The following discussion comprises three of the most important – and longest – articles in the Summa theologiae. It is the culmination of Thomas’s discussion of human acts, which are for him synonymous with moral acts. A complete human act is a complicated interaction of mind and will. Thomas emphasizes the will-acts as components of human action, but it is clear that each of them has a cognitive counterpart. He distinguishes three will-acts bearing on the end – will, enjoyment and intention – and three will-acts which bear on means – consent, choice and use.
This analysis may seem baroque. Perhaps there are major decisions in life which involve these stages, but is a trip to the mall or the selection of a drink as complicated as all that? The criterion for there being such components of the complete human act is that these are points at which an act may be interrupted. Something is thought of as attractive and the will responds; further dwelling on it leads to an enjoyment of the thought of the possible act; this can solidify into an intention, taking the object as an end to be pursued. When there is only one available means to the end, to want the end is to assent to that way of achieving it. But there may be several means to the end, and the will assents to them all. When it chooses a means, it sets in motion the use of our limbs and other faculties to pursue it. Thomas’s thought is that at any one of those points, we may simply turn our minds to something else. Most actions move seamlessly through these stages and we are not reflectively aware of them. But they are implicit in any complete human act.
In the questions below, Thomas turns to the point of his analysis of human action. What are the criteria for morally appraising our acts, distinguishing between the good and the bad? Or are some of them neither, morally indifferent? A large part of the drama of human moral life is interior, prior to overt action. Thomas therefore speaks of the morality of the human act in general and then turns to the morality of the interior act, after which he discusses the morality of the exterior act.
Summa theologiae, First Part of the Second Part,
Questions 18–20
QUESTION 18
THE GOODNESS AND BADNESS OF HUMAN
ACTS IN GENERAL
Next we should consider the goodness and badness of human acts. And first, how human action is good or bad; second, things that follow on the goodness or badness of human acts, such as merit and demerit, sin and fault. With respect to the first, there are three things to take up: first, the goodness and badness of human acts in general (Question 18); second, the goodness and badness of interior acts (Question 19); third, the goodness and badness of exterior acts (Question 20). There are eleven things to ask about the goodness and badness of human acts in general: (1) whether every action is good or some are bad; (2) whether man’s action is good or bad because of its object; (3) or because of the circumstances; (4) or from its end; (5) whether any action is good or bad because of its kind; (6) whether an act is specifically good or bad from its end; (7) whether the specification taken from the end is contained under that taken from the object as under a genus, or vice versa; (8) whether any act is specifically indifferent; (9) whether any individual act is indifferent; (10) whether any circumstance can make an act specifically good or bad; (11) whether all circumstances which increase its goodness or badness make the moral act specifically good or bad.
Article 1: Is every action of a man good?
It seems so.
1. It seems that every act of a man is good and none evil. For Dionysius says in On the Divine Names 4, that evil only acts in virtue of the good. But evil does not come to be in virtue of the good. Therefore no action is evil.
2. Moreover, nothing acts except insofar as it is actual. But a thing is not evil insofar as it is actual, but insofar as it is a potency lacking act, and when a potency is perfected by act it is good, as is said in Metaphysics 11. Therefore, since nothing acts insofar as it is evil, but only insofar as it is good, every action is good and none evil.
3. Moreover, evil can only be an incidental cause, as is clear from Dionysius in On the Divine Names 4. But every action has a per se effect. Therefore, no action is evil, but every action is good.
ON THE CONTRARY:
The Lord says in John 3.20 that everyone who does evil hates the light. Therefore, some actions of man are evil.
RESPONSE:
It should be said that we must speak of good and evil in actions as we speak of good and evil in things, because a thing acts as it does because of the kind of thing it is. But a thing has as much good as it has being, for good and being are convertible, as was said in Part 1. Only God has the complete fullness of his being as something one and simple, but other things have the fullness of being appropriate to them on several grounds. Thus it comes about that some things have being to a degree, yet fall short of the fullness of being that should be theirs. For the fullness of man’s being requires the composition of soul and body with all powers and instruments of knowledge and movement. If any of these be lacking in a man, he falls short of the fullness of his being. He has goodness to the degree he has being but insofar as he is deficient in goodness he is said to be evil, as a blind man has goodness insofar as he lives but it is evil that he lacks sight. If he had nothing of being or goodness he could not be said to be either evil or good. Because the fullness of being is of the very meaning of good, if something should lack any of the fullness of being due it, it would be called good in a certain respect, not simply, although it could be called being simply and non-being in a certain respect, as was said in Part 1.
It must be said, therefore, that every action has goodness to the degree that it has being, but insofar as there is lacking in it anything of the fullness of being due a human action, to that degree it is defective in goodness and is called evil; for example, if there should be lacking to it the amount determined by reason or the appropriate place or the like.
Ad 1. It should be said that evil acts in virtue of a defective good, for if there were nothing of good, neither would there be a being that could act. But if it were not defective, it would not be evil. Hence the action brought about is something deficient in good, which is in a certain respect good, but simply speaking evil.
Ad 2. It should be said that nothing stops a thing from being actual in a certain respect, thanks to which it can act, and deprived of actuality in another respect, which explains the deficiency of the action. Just as a blind man actually has the motor ability thanks to which he can walk, yet insofar as he lacks sight to direct his walking a defect occurs and he stumbles.
Ad 3. It should be said that evil action can have a per se effect insofar as it has goodness and being, as adultery is the cause of human generation insofar as it is an intercourse of male and female, but not insofar as it lacks the order of reason.
Article 2: Is the goodness or badness of action due to its object?
It seems not.
1. An action does not seem to derive goodness or badness from its object, for the object of an action is a thing, and evil is not in things but in the use of them by sinners, as Augustine says in On Christian Doctrine 3. Therefore, human action does not have goodness or badness from its object.
2. Moreover, the object relates to the action as its matter, but the good of a thing is not from matter, but rather from form, which is act. Therefore, good and evil in acts is not from their object.
3. Moreover, the object of an active power relates to the action as effect to cause; but the goodness of the cause is not dependent on the effect, but rather the reverse. Therefore human action is not good or bad because of its object.
ON THE CONTRARY:
It is said in Osee 9.10: ‘And [they] became abominable, as those things were, which they loved.’ But a man becomes abominable to God because of the evil of his activity. Therefore, the badness of activity is due to the bad objects that a man loves. And the same is true of the goodness of action.
RESPONSE:
As has been said, the good or evil of action, as of other things, is due to the fullness of being or the defect of being. But the first thing that seems to pertain to the fullness of being is what makes the thing to be of a certain kind. For just as natural things are in a species because of their form, so action is specified by its object, much as motion is by its term.
Therefore, just as the first goodness of the natural thing derives from the form that specifies it, so the first goodness of the moral act derives from an appropriate object, which is why it is called generic goodness by some: for example, to use one’s own things. And, just as in natural things the first evil is when the thing generated does not attain its specific form, as when something less than a man is generated, so the first evil in moral actions is caused by its object, for example to take what belongs to another. If it is said to be evil in its genus, genus here is equivalent to species, in much the same way that we speak of the whole human species as human kind (genus).
Ad 1. It should be said therefore that although exterior things are good in themselves, they are not always fittingly related to this or that action. Therefore, considered as objects of such actions, they do not have the character of good.
Ad 2. It should be said that the object is not matter in the sense of that of which, but matter as that about which, and it has in a way the character of form, insofar as it specifies.
Ad 3. It should be said that the object of a human action is not always the object of an active power, for the appetitive power is in a certain way passive, insofar as it is moved by the desirable thing, and yet it is the principle of human acts. Nor are the objects of passive powers always effects, for example when they have already been changed, as digested food is the effect of the nutritive power but as not yet digested it relates to the nutritive power as the matter on which it acts.
Insofar as the object is in some fashion the effect of the active power, it is the term of its action, and consequently gives it species and form, for motion is specified by its term. And though the goodness of an action is not caused by the goodness of its effect, yet an action is called good because it can bring about a good effect. And this very proportion of action to effect is the reason for its goodness.
Article 3: Is action good or bad because of the circumstances?
It seems not.
1. It seems that action is not good or bad from the circumstances, for circumstances ‘stand around’ the act as existing apart from it, as has been said. But good and evil are in the things themselves, as is said in Metaphysics 6.4. Therefore, action does not have its goodness or badness from circumstances.
2. Moreover, in the teaching of morals the goodness and badness of the act are of especial concern. But the circumstances, since they are accidents of actions, seem to be beyond the consideration of art, since no art concerns itself with the incidental, as is said in Metaphysics 6.2. Therefore, the goodness or badness of action is not from the circumstances.
3. Moreover, that which belongs to something because of its substance is not attributed to it because of any accident. But good and evil belong to the very substance of action because, as has been said, action can be good or evil because of its genus. Therefore, an action is not good or evil because of its circumstances.
ON THE CONTRARY:
The Philosopher says in Ethics 2.2 that the virtuous man acts as he should, when he should, and according to all the other circumstances. Therefore, human actions are good or bad because of their circumstances.
RESPONSE:
It should be said that in natural things the fullness of perfection due the thing does not come only from the substantial form which specifies it, but also from many things added to it by way of supervenient accidents, such as a man’s shape, colour and the like. If any of these be lacking in appropriate amount, evil results. And so it is with action. For the fullness of its goodness does not consist of its species alone, but there are additions from the things which come to it as kinds of accident, for example the fitting circumstances. Hence if anything be lacking in the appropriate circumstances, the action will be bad.
