Who can
bear the violence of one provoked?"

Reply Obj. 2: As stated above, an angry man wishes evil to someone,
in so far as this evil is a means of just vengeance. Now vengeance is
wrought by the infliction of a punishment: and the nature of
punishment consists in being contrary to the will, painful, and
inflicted for some fault. Consequently an angry man desires this,
that the person whom he is hurting, may feel it and be in pain, and
know that this has befallen him on account of the harm he has done
the other. The hater, on the other hand, cares not for all this,
since he desires another's evil as such. It is not true, however,
that an evil is worse through giving pain: because "injustice and
imprudence, although evil," yet, being voluntary, "do not grieve
those in whom they are," as the Philosopher observes (Rhet. ii, 4).

Reply Obj. 3: That which proceeds from several causes, is more
settled when these causes are of one kind: but it may be that one
cause prevails over many others. Now hatred ensues from a more
lasting cause than anger does. Because anger arises from an emotion
of the soul due to the wrong inflicted; whereas hatred ensues from a
disposition in a man, by reason of which he considers that which he
hates to be contrary and hurtful to him. Consequently, as passion is
more transitory than disposition or habit, so anger is less lasting
than hatred; although hatred itself is a passion ensuing from this
disposition. Hence the Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 4) that "hatred
is more incurable than anger."
________________________

SEVENTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 46, Art. 7]

Whether Anger Is Only Towards Those to Whom One Has an Obligation of
Justice?

Objection 1: It would seem that anger is not only towards those to
whom one has an obligation of justice. For there is no justice
between man and irrational beings. And yet sometimes one is angry
with irrational beings; thus, out of anger, a writer throws away his
pen, or a rider strikes his horse. Therefore anger is not only
towards those to whom one has an obligation of justice.

Obj. 2: Further, "there is no justice towards oneself . . . nor is
there justice towards one's own" (Ethic. v, 6). But sometimes a man
is angry with himself; for instance, a penitent, on account of his
sin; hence it is written (Ps. 4:5): "Be ye angry and sin not."
Therefore anger is not only towards those with whom one has a
relation of justice.

Obj. 3: Further, justice and injustice can be of one man towards an
entire class, or a whole community: for instance, when the state
injures an individual. But anger is not towards a class but only
towards an individual, as the Philosopher states (Rhet. ii, 4).
Therefore properly speaking, anger is not towards those with whom one
is in relation of justice or injustice.

The contrary, however, may be gathered from the Philosopher (Rhet.
ii, 2, 3).

_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 6), anger desires evil as being
a means of just vengeance. Consequently, anger is towards those to
whom we are just or unjust: since vengeance is an act of justice, and
wrong-doing is an act of injustice. Therefore both on the part of the
cause, viz. the harm done by another, and on the part of the
vengeance sought by the angry man, it is evident that anger concerns
those to whom one is just or unjust.

Reply Obj. 1: As stated above (A. 4, ad 2), anger, though it follows
an act of reason, can nevertheless be in dumb animals that are devoid
of reason, in so far as through their natural instinct they are moved
by their imagination to something like rational action. Since then in
man there is both reason and imagination, the movement of anger can
be aroused in man in two ways. First, when only his imagination
denounces the injury: and, in this way, man is aroused to a movement
of anger even against irrational and inanimate beings, which movement
is like that which occurs in animals against anything that injures
them. Secondly, by the reason denouncing the injury: and thus,
according to the Philosopher (Rhet. ii, 3), "it is impossible to be
angry with insensible things, or with the dead": both because they
feel no pain, which is, above all, what the angry man seeks in those
with whom he is angry: and because there is no question of vengeance
on them, since they can do us no harm.

Reply Obj. 2: As the Philosopher says (Ethic. v, 11), "metaphorically
speaking there is a certain justice and injustice between a man and
himself," in so far as the reason rules the irascible and
concupiscible parts of the soul. And in this sense a man is said to
be avenged on himself, and consequently, to be angry with himself.
But properly, and in accordance with the nature of things, a man is
never angry with himself.

Reply Obj. 3: The Philosopher (Rhet. ii, 4) assigns as one difference
between hatred and anger, that "hatred may be felt towards a class,
as we hate the entire class of thieves; whereas anger is directed
only towards an individual." The reason is that hatred arises from
our considering a quality as disagreeing with our disposition; and
this may refer to a thing in general or in particular. Anger, on the
other hand, ensues from someone having injured us by his action. Now
all actions are the deeds of individuals: and consequently anger is
always pointed at an individual. When the whole state hurts us, the
whole state is reckoned as one individual [*Cf. Q. 29, A. 6].
________________________

EIGHTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 46, Art. 8]

Whether the Species of Anger Are Suitably Assigned?

Objection 1: It would seem that Damascene (De Fide Orth. ii, 16)
unsuitably assigns three species of anger--"wrath," "ill-will" and
"rancor." For no genus derives its specific differences from
accidents. But these three are diversified in respect of an accident:
because "the beginning of the movement of anger is called wrath
(_cholos_), if anger continue it is called ill-will (_menis_); while
rancor (_kotos_) is anger waiting for an opportunity of vengeance."
Therefore these are not different species of anger.

Obj. 2: Further, Cicero says (De Quaest. Tusc. iv, 9) that
"_excandescentia_ (irascibility) is what the Greeks call _thymosis_,
and is a kind of anger that arises and subsides intermittently";
while according to Damascene _thymosis_, is the same as _kotos_
(rancor). Therefore _kotos_ does not bide its time for taking
vengeance, but in course of time spends itself.

Obj. 3: Further, Gregory (Moral. xxi, 4) gives three degrees of
anger, namely, "anger without utterance, anger with utterance, and
anger with perfection of speech," corresponding to the three degrees
mentioned by Our Lord (Matt. 5:22): "Whosoever is angry with his
brother" (thus implying "anger without utterance"), and then,
"whosoever shall say to his brother, 'Raca'" (implying anger with
utterance yet without full expression), and lastly, "whosoever shall
say 'Thou fool'" (where we have "perfection of speech"). Therefore
Damascene's division is imperfect, since it takes no account of
utterance.

_On the contrary,_ stands the authority of Damascene (De Fide Orth.
ii, 16) and Gregory of Nyssa [*Nemesius, De Nat. Hom. xxi.].

_I answer that,_ The species of anger given by Damascene and Gregory
of Nyssa are taken from those things which give increase to anger.
This happens in three ways. First from facility of the movement
itself, and he calls this kind of anger _cholos_ (bile) because it
quickly aroused. Secondly, on the part of the grief that causes
anger, and which dwells some time in the memory; this belongs to
_menis_ (ill-will) which is derived from _menein_ (to dwell).
Thirdly, on the part of that which the angry man seeks, viz.
vengeance; and this pertains to _kotos_ (rancor) which never rests
until it is avenged [*Eph. 4:31: "Let all bitterness and anger and
indignation . . . be put away from you."]. Hence the Philosopher
(Ethic. iv, 5) calls some angry persons _akrocholoi_ (choleric),
because they are easily angered; some he calls _pikroi_ (bitter),
because they retain their anger for a long time; and some he calls
_chalepoi_ (ill-tempered), because they never rest until they have
retaliated [*Cf. II-II, Q. 158, A. 5].

Reply Obj. 1: All those things which give anger some kind of
perfection are not altogether accidental to anger; and consequently
nothing prevents them from causing a certain specific difference
thereof.

Reply Obj. 2: Irascibility, which Cicero mentions, seems to pertain
to the first species of anger, which consists in a certain quickness
of temper, rather than to rancor (_furor_). And there is no reason
why the Greek _thymosis_, which is denoted by the Latin _furor,_
should not signify both quickness to anger, and firmness of purpose
in being avenged.

Reply Obj. 3: These degrees are distinguished according to various
effects of anger; and not according to degrees of perfection in the
very movement of anger.
________________________

QUESTION 47

OF THE CAUSE THAT PROVOKES ANGER, AND OF THE REMEDIES OF ANGER
(In Four Articles)
[*There is no further mention of these remedies in the text, except
in A. 4].