Ad 1. It should be said that circumstances are outside the action insofar as they are not of the essence of the action, but are in the action as its accidents; no more are the accidents of natural substances parts of their essence.
Ad 2. It should be said that all accidents are incidental to their subjects, but some are properties which are studied by the art. In this way the circumstances of acts are considered in moral doctrine.
Ad 3. It should be said that good converts with being, but something is called being either because it is a substance or an accident; so too good is attributed to a thing not only because of its essential being but also because of its accidents, both in natural things and in moral actions.
Article 4: Is an action good or evil because of its end?
It seems not.
1. Dionysius says in On the Divine Names 4 that nothing acts with an eye to evil. Therefore, if good or bad activity were due to the end, no action would be bad, which is patently false.
2. Moreover, the goodness of an act is something existing in it. But the end is an extrinsic cause. Therefore, action is not called good or evil because of the end.
3. Moreover, it can happen that a good activity is ordered to a bad end, as when someone gives alms in order to be praised, and conversely a bad activity can be ordered to a good end, as when someone steals in order to give to the poor. Therefore, the action is not good or evil because of the end.
ON THE CONTRARY:
Boethius says in On Topical Differences 1.2 that a thing whose end is good is good and one whose end is evil is evil.
RESPONSE:
It should be said that the disposition of things with respect to goodness and to being is the same. For there are things whose existence does not depend on another, and in these it is sufficient to take their being into account absolutely, but in things whose existence depends on another the cause on which they depend must be considered. But just as a thing’s existence depends on agent and form, so its goodness depends on the end. Hence in the divine persons, whose goodness does not depend on another, the notion of goodness does not take the end into account. But human actions, and other things whose existence depends on another, have the character of goodness from the end on which they depend, over and above the absolute goodness which exists in them. Therefore a fourfold goodness can be considered in human action. First, because of genus, insofar as it is an action, because to the degree it has action and being it has goodness, as has been said. Second, because of its species, which is taken from the appropriate object. Third, because of circumstances, as certain accidents of it. Fourth, because of the end, as relating to the cause of goodness.
Ad 1. It should be said that the good with an eye to which one acts is not always a true good: sometimes it is only an apparent good, in which case evil action follows because of end.
Ad 2. It should be said that although the end is an extrinsic cause, the fitting proportion and relation to the end inheres in the action.
Ad 3. It should be said that nothing prevents an action from having one type of goodness and lacking another. In this way it can happen that an action is good in its species or according to circumstances but is ordered to an evil end, and conversely. But it is not a good action simply speaking unless all these goodnesses are present, because any single defect causes evil, but the good is due to the integral cause, as Dionysius says in On the Divine Names 4.
Article 5: Are moral acts specified by being good or evil?
It seems that they are not.
1. Good and evil are found in acts conformably with things, as has been said. But things are not specified by good and evil, for good and bad men are in the same species. Therefore, neither should the good and evil in acts make them specifically different.
2. Moreover, since evil is a privation it is a kind of non-being, but non-being cannot be a difference, according to the Philosopher in Metaphysics 2.3. Therefore, since the difference constitutes the species, it seems that an act is not constituted in some species from the fact that it is evil. So good and evil do not make human acts specifically different.
3. Specifically different acts have different effects. But the specifically same effect can follow on a good and bad act, as a man can be generated by adultery as well as by a conjugal union. Therefore good and bad acts are not specifically different.
4. Moreover, acts are sometimes called good and evil because of circumstances, as has been said. But circumstances, since they are accidents, do not specify the act. Therefore human acts are not specifically different because of goodness and badness.
ON THE CONTRARY:
According to the Philosopher in Ethics 2.1, similar habits produce similar acts. But good and bad habits are specifically different, such as liberality and prodigality. Therefore, good and bad acts are specifically different.
RESPONSE:
It should be said that every act is specified by its object, as has been said above. So some differences in the object must cause specific diversity in acts. But it should be noticed that a difference in the object causes a specific difference in acts insofar as they are referred to one active principle which would not make a difference in the acts insofar as they are referred to another active principle. Because only what is per se and not what is incidental constitutes a species, a difference in the object can be per se with reference to one active principle and incidental with respect to another, as knowing colour and sound differ per se with reference to sense but not with reference to intellect. In human acts, good and evil is said with reference to reason, because as Dionysius says in On the Divine Names 4, the good is to be in accord with reason and evil to be outside reason. The good of a thing befits its form and its evil is what is outside its form. Clearly then the difference of good and evil considered in the object relates per se to reason, insofar namely as the object is fitting or not fitting to it. An act is a human or moral act insofar as it is from reason. Thus it is manifest that good and evil make moral acts specifically different, for differences divide a species per se.
Ad 1. It should be said that even in natural things the good and evil which are respectively in accord with or against nature diversify the natural species, for the dead body and the living body are not of the same species. Similarly the good, insofar as it is according to reason, and evil, insofar as it is against reason, diversify moral species.
Ad 2. It should be said that evil does not imply an absolute privation but one following on such a power. For an act is called specifically evil, not because it has no object, but because it has an object inappropriate to reason, such as to take another’s property. Insofar as the object is something positive, it can constitute the species of the evil act.
Ad 3. It should be said that the conjugal act and adultery differ specifically as they are referred to reason, and they have specifically different effects, since one merits praise and reward and the other blame and punishment. But insofar as they are referred to the reproductive power they are not specifically different and then they have an effect specifically the same.
Ad 4. It should be said that the circumstance is sometimes an essential difference of the object, as referred to reason, and then it specifies the moral act. This is the case whenever the circumstance changes the act from good to evil, for a circumstance can only make an act evil insofar as it is repugnant to reason.
Article 6: Does a good or bad end make acts specifically different?
It seems that it does not.
1. It seems that the good and evil which are due to the end do not make acts specifically different, for the act is specified by the object and the end is outside the notion of the object. Therefore the good and evil which come from the end do not make acts specifically different.
2. Moreover, that which is incidental does not constitute the species, as has been said. But it is incidental to an act that it be ordered to some end, as when someone gives alms because of vainglory. Therefore, acts are not specifically different because of the good and evil that come from the end.
3. Moreover, specifically different acts can be ordered to the same end, for example, the acts of different virtues, like those of different vices, can be ordered to the end of vainglory. Therefore, the good and evil taken from the end do not make acts specifically different.
ON THE CONTRARY:
It was shown above that human acts are specified by the end. Therefore, the good and evil that derive from the end make acts specifically different.
RESPONSE:
It should be said that acts are called human insofar as they are voluntary, as was indicated earlier. But there are two kinds of voluntary act, the interior and the exterior, and each has its own object. The end is properly the object of the interior voluntary act, but the object of the exterior act is that on which it bears. Thus, the interior act of will is specified by the end, as by its proper object. But that which is due to will is formal with respect to the exterior act, because in acting the will uses the members as instruments; moreover, exterior acts have the character of morality only insofar as they are voluntary. Therefore, the species of human act are drawn formally from the end, and materially from the object of the exterior act. Hence the Philosopher says in Ethics 5.2 that he who steals in order to commit adultery is, speaking formally, more an adulterer than a thief.
Ad 1. It should be said, and was said earlier, that the end too has the character of object.
Ad 2. It should be said that to be ordered to such and such an end, although it is incidental to the exterior act, is not incidental to the interior act of will, which is to the exterior as formal to material.
Ad 3. It should be said that when many specifically different acts are ordered to the same end, the exterior acts are specifically different but the interior act is specifically the same.
Article 7: Is the species of goodness which is from the end contained under that which is from the object as species to genus?
It seems to be.
1. It seems that the species of goodness due to the end is contained as a species under the genus of goodness due to the object, as when one wishes to steal in order to give alms. For the act is specified by its object, as has been said, but it is impossible that something be contained in a species not contained in its proper species, since the same thing cannot be in different species which are not subalternated. Therefore, the species due to the end is contained under the species due to the object.
2. Moreover, the ultimate difference is constitutive of the most specific species. But the difference which is from the end seems to be posterior to that taken from the object, because the end has the character of the ultimate. Therefore, the species taken from the end is contained under the species taken from the object, which is the more specific species.
3. Moreover, the more formal a difference, the more specific it is, because difference is to genus as form to matter. But the species which is from the end is more formal than that which is from the object, as has been said. Therefore, the species which is from the end is contained under the species which is from the object, as the most specific species under a subalternating genus.
ON THE CONTRARY:
Every genus has determinate differences. But acts which are of the same species because of their object can be ordered to an infinity of ends, as theft to an infinity of goods or evils. Therefore, the species which is from the end is not contained under the species which is from the object, as under a genus.
RESPONSE:
It should be said that the object of the exterior act can relate to the end of the will in two ways, one, as essentially ordered to it, as to fight well is essentially ordered to victory; second, incidentally, as to take what belongs to another is incidentally related to giving alms. But the differences that divide any genus and constitute the species of that genus, must, as the Philosopher says in Metaphysics 7.12, divide it essentially. If they do so only incidentally, the division has gone awry; for example, if one should say of animals the one is rational, the other irrational, and of irrational animals, one is winged and the other not winged, these differences are not essential determinants of what is irrational. Rather, the division should go thus: some animals have feet, others do not, and of those having feet, some have two, others four, yet others more, for these are essential determinants of the prior difference. Therefore, when the object is not essentially ordered to the end, the specific difference which is from the object is not essentially determinative of that which is from the end, nor conversely. So neither of these species comes under the other and the moral act has two different species. Hence we say that he who steals in order to commit adultery commits two evils in one act. But if the object is essentially ordered to the end, one of the differences mentioned is determinative of the other.