We must now consider the cause that provokes anger, and its remedies.
Under this head there are four points of inquiry:

(1) Whether the motive of anger is always something done against the
one who is angry?

(2) Whether slight or contempt is the sole motive of anger?

(3) Of the cause of anger on the part of the angry person;

(4) Of the cause of anger on the part of the person with whom one is
angry.
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 47, Art. 1]

Whether the Motive of Anger Is Always Something Done Against the One
Who Is Angry?

Objection 1: It would seem that the motive of anger is not always
something done against the one who is angry. Because man, by sinning,
can do nothing against God; since it is written (Job 35:6): "If thy
iniquities be multiplied, what shalt thou do against Him?" And yet
God is spoken of as being angry with man on account of sin, according
to Ps. 105:40: "The Lord was exceedingly angry with His people."
Therefore it is not always on account of something done against him,
that a man is angry.

Obj. 2: Further, anger is a desire for vengeance. But one may desire
vengeance for things done against others. Therefore we are not always
angry on account of something done against us.

Obj. 3: Further, as the Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 2) man is angry
especially with those "who despise what he takes a great interest in;
thus men who study philosophy are angry with those who despise
philosophy," and so forth. But contempt of philosophy does not harm
the philosopher. Therefore it is not always a harm done to us that
makes us angry.

Obj. 4: Further, he that holds his tongue when another insults him,
provokes him to greater anger, as Chrysostom observes (Hom. xxii, in
Ep. ad Rom.). But by holding his tongue he does the other no harm.
Therefore a man is not always provoked to anger by something done
against him.

_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 4) that "anger is
always due to something done to oneself: whereas hatred may arise
without anything being done to us, for we hate a man simply because
we think him such."

_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 46, A. 6), anger is the desire
to hurt another for the purpose of just vengeance. Now unless some
injury has been done, there is no question of vengeance: nor does any
injury provoke one to vengeance, but only that which is done to the
person who seeks vengeance: for just as everything naturally seeks
its own good, so does it naturally repel its own evil. But injury
done by anyone does not affect a man unless in some way it be
something done against him. Consequently the motive of a man's anger
is always something done against him.

Reply Obj. 1: We speak of anger in God, not as of a passion of the
soul but as of judgment of justice, inasmuch as He wills to take
vengeance on sin. Because the sinner, by sinning, cannot do God any
actual harm: but so far as he himself is concerned, he acts against
God in two ways. First, in so far as he despises God in His
commandments. Secondly, in so far as he harms himself or another;
which injury redounds to God, inasmuch as the person injured is an
object of God's providence and protection.

Reply Obj. 2: If we are angry with those who harm others, and seek to
be avenged on them, it is because those who are injured belong in
some way to us: either by some kinship or friendship, or at least
because of the nature we have in common.

Reply Obj. 3: When we take a very great interest in a thing, we look
upon it as our own good; so that if anyone despise it, it seems as
though we ourselves were despised and injured.

Reply Obj. 4: Silence provokes the insulter to anger when he thinks
it is due to contempt, as though his anger were slighted: and a
slight is an action.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 47, Art. 2]

Whether the Sole Motive of Anger Is Slight or Contempt?

Objection 1: It would seem that slight or contempt is not the sole
motive of anger. For Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii, 16) that we
are angry "when we suffer, or think that we are suffering, an
injury." But one may suffer an injury without being despised or
slighted. Therefore a slight is not the only motive of anger.

Obj. 2: Further, desire for honor and grief for a slight belong to
the same subject. But dumb animals do not desire honor. Therefore
they are not grieved by being slighted. And yet "they are roused to
anger, when wounded," as the Philosopher says (Ethic. iii, 8).
Therefore a slight is not the sole motive of anger.

Obj. 3: Further, the Philosopher (Rhet. ii, 2) gives many other
causes of anger, for instance, "being forgotten by others; that
others should rejoice in our misfortunes; that they should make known
our evils; being hindered from doing as we like." Therefore being
slighted is not the only motive for being angry.

_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 2) that anger is
"a desire, with sorrow, for vengeance, on account of a seeming slight
done unbecomingly."