Hence one of these species will be contained under the other.
But the question remains which is under which? To figure this out we must notice first that to the degree that a difference is taken from a more particular form, it is more specific. Second, that a more universal agent brings about a more universal form. Third, that the later end responds to a more universal cause; for example, victory, which is the ultimate end of the army, is the end intended by the supreme commander, but the ordering of this line or that is the end intended by some inferior officer.
From this it follows that the specific difference which is from the end is more general, and the difference drawn from the object essentially ordered to such an end is specific with respect to it. For the will, whose proper object the end is, is the universal mover with respect to the other powers of the soul whose proper objects are objects of particular acts.
Ad 1. It should be said that with respect to its substance a thing cannot be in two species if one is not under the other. But with respect to what is incidental to a thing it can be in different species; for example, this fruit with respect to colour is in one species, namely white, and with respect to smell, in the species of the redolent. So too the act which with respect to its substance is in one natural species can fall under two species because of the supervenient moral conditions, as has been said.
Ad 2. It should be said that the end is last in execution but first in the intention of reason, with reference to which moral acts are specified.
Ad 3. It should be said that difference is to genus as form to matter insofar as it makes the genus actual, but the genus can be considered to be more formal than the species, insofar as it is more absolute and less restricted. Hence the parts of the definition are put in the genus of formal cause, as is said in Physics 2.2. According to this, the genus is the formal cause of the species and the more common it is, the more formal it will be.
Article 8: Is there an act indifferent in species?
It seems not.
1. According to Augustine,1 evil is the privation of the good. But privation and habit are immediate opposites, according to the Philosopher.2 Therefore, no act is specifically indifferent, as if it lay midway between good and evil.
2. Moreover, human acts take their species from the end or object, as has been said. But every object and every end has the note of good or evil. Therefore, all human acts are good or evil in their species, and there is none that is specifically indifferent.
3. Moreover, as has been said, an act is called good if it has its due perfection of goodness, and evil if something of this is lacking. But every act must have either the complete fullness of its goodness or be lacking something of it. Therefore, every act must be good or evil in its species and none can be indifferent.
ON THE CONTRARY:
Augustine says in On the Sermon on the Mount that there are some middle deeds which can come about by a good or evil soul, about which it would be bold to judge. So there are some specifically indifferent acts.
RESPONSE:
It should be said, and has been, that every act is specified by the object, and the human act, which is called a moral act, is specified by the object as related to the principle of human acts, namely reason. Hence if the object of the act includes something befitting the order of reason, it will be specifically good, such as to give alms to the needy. But if it includes something repugnant to the order of reason, it will be specifically evil, such as to steal, which is to take what belongs to another. But it can happen that the object of the act involves nothing pertaining to the order of reason, for example to pick up a stick from the ground, to walk in the park, and the like, and such acts are specifically indifferent.
Ad 1. It should be said that there are two kinds of privation. The first consists in having been deprived, and this leaves nothing but takes away everything; for example, blindness totally takes away sight, and shadows the light, and death life. Between such a privation and the corresponding habit there can be nothing halfway with respect to receiving the thing in question. The second kind of privation consists in being deprived, as sickness is the privation of health, not because it removes health entirely, but because it is on the way towards the total removal of health in death. This privation, since it leaves something, is not opposed without middle to the opposite habit. That is how evil is the privation of good, as Simplicius says in his commentary on the Categories, since it does not take away all good but leaves something. Hence there can be something halfway between good and evil.
Ad 2. It should be said that every object or end has some goodness or badness, at least natural, but it does not always involve moral goodness or badness, which involve reference to reason, as has been said. And that is what we are speaking of now.
Ad 3. It should be said that not everything of an act pertains to its species. Hence, although not everything that pertains to its fullness of goodness is in the definition of its species, it is not for this reason either good or evil in its species, as a man is neither virtuous nor vicious according to his species.
Article 9: Is any individual act indifferent?
It seems so.
1. There is no species that does not contain or at least could contain within it some individual. But some acts are specifically indifferent, as has been said. Therefore, some individual act can be indifferent.
2. Moreover, habits are caused by individual acts of a similar kind, as was said in Ethics 2.1. But some habits are indifferent. For the Philosopher in Ethics 5.1, speaking of some, like the mean and prodigal, says that they are not evil, and yet he notes that they are not good, since they recede from virtue and thus are indifferent as to their habits. Therefore, some individual acts are indifferent.
3. Moreover, the moral good is to virtue as moral evil is to vice. But it sometimes happens that a man does not order an act which is specifically indifferent to the end either of virtue or vice. Therefore, it happens that some individual act is indifferent.
ON THE CONTRARY:
Gregory says in a homily that ‘an idle word is one that lacks the usefulness of rectitude or the reason of just necessity or of pious utility’. But the idle word is bad, because men will have to give an account of them on the day of judgement, as is said in Matthew 12: if, however, it does not lack the note of just necessity or pious utility, it is good. Therefore, every word is either good or evil. By parity of reasoning, every other act is either good or bad. Therefore, no individual act is indifferent.
RESPONSE:
It should be said that it sometimes happens that an act specifically indifferent is good or evil considered individually. And this because the moral act, as has been remarked, not only has goodness from the object by which it is specified, but also from the circumstances which are, as it were, accidents, much as something belongs to the individual man because of individual accidents which does not belong to man by reason of the species. But every individual act must have some circumstance by which it is made good or evil, at least because of the end intended. For, since it is reason’s role to order, if the act proceeding from deliberate reason is not ordered to an appropriate end, it is repugnant to reason by that very fact and has the character of evil. But if it is ordered to a fitting end it is in agreement with the order of reason and has the character of good. But it must either be ordered to a fitting end or not be so ordered. That is why a man’s every act proceeding from deliberate reason, considered individually, is either good or evil. If it does not proceed from deliberate reason but from some imagination, as when one scratches his beard or jiggles hand or foot, such an act is not properly speaking moral or human, since the act has this from reason. Thus it will be indifferent as existing outside the domain of moral acts.
Ad 1. It should be said, therefore, that a specifically indifferent act can exist in many ways: in one way such that it is indifferent according to its species, and that is how the argument proceeds. But no act is in this way specifically indifferent, for there is no object of a human act that cannot be ordered to good or evil, because of the end or circumstances. In another way, it can be called specifically indifferent because it does not have from its species that it is either good or evil. Hence it is by something else that it can become good or evil. Just as a man does not have from his species that he is white or black, but whiteness and blackness come to a man from something other than the principles of the species.
Ad 2. It should be said that, according to the Philosopher, it is what is harmful to other men that is properly evil, and on that basis he says that the prodigal is not evil, because he harms no one but himself. And so too with all the other acts that are not harmful to the neighbour. But we are saying here that evil is generally whatever is repugnant to reason, and on this basis every individual act is good or bad, as has been said.
Ad 3. It should be said that every end intended by deliberative reason pertains to the good of some virtue or to the evil of some vice. For that which one does ordinately for the maintaining or rest of his body, is ordered to the good of virtue in him who orders his body to the good of virtue. And the same is true of the others.
Article 10: Are acts specifically good or bad because of circumstances?
It seems that they are not.
1. The species of the act is from the object; but circumstances differ from the object. Therefore, circumstances do not specify an act.
2. Moreover, circumstances are, as it were, accidents of the moral act, as has been said, but the accident does not constitute a species. Therefore, circumstances do not constitute any species of good or evil.
3. Moreover, there are not several species of the same thing, but there are several circumstances of the same act. Therefore, circumstances do not place the moral act in some species of good or evil.
ON THE CONTRARY:
Place is a circumstance, but place locates the moral act in a certain species of evil, since to steal something from a sacred place is sacrilege. Therefore, circumstances place the moral act in some species of good or evil.
RESPONSE:
It should be said that just as the species of natural things are constituted by natural forms, so the species of moral acts are constituted by forms conceived in reason, as is clear from what was said above. Because nature is determined to one, a natural process cannot go on to infinity but must come to an ultimate form from which the specific difference is taken, after which there cannot be another specific difference.
Hence it is that in natural things that which is accidental cannot provide a difference constituting a species. But the process of reason is not determined to something one, but given anything it can go further. Therefore, what in one act is taken as a circumstance superadded to the object that specifies the act can be taken again by ordering reason as a principal condition of the object specifying the act. For example, to take what is another’s is specified by the notion of another, by which it is put in the species of theft, and any note of place or time that would be considered over and above this would be a circumstance. But because reason can order with respect to place or time and other like things too, it happens that a condition of place with regard to an object can be taken as contrary to the order of reason. For example, reason ordered that no one be injured in a sacred place. Hence, to take something belonging to another in a sacred place adds a special repugnance to the order of reason. Therefore place, which was first considered a circumstance, is now considered to be a principal condition of the object repugnant to reason. In this way, whenever a circumstance looks to a special order of reason, pro or con, the circumstance must specify the moral act as good or evil.
Ad 1. It should be said that insofar as circumstances specify the act, they are taken to be conditions of the object, as has been said, and as a specific difference of it.
Ad 2. It should be said that circumstance, if it retains the status of circumstance and has the character of accident, does not specify, but when it is changed into a principal condition of the object, it does specify.
Ad 3. It should be said that not every circumstance puts the moral act in a species of good or evil, since not every circumstance implies agreement or disagreement with reason. Thus, although there are many circumstances of the same act, it is not necessary that a single act be in several species, even though it is not absurd that the same moral act be in several different moral species, as has been said.
Article 11: Do all circumstances relevant to the goodness and badness of acts cause them to differ specifically?
It seems so.
1. Good and evil are specific differences of moral acts. But what makes a difference in the goodness or badness of the moral act makes it differ according to a specific difference, which is to differ specifically. But that which adds to the goodness or badness of the act makes it differ according to goodness and badness. Therefore, it causes it to differ in species.
2. Moreover, the advening circumstance either has some character of goodness or badness in itself or it does not. If not, it cannot add any goodness or badness to the act, because what is not good cannot make something better, and what is not evil cannot make something worse. But if it does have in itself some character of goodness or badness, it will have some species of good or evil from this. Therefore, every circumstance increasing goodness or badness constitutes a new species of good or evil.
3. Moreover, according to Dionysius in On the Divine Names 4, evil is caused from single defects. But any circumstance aggravating evil has a special defect. Therefore, any circumstance adds a new species of sin. For the same reason any circumstance that increases goodness seems to add a new species of good, just as a unit added to a number makes a new species of number: for the good consists of number, weight and measure.
ON THE CONTRARY:
More and less do not diversify a species, but more and less are a circumstance adding goodness or badness. Therefore, not every circumstance adding goodness or badness constitutes a moral act in a species of good or evil.
RESPONSE:
It should be said that, as has been remarked, a circumstance gives to the moral act a species of good or evil insofar as it observes a special order of reason. Sometimes it happens that a circumstance does not look to an order of reason to good or evil unless another circumstance is presupposed, from which the moral act is specified as good or evil. Just as to take something in large or small quantity does not look to the order of reason to good or evil, unless some other condition is presupposed by which the act has badness or goodness, for example that it belongs to someone else, which is repugnant to reason. Hence to take another’s in great or small quantity does not diversify the species of sin. But it can aggravate or diminish sin. And it is the same in other evils and goods. Hence not every circumstance adding to goodness or badness alters the species of the moral act.
Ad 1. It should be said that in things which are intensified or eased, the difference of intensification and easing does not diversify the species any more than the more or less white differ in the species of colour. Similarly what causes diversity in good or evil by intension and remission does not cause a difference in the species of the moral act.
Ad 2. It should be said that the circumstance aggravating sin or increasing the goodness of the act, sometimes has no goodness or badness of itself, except by being ordered to another condition of the act, as has been said. Therefore, it does not give a new species, but increases the goodness or badness which is from another condition of the act.
Ad 3. It should be said that not every circumstance brings along a singular defect in itself but only as ordered to something else. Similarly it does not always add a new perfection except by comparison to something else, and to that degree, although it increases goodness or badness, it does not always alter the species of good or evil.
QUESTION 19
THE GOODNESS AND BADNESS OF THE INTERIOR ACT OF THE WILL
Next we must consider the goodness of the interior act of the will, and ten things must be asked: (1) whether the goodness of the will depends on the object; (2) and whether solely on the object; (3) whether it depends on reason; (4) whether it depends on the eternal law; (5) whether an erring reason obliges; (6) whether the will in following an erring reason against the law of God is evil; (7) whether the goodness of the will with respect to things done for the sake of the end depends on the end intended; (8) whether the quantity of goodness or badness in the will follows on the quantity of good or evil in the intention; (9) whether the goodness of the will depends on conformity to the divine will; (10) whether it is necessary that the human will be conformed to the divine will in what it wills in order that it be good.
Article 1: Does the goodness of the will depend on the object?
It seems that it does not.
1. The will can only be of the good, because evil is outside the will, as Dionysius says in On the Divine Names 4. Therefore, if the goodness of the will were judged from the object, it would follow that every will is good and none evil.
2. Moreover, the good is found first in the end, hence the goodness of the end, as such, does not depend on anything else. But according to the Philosopher in Ethics 6.5, good action is of the end, although doing is never the end, for it is always ordered as to an end to something made. Therefore, the goodness of the act of the will does not depend on some object.
3. Moreover, everything makes something like unto itself, but the object of will is good with the goodness of nature. Therefore, it cannot bestow moral goodness on the will. Therefore, the moral goodness of the will does not depend on the object.
ON THE CONTRARY:
The Philosopher says in Ethics 5.1 that justice is that whereby someone wills just things, and, generalizing, virtue is that whereby someone wills good things. But a good will is one which is according to virtue. Therefore the goodness of the will is due to the fact that one wills the good.
RESPONSE:
It should be said that good and evil are essential differences of the act of the will, for good and evil essentially pertain to the will, as true and false do to reason, whose act is essentially distinguished into true and false, as when we say that an opinion is true or false. Hence to will well and badly are specifically different acts. But acts are specifically different because of their objects, as has been said. Therefore, good and bad acts of the will are properly such because of their objects.
*
Ad 1. It should be said that the will is not always of the true good, but sometimes of the apparent good, which indeed has some character of good, but is not absolutely appropriate to desire. Because of this the act of will is not always good, but sometimes evil.
Ad 2. It should be said that although an act can be the ultimate end of man in a certain fashion, such an act is not an act of the will, as has been said above.
Ad 3. It should be said that reason presents the good to the will as its object, and insofar as it falls under the order of reason, it pertains to the moral order and causes moral goodness in the act of the will. For reason is the principle of human and moral acts, as has been said above.
Article 2: Does the goodness of the will depend only upon the object?
It seems that it does not.
1. The end is closer to will than to any other power. But the acts of the other powers derive their goodness from the end as well as from the object, as has been made clear already. Therefore, the act of the will too receives goodness, not only from the object but also from the end.
2. Moreover, the goodness of the act is not only from its object but also from its circumstances, as was said above. But given the diversity of circumstances, there follows a diversity of goodness and badness in the act of the will, because one wills when he ought, where he ought, as much as he ought, and how he ought – or as he ought not. Therefore, the goodness of the will depends not only on the object but also on the circumstances.
3. Moreover, ignorance of the circumstances excuses the badness of the will, as was said above. But this would not be so if the goodness and badness of the will did not depend on circumstances. Therefore, the goodness and badness of the will depend on the circumstances and not on the object alone.
ON THE CONTRARY:
The act is not specified by the circumstances as such, as was said above. But good and evil are specific differences of the act of the will, as has been pointed out. Therefore, the goodness or badness of the will does not depend on the circumstances, but solely on the object.
RESPONSE:
It should be said that the more something is prior in any genus the more simple it is, consisting of fewer things, as the first bodies are simples. Therefore, we find that those things which are first in a genus are in some way simples, and do not have components. But the principle of the goodness and badness of human acts is from the act of the will. Therefore the goodness and badness of the will should be grounded in one thing, whereas the goodness or badness of other acts can be based on several factors. But that which is a principle in any genus is essential, not incidental, because whatever is incidental is reduced to that which is essential as to its principle. Therefore, the goodness of the will depends on one thing alone which makes its act essentially good, namely the object, and not on the circumstances which are accidents of the act.
Ad 1. It should be said that the end is the object of the will, not of the other powers. Hence, with respect to the act of the act, there is no difference between the goodness which is from the object and that which is from the end, as is the case in the acts of the other powers, save perhaps accidentally, insofar as one end depends on another end, and will on will.
Ad 2. It should be said that, given that the will is of the good, no circumstance can make it evil. When it is said that someone wills some good when he ought not and where he ought not, this can be understood in two ways. In one way, such that this circumstance refers to the thing willed, and then the will is not of the good, because to will to do something when it ought not to be done is not to will the good.
In another way, such that it is referred to the act of willing, and then it is impossible that someone will the good when he ought not, because a man ought always to will the good, save perhaps incidentally, insofar as one, by willing this good, is then impeded from willing some obligatory good. But, then, evil does not ensue from the fact that one wills this good, but from this that he does not will the other good. And the same should be said of the other circumstances.
Ad 3. It should be said that ignorance of the circumstances excuses the badness of action when the circumstances are on the side of the thing willed, and one is unaware of the circumstances of the act that he wills.
Article 3: Does the goodness of the will depend on reason?
It seems that it does not.
1. The prior does not depend on the posterior. But good pertains to will before it does to reason, as is clear from the foregoing. Therefore the good of the will does not depend on reason.
2. The Philosopher says in Ethics 6.2 that the goodness of the practical intellect is a truth conformed to right appetite. But right appetite is the good will. Therefore, the goodness of practical reason depends on will rather than the reverse.
3. Moreover, the mover does not depend on what is moved, but vice versa. But the will moves reason and the other powers, as was said above. Therefore, the goodness of the will does not depend on reason.
ON THE CONTRARY:
Hilary says in On the Trinity 10, ‘Every pertinacious undertaking of the will is immoderate, because will is not subject to reason.’ But the goodness of the will consists in being moderated. Therefore, the goodness of the will depends on its being subject to reason.
RESPONSE:
It should be said that, as has been argued, the goodness of the will properly depends on the object, but the object of the will is proposed to it by reason. The good as understood is the object proportioned to the will; the sensible good or the imaginary good are not proportioned to will but to sense appetite, because will can tend to the universal good, which reason apprehends, whereas sense appetite tends only to a particular good, as grasped by sense powers. Therefore, the goodness of the will depends on reason in the way in which it depends on the object.