_I answer that,_ All the causes of anger are reduced to slight. For
slight is of three kinds, as stated in Rhet. ii, 2, viz. "contempt,"
  "despiteful treatment," i.e. hindering one from doing one's will,
and "insolence": and all motives of anger are reduced to these three.
Two reasons may be assigned for this. First, because anger seeks
another's hurt as being a means of just vengeance: wherefore it seeks
vengeance in so far as it seems just. Now just vengeance is taken
only for that which is done unjustly; hence that which provokes anger
is always something considered in the light of an injustice.
Wherefore the Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 3) that "men are not
angry,--if they think they have wronged some one and are suffering
justly on that account; because there is no anger at what is just."
Now injury is done to another in three ways: namely, through
ignorance, through passion, and through choice. Then, most of all, a
man does an injustice, when he does an injury from choice, on
purpose, or from deliberate malice, as stated in _Ethic._ v, 8.
Wherefore we are most of all angry with those who, in our opinion,
have hurt us on purpose. For if we think that some one has done us an
injury through ignorance or through passion, either we are not angry
with them at all, or very much less: since to do anything through
ignorance or through passion takes away from the notion of injury,
and to a certain extent calls for mercy and forgiveness. Those, on
the other hand, who do an injury on purpose, seem to sin from
contempt; wherefore we are angry with them most of all. Hence the
Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 3) that "we are either not angry at all,
or not very angry with those who have acted through anger, because
they do not seem to have acted slightingly."

The second reason is because a slight is opposed to a man's
excellence: because "men think little of things that are not worth
much ado" (Rhet. ii, 2). Now we seek for some kind of excellence from
all our goods. Consequently whatever injury is inflicted on us, in so
far as it is derogatory to our excellence, seems to savor of a slight.

Reply Obj. 1: Any other cause, besides contempt, through which a man
suffers an injury, takes away from the notion of injury: contempt or
slight alone adds to the motive of anger, and consequently is of
itself the cause of anger.

Reply Obj. 2: Although a dumb animal does not seek honor as
such, yet it naturally seeks a certain superiority, and is angry with
anything derogatory thereto.

Reply Obj. 3: Each of those causes amounts to some kind of
slight. Thus forgetfulness is a clear sign of slight esteem, for the
more we think of a thing the more is it fixed in our memory. Again if
a man does not hesitate by his remarks to give pain to another, this
seems to show that he thinks little of him: and those too who show
signs of hilarity when another is in misfortune, seem to care little
about his good or evil. Again he that hinders another from carrying
out his will, without deriving thereby any profit to himself, seems
not to care much for his friendship. Consequently all those things, in
so far as they are signs of contempt, provoke anger.
________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 47, Art. 3]

Whether a Man's Excellence Is the Cause of His Being Angry?

Objection 1: It would seem that a man's excellence is not the cause
of his being more easily angry. For the Philosopher says (Rhet. ii,
2) that "some are angry especially when they are grieved, for
instance, the sick, the poor, and those who are disappointed." But
these things seem to pertain to defect. Therefore defect rather than
excellence makes one prone to anger.

Obj. 2: Further, the Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 2) that "some are
very much inclined to be angry when they are despised for some
failing or weakness of the existence of which there are grounds for
suspicion; but if they think they excel in those points, they do not
trouble." But a suspicion of this kind is due to some defect.
Therefore defect rather than excellence is a cause of a man being
angry.

Obj. 3: Further, whatever savors of excellence makes a man agreeable
and hopeful. But the Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 3) that "men are not
angry when they play, make jokes, or take part in a feast, nor when
they are prosperous or successful, nor in moderate pleasures and
well-founded hope." Therefore excellence is not a cause of anger.

_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 9) that excellence
makes men prone to anger.

_I answer that,_ The cause of anger, in the man who is angry, may be
taken in two ways. First in respect of the motive of anger: and thus
excellence is the cause of a man being easily angered. Because the
motive of anger is an unjust slight, as stated above (A. 2). Now it
is evident that the more excellent a man is, the more unjust is a
slight offered him in the matter in which he excels. Consequently
those who excel in any matter, are most of all angry, if they be
slighted in that matter; for instance, a wealthy man in his riches,
or an orator in his eloquence, and so forth.