Ad 1. It should be said that the good under the formality of good, that is, as desirable, pertains to will before it pertains to reason, but it pertains to reason under the formality of the true before it pertains to will under the formality of desirable, because the will’s desire can only be of a good apprehended by reason.
Ad 2. It should be said that the Philosopher is speaking there of practical intellect insofar as it is deliberative and calculating of the things which are for the sake of the end, for thus it is perfected by prudence. The rectitude of reason with regard to things which are for the sake of the end consists in conformity to the desire for the obligatory end. But this very desire for the obligatory end presupposes a right grasp of the end, which is by reason.
Ad 3. It should be said that the will in a certain manner moves reason and reason in another manner moves the will, namely on the part of the object, as was said above.
Article 4: Does the goodness of will depend on the eternal law?
It seems that it does not.
1. Each thing has but one rule and 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.
2. The measure is homogeneous with the measured, as is said in Metaphysics 10.9. But the eternal law is not homogeneous with the human will. Therefore, eternal law cannot be the measure of the human will such that its goodness depends upon it.
3. Moreover, the measure ought to be most sure. But the eternal law is unknown to us. Therefore, it cannot be the measure of our will, such that the goodness of our will would depend upon it.
ON THE CONTRARY:
Augustine says in Against Faustus 22.27 that sin is to do, say or desire anything against the eternal law. But the badness of the will is the root of sin. Therefore, since the badness of the will is the opposite of goodness, the goodness of the will depends on eternal law.
RESPONSE:
It should be said that in all ordered causes, the effect depends more on the first cause than on the second, because the second cause acts only in virtue of the first. That human reason should be the rule of human will is from eternal law, which is the divine reason, hence Psalm 4.6–7: ‘Many say, “Who will show us good things?” Lift up the light of thy countenance upon us, O Lord!’ As if to say, the light of reason that is in us can show us the good and regulate our will because it is the light of your countenance, that is, derived from your countenance. Hence the goodness of the will depends much more on the eternal law than on human reason, and where human reason fails, we must have recourse to the divine reason.
*
Ad 1. It should be said that there cannot be many proximate measures of one thing, but there can be many measures if one is subordinate to the other.
Ad 2. It should be said that the proximate, but not the remote, measure is homogeneous with the measured.
Ad 3. It should be said that although the eternal law is unknown to us as it is in the divine mind, it is made known to us in a certain way either through natural reason, which comes from it as its proper image, or through some superadded revelation.
Article 5: Is a will that departs from erring reason evil?
It seems that it is not.
1. Reason is the rule of the human will insofar as it derives from eternal law, as has been said. But erring reason does not derive from eternal law. Therefore, erring reason is not the rule of the human will and the will is not evil if it does not accord with erring reason.
2. Moreover, according to Augustine, the command of a lower power does not oblige if it conflicts with a command of a higher power, as when the proconsul permits what the emperor forbids. But erring reason sometimes proposes something contrary to the precept of a superior, namely God whose power is the greatest. Therefore, the dictate of erring reason does not oblige, nor is the will evil if it is not in accord with erring reason.
3. Moreover, every evil will is reduced to some species of badness. But a will in discord with erring reason cannot be reduced to any species of badness; for example, if reason erred in this that it said that fornication ought to be committed, the will of one not wishing to fornicate cannot be reduced to any evil. Therefore, the will in discord with erring reason is not evil.
ON THE CONTRARY:
As was said in Part I,1 conscience is nothing other than the application of knowledge to some act. But knowledge is in reason. Therefore, the will in discord with erring reason is against conscience, but every such will is evil, for it is said in Romans 14.23: ‘All that is not from faith is sin,’ that is, everything that is contrary to conscience. Therefore, the will in discord with erring reason is evil.
RESPONSE:
It should be said that since conscience is a kind of dictate of reason (for it is the application of knowledge to an act, as was said in Part 1), it is the same thing to ask whether the will in discord with erring reason is evil as to ask whether an erring conscience obliges. On which score, some distinguish three kinds of act: those which are good in their kind, those which are indifferent, those which are evil in their kind. Therefore, they say, if reason or conscience dictates that something is to be done which is good of its kind, there is no error. Similarly, if it dictates that something is not to be done which is evil of its kind, since it prescribes goods for the same reason that it prohibits evils.
But if reason or conscience tells someone that he is held by precept to do things bad in themselves, or that those things of themselves good are prohibited, this will be an erring reason or conscience. Similarly, if reason or conscience tells one that that which is in itself indifferent, such as to pick up a stick from the ground, is prohibited or commanded, reason or conscience is erring. Therefore, they say, an erring reason or conscience which either commands or prohibits indifferent things obliges, and willing in discord with such an erring reason will be evil and a sin. But reason or conscience erring by prescribing what is of itself evil or prohibiting that which is of itself good and necessary for salvation does not oblige, and in such cases to will in discord with erring reason or conscience is not evil.
But this is absurd. For in indifferent matters, the will in discord with erring reason or conscience is evil in some way because of the object on which the goodness or badness of the will depends, not because of the proper nature of the object, but insofar as it happens to be grasped by reason as an evil to be done or to be avoided.
And because the object of the will is what is proposed to it by reason, as has been said, by the fact that something is proposed by reason as evil, the will, in bearing on it, accepts the formality of evil. But this happens not only in indifferent matters but also in things good or evil of their kind. For it is not only that which is indifferent that can happen to take on the character of good or evil, but even that which is good can be thought by reason to be evil and that which is evil to be good. For example, it is good to abstain from fornication, but the will can only bear on this good if it is proposed to it by reason. Therefore, if it should be proposed as evil by mistaken reason, it would bear on it under the formality of evil, hence the will is evil because it wills evil, not indeed that which is evil in itself, but that which is evil incidentally, because of the grasp of reason. Similarly, to believe in Christ is good as such and necessary for salvation, but the will does not bear on it unless it is proposed by reason. Hence, if reason proposed it as an evil, the willing bears on it as evil – not because it is evil in itself, but because it happens to be grasped by reason as evil.
Therefore, the Philosopher in Ethics 7.9 says that, speaking per se, the incontinent is one who does not follow right reason, but, speaking accidentally, he is one who does not follow false reason. Hence it must be said that, simply speaking, every will in discord with reason, whether it be correct or mistaken, is always evil.
Ad 1. It should be said that although erring reason does not derive from God, none the less it proposes its judgement as true, and consequently as derived from God, from whom all truth comes.
Ad 2. It should be said that what Augustine says holds when it is known that the inferior commands something contrary to the command of the superior. But if someone believes that the command of the proconsul is the command of the emperor, by despising the command of the proconsul, he despises that of the emperor. Similarly, if a man knows that human reason dictates something contrary to God’s command, he is not held to follow reason, but then reason is not completely erring. But when erring reason proposes something as the precept of God, then to despise the dictate of reason is to despise the command of God.
Ad 3. It should be said that reason, when it grasps something as evil, always grasps it under some formality of evil, for example that it is in conflict with the divine command, or that it is a scandal, or some other such thing. And then the evil will is reduced to that species of badness.
Article 6: Is the will in accord with erring reason good?
It seems that it is.
1. Just as the will in discord with erring reason tends towards that which reason judges to be evil, so the will agreeing with reason, tends towards that which reason judges to be good. But the will in discord with reason, even if it be erring, is evil. Therefore the will in agreement with reason, even if it be erring, is good.
2. Moreover, the will in accord with the command of God and eternal law is good. But eternal law and the precept of God are proposed to us by the grasp of reason, even if it be erring. Therefore, the will in accord even with erring reason is good.
3. Moreover, a will in discord with erring reason is evil. If, therefore, a will in accord with erring reason should also be evil, it seems that whatever one having an erring reason wills is evil. And thus such a man is in a quandary and will of necessity sin, which is absurd. Therefore, the will in accord with erring reason is good.
ON THE CONTRARY:
The will of those killing the Apostles was evil, yet it was in accord with their erring reason, according to John 16.2: ‘Yes, the hour is coming for everyone who kills you to think that he is offering worship to God.’ Therefore, a will in accord with erring reason can be evil.
RESPONSE:
It should be said that just as the previous question is the same as the question whether an erroneous conscience binds, so this question is the same as whether an erroneous conscience excuses. This question depends on what was said earlier about ignorance, for it was said above that ignorance sometimes causes the involuntary and sometimes not. And because moral good and evil consist in the voluntary act, as is clear from the foregoing, it is manifest that the ignorance which causes the involuntary takes away the character of moral good and evil, but not that which does not cause the involuntary. For it was said above that the ignorance which is in some way willed, whether directly or indirectly, does not cause the involuntary. And I call that ignorance directly voluntary on which the act of will bears, and indirectly voluntary that due to negligence, when one does not wish to know what he is held to know, as was said above. Therefore, if reason or conscience errs with a voluntary error, whether directly or because of negligence, and it is an error about something one is held to know, then such an error of reason or conscience does not excuse and the will in accord with reason or conscience so erring is evil. But if the error which causes the involuntary comes from ignorance of some circumstance without any negligence, then such an error of reason or conscience excuses and the will in accord with erring reason is not evil. If erring reason dictates that a man is held to sleep with the wife of another, the will in accord with such erring reason is evil, because this error arises from ignorance of the law of God, which he is held to know. But if reason errs because one believes some yielding woman is his wife and she asks him to do his duty and he wills to have sex with her, his will is excused and is not evil, because this error comes from ignorance of the circumstances, which excuses and causes the involuntary.
Ad 1. It should be said that, as Dionysius says in On the Divine Names 4, the good comes about from the integral cause, but evil from single defects. Therefore, in order for that on which the will bears to be called evil it suffices that it is either evil in itself or that it is apprehended as evil. But in order to be good, it must be good in both ways.
Ad 2. It should be said that the eternal law cannot err, but human reason can. Therefore, the will in accord with human reason is not always right, nor is it always in accord with eternal law.
Ad 3. It should be said that just as in syllogism, given one absurdity another must follow, so in morals given one unfitting thing others necessarily follow. For example, suppose someone seeks vainglory, then whether he does what he is held to do or fails to because of vainglory, he will sin. Nor is he perplexed or in a quandary, because he can get rid of his evil intention. Similarly, supposing the error of reason or conscience which arises from an ignorance which does not excuse, evil in the will necessarily follows. Yet such a man is not in a quandary, because he can draw back from error, since his ignorance is vincible and voluntary.
Article 7: Does the goodness of the will depend on the intention of the end?
It seems that it does not.
1. It was said above that the goodness of the will depends on the object alone, but as to the things which are for the sake of the end, the object of will is one thing and the end intended another. Therefore, in such things the goodness of the will does not depend on the intention of the end.
2. Moreover, to wish to observe God’s command pertains to a good will. But this can be referred to a bad end, namely the end of vainglory or cupidity, when one wishes to obey God because of consequent temporal advantages. Therefore, the goodness of the will does not depend on the intention of the end.
3. Moreover, good and evil, as they diversify acts of will, so do they diversify ends. But the badness of the will does not depend on the badness of the end intended, for one who wishes to steal in order to give alms has a bad will although he intends a good end. Therefore, the goodness of the will does not depend on the goodness of the end intended.
ON THE CONTRARY:
Augustine says in the Confessions 9.13 that intention is rewarded by God. But something is rewarded by God because it is good. Therefore, the goodness of the will depends on intention.
RESPONSE:
It should be said that intention relates to will in two ways, either as preceding, or as concomitant. Intention precedes the will causally when we will something because we intend some end. Then the order to the end is considered as a reason for the goodness of the thing willed, as when someone wills to fast for the sake of God. Hence, since the goodness of the will depends on the goodness of the thing willed, as was said above, it is necessary that it depend on the intention of the end.
Intention follows will when it attaches to an already existing will, as when someone wills to do something and afterwards refers it to God. Then the goodness of the first will does not depend on the following intention, unless that act of will is repeated along with the following intention.
Ad 1. It should be said that when intention is the cause of willing, the order to the end is taken as a reason for the goodness in the object, as has been said.
Ad 2. It should be said that the will cannot be called good if a bad intention is the cause of willing. For one who wills to give alms out of vainglory, wills what is of itself good under the formality of evil, and therefore, as it is willed by him, it is evil. Hence his will is evil. But if the intention is consequent, then the will can be good and the act of will that preceded cannot be depraved by the following intention, but only the act of will which is repeated.
Ad 3. It should be said that, as has already been remarked, evil comes about from single defects, but the good from the whole and entire cause. Hence, whether will is of that which is of itself evil, even under the formality of good, or of the good under the formality of evil, the will will always be evil. In order for the will to be good, it must be of the good under the formality of the good. That is, it wills the good for the sake of the good.
Article 8: Does the amount of goodness in the will depend on the amount of goodness in the intention?
It seems that it does.
1. Commenting on Matthew 12.35, ‘The good man from his good treasure brings forth good things,’ the Gloss says that one does as much good as he intends. But intention not only gives goodness to the exterior act but also to the will, as has been said. Therefore, one will have as much good will as he intends.
2. Moreover, if the cause is increased, the effect is increased. But the goodness of intention is the cause of a good will. Therefore, the will is as good as the amount of good intended.
3. Moreover, with respect to evils, one sins in the amount that he intends, for if someone throwing a stone intends to kill a man, he is guilty of homicide. Therefore, by parity of reasoning, in good things, in the amount that one intends the good, to that amount the will is good.
ON THE CONTRARY:
The intention can be good and the will bad. Therefore, with equal reason, the intention can be more, and the will less, good.
RESPONSE:
It should be said that with respect to the act and the intention of the end, amount or quantity can be measured in two ways: on the side of the object, because one wills a greater good, or from the intensity of the act, because one intensely wills or acts, which is greater on the side of the agent.
Therefore, if we speak of the quantity of both according to object, it is manifest that the quantity of the act does not follow the quantity of the intention. With regard to the exterior act, this can come about in two ways. In one way, because the object intended is not proportioned to that end; for example, if someone offered ten pounds for something costing a hundred, his intention to buy could not be realized. In another way, because of the impediments that can arise with regard to the exterior act which are not in our power to remove; for example, someone intends to go as far as Rome and impediments arise which prevent him from doing so.
But unlike the exterior act the interior act of will is in our power and thus this occurs only in one way. The will can desire some object not proportioned to the intended end, and thus the will which bears on the object considered as such is not as good as the intention. But intention too in its way pertains to the act of will, insofar as it is the reason for it, and that is why the amount of the good intention redounds to will, insofar as the will wishes some great good as its end, although that by which it wills to achieve it is not worthy of that good.
But if the quantity of the intention and of the act are considered according to the intension of each, then the intension of the intention redounds to the interior and exterior acts of the will, because the intention relates formally to both, as is clear from what has been said above.1 Although materially, given an intense existing intention, the interior or exterior acts can be less intense, materially speaking: as when someone does not desire to take his medicine as intensely as he wishes to be well. However, the intense desire of health redounds formally on an intense desire to take medicine.
But it must be considered that the intension of the interior or exterior acts can be referred to the intention as an object, as when someone intends intensely to will or to do something intensely. But not for this reason does he intensely will or act, because the goodness of the interior or exterior act does not follow the quantity of the good intended, as has been said. Hence it is that one does not merit as much as he intends to, because the quantity of merit consists in the intension of the act, as will be said below.2
Ad 1. It should be said that the Gloss is speaking of reputation with God, who especially considers the intention of the end. Hence another gloss on the same text says that the treasury of the heart is intention, by which God judges works. For the goodness of intention, as has been said, in a certain manner redounds to the goodness of will which makes the exterior act meritorious before God.
Ad 2. It should be said that the goodness of intention is not the whole cause of a good will. Hence the argument does not work.
Ad 3. It should be said that the badness of intention alone suffices for the badness of the will, and therefore in the amount the intention is bad, in that amount the will is bad. But it is not the same with goodness, as has been said.
Article 9: Does the goodness of will depend on conformity with the divine will?
It seems that it does not.
1. It is impossible that the will of man be conformed to the will of God, as is evident from what is said in Isaiah 55.9: ‘For as the heavens are exalted above the earth, so are my ways exalted above your ways, and my thoughts above your thoughts.’ Therefore, if conformity to the divine will were required for the goodness of will, it would follow that it is impossible for a man’s will to be good, which is absurd.
2. Moreover, just as our will is derived from the divine will, so our knowledge derives from the divine knowledge. But it is not required that our knowledge be conformed to the divine knowledge, for God knows many things of which we are ignorant. Therefore, it is not required that our will be conformed to the divine will.
3. Moreover, will is the principle of action. But our action cannot be conformed to the divine action. Therefore, neither can our will.
ON THE CONTRARY:
Matthew 26.39 says, ‘Yet not as I will but as thou willest,’ which he says because he wants man to be right and to be directed to God, as Augustine explains in the Enchiridion. But the rectitude of will is its goodness. Therefore, the goodness of will depends on conformity to the divine will.
RESPONSE:
It should be said that, as was argued, the goodness of the will depends on the intention of the end. But the ultimate end of the human will is the highest good, God, as was said above. Therefore the goodness of the human will requires that it be ordered to the highest good, God. But this good primarily and as such relates to the divine will as its proper object. That which is first in any genus is the measure and reason of all the rest in that genus. A thing is right and good to the degree that it attains its proper measure. Therefore, in order for the will of man to be good, it must be conformed to the divine will.
Ad 1. It should be said that the will of man cannot be conformed to the divine will by equality, but by imitation. Similarly human knowledge is conformed to divine knowledge insofar as it knows the truth, and man’s action to the action of God, insofar as it is appropriate to the agent. But this is by imitation, not equality.
The solutions to the second and third arguments are clear from this.
Article 10: Does the human will have to be conformed to the divine will in what is willed?
It seems not.
1. We cannot will what we do not know, for the good apprehended is the object of will. But for the most part we do not know what God wills. Therefore, the human will cannot be conformed to the divine will in what it wills.
2. Moreover, God wills to damn someone whom he foresees will die in mortal sin. Therefore, if a man were held to conform his will to the divine will with respect to what is willed, it would follow that a man would be held to will his own damnation, which is absurd.
3. Moreover, no one is held to will what is contrary to piety. But if a man willed what God wills, this would sometimes be contrary to piety, as when God wills one’s father to die. If the son willed this it would be contrary to piety. Therefore man is not held to conform his will to the divine will with respect to what is willed.
ON THE CONTRARY:
1. Commenting on Psalm 32.1, ‘Praise becomes the upright,’ the Gloss says that he has a right heart who wills what God wills. But everyone is held to have a right heart. Therefore, everyone is held to will what God wills.