Secondly, the cause of anger, in the man who is angry, may be
considered on the part of the disposition produced in him by the
motive aforesaid. Now it is evident that nothing moves a man to anger
except a hurt that grieves him: while whatever savors of defect is
above all a cause of grief; since men who suffer from some defect are
more easily hurt. And this is why men who are weak, or subject to
some other defect, are more easily angered, since they are more
easily grieved.

This suffices for the Reply to the First Objection.

Reply Obj. 2: If a man be despised in a matter in which he evidently
excels greatly, he does not consider himself the loser thereby, and
therefore is not grieved: and in this respect he is less angered. But
in another respect, in so far as he is more undeservedly despised, he
has more reason for being angry: unless perhaps he thinks that he is
envied or insulted not through contempt but through ignorance, or
some other like cause.

Reply Obj. 3: All these things hinder anger in so far as they hinder
sorrow. But in another respect they are naturally apt to provoke
anger, because they make it more unseemly to insult anyone.
________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 47, Art. 4]

Whether a Person's Defect Is a Reason for Being More Easily Angry
with Him?

Objection 1: It would seem that a person's defect is not a reason for
being more easily angry with him. For the Philosopher says (Rhet. ii,
3) that "we are not angry with those who confess and repent and
humble themselves; on the contrary, we are gentle with them.
Wherefore dogs bite not those who sit down." But these things savor
of littleness and defect. Therefore littleness of a person is a
reason for being less angry with him.

Obj. 2: Further, there is no greater defect than death. But anger
ceases at the sight of death. Therefore defect of a person does not
provoke anger against him.

Obj. 3: Further, no one thinks little of a man through his being
friendly towards him. But we are more angry with friends, if they
offend us or refuse to help us; hence it is written (Ps. 54:13): "If
my enemy had reviled me I would verily have borne with it." Therefore
a person's defect is not a reason for being more easily angry with
him.

_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 2) that "the rich
man is angry with the poor man, if the latter despise him; and in
like manner the prince is angry with his subject."

_I answer that,_ As stated above (AA. 2, 3) unmerited contempt more
than anything else is a provocative of anger. Consequently deficiency
or littleness in the person with whom we are angry, tends to increase
our anger, in so far as it adds to the unmeritedness of being
despised. For just as the higher a man's position is, the more
undeservedly he is despised; so the lower it is, the less reason he
has for despising. Thus a nobleman is angry if he be insulted by a
peasant; a wise man, if by a fool; a master, if by a servant.

If, however, the littleness or deficiency lessens the unmerited
contempt, then it does not increase but lessens anger. In this way
those who repent of their ill-deeds, and confess that they have done
wrong, who humble themselves and ask pardon, mitigate anger,
according to Prov. 15:1: "A mild answer breaketh wrath": because, to
wit, they seem not to despise, but rather to think much of those
before whom they humble themselves.

This suffices for the Reply to the First Objection.

Reply Obj. 2: There are two reasons why anger ceases at the sight of
death. One is because the dead are incapable of sorrow and sensation;
and this is chiefly what the angry seek in those with whom they are
angered. Another reason is because the dead seem to have attained to
the limit of evils. Hence anger ceases in regard to all who are
grievously hurt, in so far as this hurt surpasses the measure of just
retaliation.

Reply Obj. 3: To be despised by one's friends seems also a greater
indignity. Consequently if they despise us by hurting or by failing
to help, we are angry with them for the same reason for which we are
angry with those who are beneath us.
________________________

QUESTION 48

OF THE EFFECTS OF ANGER
(In Four Articles)

We must now consider the effects of anger: under which head there are
four points of inquiry:

(1) Whether anger causes pleasure?

(2) Whether above all it causes heat in the heart?

(3) Whether above all it hinders the use of reason?

(4) Whether it causes taciturnity?
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 48, Art. 1]

Whether Anger Causes Pleasure?

Objection 1: It would seem that anger does not cause pleasure.
Because sorrow excludes pleasure. But anger is never without sorrow,
since, as stated in _Ethic._ vii, 6, "everyone that acts from anger,
acts with pain." Therefore anger does not cause pleasure.