2. Moreover, the form of the will, like that of any other act, is from the object. Therefore, if a man is held to conform his will to the divine will, it follows that he is held to do so with respect to the thing willed.
3. Moreover, the conflict of wills consists in the fact that men will different things. But whoever has a will in conflict with the divine will has an evil will. Therefore, whoever does not conform his will to the divine will with respect to what is willed, has an evil will.
RESPONSE:
It should be said that, as is clear from the foregoing, the will bears on an object proposed to it by reason. But it happens that reason considers something in different ways, such that under one aspect it is good, and under another not good. Therefore, the will of one who wills it to be insofar as it has the aspect of good is good, and the will of another, who wills it not to be insofar as it has the note of evil, will also be a good will. Just so the judge has a good will when he wills the execution of the thief, because it is just, yet the will of another, say of the wife or child who does not wish him killed, insofar as killing is a natural evil, is also good.
But when the will follows the apprehension of reason or intellect under a more common formality of the good, then will bears on a more common good. As is clear in the previous example, for the judge has care of the common good, which is justice, and therefore wills the killing of the thief insofar as this has the note of good with respect to the common condition, but the wife of the thief has to consider the private good of the family, and thus she wills that her husband not be killed.
The good of the whole universe is what is apprehended by God, who is the maker and ruler of the universe; hence whatever he wills, he wills under the formality of the common good, that is, of his own goodness which is the good of the whole universe. But the good of the creature, given his nature, is a particular good proportioned to his nature and it can happen that something is good according to a particular formality which is not good according to a universal formality, and vice versa, as has been said. Therefore it happens that a will is good when willing something considered according to a particular formality which God does not will according to the universal formality, and vice versa. That is why different willings of different men concerning opposites can both be good, insofar as they will them to be or not to be under different particular aspects.
The will of a man willing a particular good is only right when it is referred to the common good as to its end, since even the natural appetite of any part is ordered to the common good of the whole. The formal reason for willing that which is ordered to the end is taken from the end. Hence, in order that someone will a particular good with right will it is necessary that the particular good be willed materially, and that the divine common good be willed formally. Therefore, the human will is held to be conformed to the divine will in what is formally willed, for it is held to will the divine and common good, but not materially, for the reason given. But with respect to both, in a certain respect, the human will is conformed to the divine will. Because, insofar as it is conformed to the divine will in the common formality of what is willed, it is conformed to it in the ultimate end. Insofar as it is conformed to it in what is willed materially, it is conformed to it under the formality of efficient cause, because it has from God as from an efficient cause its proper natural inclination or the particular apprehension of this thing. Hence it is customary to say that a man’s will is conformed to the divine will when he wills what God wants him to will.
There is another mode of conformity according to the notion of formal cause, namely when man wills something out of charity, just as God wills. And this conformity too is reduced to the formal conformity which is read from the order to the ultimate end, the proper object of charity.
Ad 1. It should be said that we can know what is willed by God under the common formality, for we know that God wills everything under the aspect of the good. Therefore whoever wills something under any aspect of the good has a will conformed to the divine will with respect to the reason for willing. But in particular we do not know what God wills, and in this respect, we are not held to conform our will to the divine will. But in the state of glory all will see in each thing willed its order to that which God wills concerning it. Therefore, not just formally, but materially too, they conform their will to God in everything.
Ad 2. It should be said that God does not will the damnation of anyone under the formality of damnation, nor anyone’s death as death, because he wills all men to be saved, but he wills it under the formality of justice. Hence it suffices in such matters that a man wills the justice of God and that the order of nature be served.
Thus is evident the solution to the third.
To what was said on the contrary:
Ad 1. It should be said that a will is more conformed to God’s will in the reason for willing a thing than in the thing willed, because will bears principally on the end, rather than on what is for the sake of the end.
Ad 2. It should be said that the species and form of the act are taken from the formality of the object rather than from that which is material in the object.
Ad 3. It should be said that there is no conflict of wills when people will different things for different reasons. But if something is willed for one reason by one person, that another does not will, this brings about a conflict of wills. But that is not what is at issue.
QUESTION 20
THE GOODNESS AND BADNESS OF EXTERIOR ACTS
Next we must consider goodness and badness with respect to exterior acts, and there are six things to be asked: (1) whether goodness and badness are first in the act of the will or in the exterior act; (2) whether the whole goodness or badness of the exterior act depends on the goodness of the will; (3) whether there is the same goodness and badness of the interior and exterior acts; (4) whether the exterior act adds goodness or badness to the interior act; (5) whether the subsequent outcome adds something of goodness or badness to the exterior act; (6) whether the same exterior act can be good and evil.
Article 1: Do good and evil consist in the exterior act before the act of will?
It seems that they do.
1. Will has its goodness from the object, as was said above, but the exterior act is the object of the interior act of the will, for we are said to will theft, or to will to give alms. Therefore, good and evil are in the exterior act first, then in the act of will.
2. Moreover, good belongs to the end first, because the things that are for the sake of the end have the note of good from being ordered to the end. But the act of the will cannot be the end, as has been said above although the act of another power can be the end. Therefore, the good first consists in the act of another power rather than in the act of the will.
3. Moreover, the act of will is formally related to the exterior act, as has been said above; but that which is formal is later, for form comes to matter. Therefore, good and evil are in the exterior act prior to being in the act of will.
ON THE CONTRARY:
Augustine says in the Retractions that the will is that whereby one either sins or lives well. Therefore moral good and evil are first in the will.
RESPONSE:
It should be said that exterior acts can be called good or evil in two ways. In one way, according to their genus as well as according to their circumstances; thus to give alms, in the appropriate circumstances, is said to be good.
In another way it is said to be good or bad from being ordered to the end; thus to give alms for the sake of vainglory is said to be evil. Since the end is the proper object of the will, it is manifest that the note of good or evil that the exterior act has from being ordered to the end is found first of all in the will and is derived from it to the exterior act.
But the goodness or badness that the exterior act has in itself, because of due matter and circumstances, is not derived from the will, but rather from reason. Hence if the goodness of the exterior act is considered insofar as it is in the ordering and apprehension of reason, it is prior to the goodness of the act of will, but if it is considered as it is in the execution of the work, it follows the goodness of the will, which is its principle.
Ad 1. It should be said that the exterior act is an object of will insofar as it is proposed to will by reason as a good apprehended and ordered by reason, and thus it is prior to the good of the act of will. But insofar as it consists in the execution of the work, it is an effect of will and follows will.
Ad 2. It should be said that the end is first in intention, but last in execution.
Ad 3. It should be said that form, as it is received in matter, is after matter in the process of generation, although it is prior in nature, but insofar as it is in the agent cause it is in every way prior. But the will is compared to the exterior act as efficient cause. Hence the goodness of the act of will is the form of the exterior act, as existing in the agent cause.
Article 2: Does the complete goodness and badness of the exterior act depend on will?
It seems that it does.
1. It is said in Matthew 7.18, ‘A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit.’ By tree is meant the will and by fruit the work, according to the Gloss. Therefore the interior will cannot be good and the exterior act evil, or conversely.
2. Augustine says in the Retractions that we sin only through will. Therefore, if there is no sin in the will there will be no sin in the exterior act. Thus the whole of the goodness or badness of the exterior act depends on the will.
3. Moreover, the good and evil of which we now speak are differences of the moral act. But differences divide the genus essentially, according to the Philosopher in Metaphysics 7.6. Therefore, since an act is moral insofar as it is voluntary, it seems that the good and evil in the act come solely from the will.
ON THE CONTRARY:
Augustine says in On Lying that there are things which cannot be done well because of any good end or good will.
RESPONSE:
As was already noted, it should be said that the exterior act can be considered to have a twofold goodness or badness, one because of due matter and circumstances, the other from being ordered to the end. The latter depends wholly on the will, but that which is from due matter and circumstances depends on reason, and the goodness of the will depends on this, insofar as it bears upon it. But it must be considered that, as was said above, in order for something to be bad a single defect suffices, although a single good is insufficient for it to be simply good. For that, integral goodness is required. Therefore, if the will is good from its proper object, and from the end, the exterior act is good as a consequence, but the goodness of will which is from the intention of the end does not suffice for the exterior act to be good. But if the will is evil from the end intended or from the act willed, as a consequence the exterior act is evil.
Ad 1. It should be said that the good will, insofar as it is meant by the good tree, must be understood as having its goodness from the act willed and from the end intended.
Ad 2. It should be said that not only does one sin through the will by willing an evil end, but also by willing a bad act.
Ad 3. It should be said that not only the interior act of will is called voluntary, but also exterior acts, insofar as they proceed from will and reason. Therefore, there can be a difference of good and evil in both acts.
Article 3: Is the goodness or badness of the interior act of the will the same as the goodness and badness of the exterior act?
It seems not.
1. The principle of the interior act is the interior apprehensive or appetitive power, but the principle of the exterior act is the power of executing motion. Where there are different principles of action, there are diverse acts. But the act is the subject of goodness or badness and the same accident cannot be in two subjects. Therefore, the goodness of the interior and of the exterior act cannot be the same.
2. Moreover, virtue is what makes one good and renders his work good, as is said in Ethics 2.6. But the intellectual virtue in the commanding power and the moral virtue in the commanded power differ, as is clear from Ethics 1.13. Therefore, the goodness of the interior act, which is of the commanding power, is different from the goodness of the exterior act, which is of the commanded power.