Obj. 2: Further, the Philosopher says (Ethic. iv, 5) that "vengeance
makes anger to cease, because it substitutes pleasure for pain":
whence we may gather that the angry man derives pleasure from
vengeance, and that vengeance quells his anger. Therefore on the
advent of pleasure, anger departs: and consequently anger is not an
effect united with pleasure.

Obj. 3: Further, no effect hinders its cause, since it is conformed
to its cause. But pleasure hinders anger as stated in _Rhet._ ii, 3.
Therefore pleasure is not an effect of anger.

_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher (Ethic. iv, 5) quotes the saying
that anger is "Sweet to the soul as honey to the taste" (Iliad,
xviii, 109, trl. Pope).

_I answer that,_ As the Philosopher says (Ethic. vii, 14), pleasures,
chiefly sensible and bodily pleasures, are remedies against sorrow:
and therefore the greater the sorrow or anxiety, the more sensible
are we to the pleasure which heals it, as is evident in the case of
thirst which increases the pleasure of drink. Now it is clear from
what has been said (Q. 47, AA. 1, 3), that the movement of anger
arises from a wrong done that causes sorrow, for which sorrow
vengeance is sought as a remedy. Consequently as soon as vengeance is
present, pleasure ensues, and so much the greater according as the
sorrow was greater. Therefore if vengeance be really present, perfect
pleasure ensues, entirely excluding sorrow, so that the movement of
anger ceases. But before vengeance is really present, it becomes
present to the angry man in two ways: in one way, by hope; because
none is angry except he hopes for vengeance, as stated above (Q. 46,
A. 1); in another way, by thinking of it continually, for to everyone
that desires a thing it is pleasant to dwell on the thought of what
he desires; wherefore the imaginings of dreams are pleasant.
Accordingly an angry man takes pleasure in thinking much about
vengeance. This pleasure, however, is not perfect, so as to banish
sorrow and consequently anger.

Reply Obj. 1: The angry man does not grieve and rejoice at the same
thing; he grieves for the wrong done, while he takes pleasure in the
thought and hope of vengeance. Consequently sorrow is to anger as its
beginning; while pleasure is the effect or terminus of anger.

Reply Obj. 2: This argument holds in regard to pleasure caused by the
real presence of vengeance, which banishes anger altogether.

Reply Obj. 3: Pleasure that precedes hinders sorrow from ensuing, and
consequently is a hindrance to anger. But pleasure felt in taking
vengeance follows from anger.
________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 48, Art. 2]

Whether Anger Above All Causes Fervor in the Heart?

Objection 1: It would seem that heat is not above all the effect of
anger. For fervor, as stated above (Q. 28, A. 5; Q. 37, A. 2),
belongs to love. But love, as above stated, is the beginning and
cause of all the passions. Since then the cause is more powerful than
its effect, it seems that anger is not the chief cause of fervor.

Obj. 2: Further, those things which, of themselves, arouse fervor,
increase as time goes on; thus love grows stronger the longer it
lasts. But in course of time anger grows weaker; for the Philosopher
says (Rhet. ii, 3) that "time puts an end to anger." Therefore fervor
is not the proper effect of anger.

Obj. 3: Further, fervor added to fervor produces greater fervor. But
"the addition of a greater anger banishes already existing anger," as
the Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 3). Therefore anger does not cause
fervor.

_On the contrary,_ Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii, 16) that "anger
is fervor of the blood around the heart, resulting from an exhalation
of the bile."

_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 44, A. 1), the bodily
transmutation that occurs in the passions of the soul is
proportionate to the movement of the appetite. Now it is evident that
every appetite, even the natural appetite, tends with greater force
to repel that which is contrary to it, if it be present: hence we see
that hot water freezes harder, as though the cold acted with greater
force on the hot object. Since then the appetitive movement of anger
is caused by some injury inflicted, as by a contrary that is present;
it follows that the appetite tends with great force to repel the
injury by the desire of vengeance; and hence ensues great vehemence
and impetuosity in the movement of anger. And because the movement of
anger is not o