3. Moreover, the same thing cannot be both cause and effect, since nothing is cause of itself, but the goodness of the interior act is the cause of the goodness of the exterior act, or conversely. Therefore, the goodness of the two cannot be the same.
ON THE CONTRARY:
It was shown above that the act of the will is formal with respect to the exterior act. But one thing comes to be from the formal and material. Therefore, there is but one goodness of the interior and exterior acts.
RESPONSE:
It should be said that, as was explained above, the interior act of the will and the exterior act, insofar as they are in the moral order, are one act. But it sometimes happens that an act which is one in subject has several reasons for its goodness or badness, and sometimes only one. Therefore, it should be said that sometimes the goodness or badness of the interior and exterior acts is the same, and sometimes different. For as has already been said, these two, the goodness or badness of the interior and that of exterior acts, are related to one another.
But it can happen that in things ordered to another, something is good solely from the fact of being ordered to another, as bitter medicine is good only because it makes one well. Hence the goodness of health and that of medicine are one and the same and do not differ. Sometimes, however, that which is ordered to another has a character of goodness in itself over and above that following on its being ordered to another good, as tasty medicine has the note of a delightful good over and above the fact that it is curative.
Therefore it should be said that when the exterior act is good or bad solely because of its order to the end, then the goodness or badness of the act of the will which looks to the end, and of the exterior act, which looks to the end through the mediation of the act of will, are in every way the same. But when the exterior act has a goodness or badness in itself, because of matter or circumstances, then the goodness of the exterior act differs from the goodness of the will which is from the end, such that both the goodness of the end redounds to the exterior act from the will, and the goodness of matter and circumstances redound to the act of will, as has already been said.
Ad 1. It should be said that the argument proves that the interior and exterior acts differ as to natural genus, but something one in the moral order is constituted from these different things, as was said above.
Ad 2. It should be said that, as is said in the Ethics 6.11, the moral virtues are ordered to the acts of the virtues, which are, as it were, ends; but prudence, which is in reason, is concerned with things which are for the sake of the end. On account of this different virtues are required. But right reason with respect to the very end of the virtues does not have another goodness than that of the virtues, insofar as the goodness of reason is participated in by each virtue.
Ad 3. It should be said that when something derives from one thing to another as from a univocal agent cause, what is in each differs; for example, the heat of that which warms and the heat of that which is warmed differ, though they are specifically the same. But when something derives from one to another according to analogy or proportion, then it is only numerically one; for example, from the health that is in the animal body, health derives to medicine and urine, but there is not a health of medicine or of urine different from that of the animal – which medicine causes and urine signifies. In this way the goodness of the exterior act is derived from the goodness of the will, and conversely, according to the order of one to the other.
Article 4: Does the exterior act add to the goodness or badness of the interior act?
It seems that it does not.
1. Chrysostom says in commenting on Matthew that it is the will that is either rewarded for good or condemned for evil. But works are the testimony of the will. Therefore, God does not ask works for themselves, in order to know how he should judge, but for others, that all may understand that God is just. But good and evil should be estimated according to the judgement of God rather than the judgement of men. Therefore, the exterior act adds nothing to the goodness or badness of the interior act.
2. Moreover, there is one and the same goodness in the interior and exterior acts, as has been said. But increase comes about by adding one to another. Therefore, the exterior act adds no goodness or badness to the interior act.
3. Moreover, the whole of created goodness adds nothing to the divine goodness, because the whole is derived from the divine goodness. But the goodness of the exterior act sometimes derives as a whole from the goodness of the interior act, but sometimes conversely, as has been said. Therefore, the one does not add any goodness or badness to the other.
ON THE CONTRARY:
Every agent intends to pursue the good and avoid evil. Therefore, if nothing of goodness or badness is added by the exterior act, it would be idle for one who has a good or bad will either to do a good work or refrain from an evil one. Which is absurd.
RESPONSE:
It should be said that if we are speaking of the goodness that the exterior act has from the will of the end, then the exterior act adds nothing of goodness, unless it should happen that the will itself should become better in good things or worse in evil. It seems that this can come about in three ways.
In one way, numerically. For example, when someone wills to do something for a good or bad end and does not do it then but later wills and does it, the act of will is duplicated and thus there is a twofold good or a twofold evil.
In another way, with respect to extension. For example, when someone wishes to do something for a good or bad end but because of some impediment desists, whereas another continues the movement of will to the point of perfecting the work; manifestly this kind of will is longer lasting in good or evil, and in this is better or worse.
In a third way, with respect to intension. For there are some exterior acts which, insofar as they are painful or pleasurable, are of a nature to be intended or avoided by the will. But it is the case that insofar as the will tends more intensely to good or evil it is better or worse.
But if we are speaking of the goodness that the exterior act has according to matter and due circumstances, then it relates to will as term and end. And in this way it adds goodness or badness to the will, because every inclination or movement is perfected when it achieves its end or attains its term. Hence there is only a perfected will when, given the opportunity, it acts. If the chance is lacking, the will can be perfect in that it would act if it could, and the defect of perfection which is from the exterior act is simply involuntary. But the involuntary does not deserve punishment or merit praise in doing good or evil, if a man quite involuntarily fails to do good or evil.
Ad 1. It should be said that Chrysostom means when the will of man is fulfilled, and not when it stops acting only because it is impotent to act.
Ad 2. It should be said that the argument proceeds from the goodness the exterior act has from the end willed. But the goodness the exterior act has from matter and circumstances is different from the goodness of the will which is from the end, although not from the goodness the will has from the act willed itself; to that it is related as its reason and cause, as was said above.
Ad 3. The solution to the third is clear from this.
Article 5: Does the subsequent outcome add to the goodness or badness of the act?
It seems that it does.
1. The effect pre-exists virtually in the cause. But outcomes follow the act as effects follow causes. Therefore, they pre-exist virtually in the acts. But a thing is judged good or evil according to its own virtue, for virtue is what makes the one having it good, as is said in Ethics 2.6. Therefore, the outcome adds to the goodness or badness of the act.
2. Moreover, the good things that listeners do are effects following on the preaching of the teacher, but such goods redound to the merit of the preacher, as is evident from what is said in Philippians 4.1: ‘My brethren, beloved and longed for, my joy and my crown.’ Therefore, the subsequent outcome adds to the goodness or badness of the act.
3. Moreover, punishment is not added unless guilt increases, hence it is said in Deuteronomy 25.2: ‘According to the measure of the sin shall the measure also of the stripes be.’ But the subsequent outcome is added to the punishment, as is said in Exodus 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 killed if the ox had not killed a man, even though it had not been shut up. Therefore, the subsequent outcome adds to the goodness or badness of the act.
4. Moreover, if someone brings on the cause of death by stabbing or by passing sentence, and death does not follow, he would not be convicted of law-breaking. But if death does follow, he is convicted. Therefore, the subsequent outcome adds to the goodness or badness of the act.
ON THE CONTRARY:
The subsequent outcome does not make a good act evil nor a bad one good. If someone should give alms to a poor man, who uses it to sin, nothing is taken away from the one who gave alms, and similarly if someone patiently bears an injustice done him, he who commits it is not for that reason excused. Therefore, the subsequent outcome does not add to the goodness or badness of the act.
RESPONSE:
It should be said that the subsequent outcome either is foreknown or it is not. If it is, it is manifest that it adds to the goodness or badness. For when someone who thinks that many evils can follow from his deed does not refrain from it, his will is revealed to be quite disordered. However, if the subsequent outcome is not foreknown, then we must distinguish.
Because if it follows essentially from such an act, and for the most part, then the subsequent outcome adds to the goodness or badness of the act, for it is obvious that an act from which many good things can follow is a better act of its kind, and an act from which many evils follow is a worse one. But if incidentally or rarely, then the subsequent outcome does not add to the goodness or badness of the act, since a judgement is not passed on what belongs to a thing incidentally, but only on that which is essential.
Ad 1. It should be said that the power of a cause is appraised by its essential, not its incidental, effects.
Ad 2. It should be said that the good things that the listeners do follow on the preaching of the teacher as essential effects, so they redound to the reward of the preacher, and especially when they are intended.
Ad 3. It should be said that the outcome for which punishment is commanded to be inflicted on him follows essentially on such a cause, and, moreover, is taken to be foreknown and therefore it is imputed to punishment.
Ad 4. It should be said that the argument would work if irregularity followed the fault. But it follows not the fault but the deed, because of some defect of the sentence.
Article 6: Can the same act be good and bad?
It seems so.
1. A continuous motion is one, as is said in Physics 5.9, but one continuous motion can be good and bad; for example, if someone going along to church at first intends vainglory, but afterwards intends to serve God. Therefore, one act can be good and bad.
2. Moreover, according to the Philosopher in Physics 3.3, action and passion are the same act. But passion can be good, as that of Christ, and the action evil, as that of the Jews. Therefore the same act can be good and evil.
3. Moreover, since the servant is as an instrument of the master, the action of the servant is the action of the master, just as the act of the tool is the act of the artisan. But it can happen that the act of the servant proceeds from the good will of the master, and thus is good, but from the bad will of the servant, and this is evil. Therefore, the same act can be good and evil.
ON THE CONTRARY:
Contraries cannot be in the same subject. But good and evil are contraries. Therefore the same act cannot be good and evil.
RESPONSE:
There is nothing to prevent a thing’s being one insofar as it is in this genus, and many insofar as it is in another genus. Just as a continuous surface is one, considered in the genus of quantity, but many, insofar as it is referred to the genus of colour if it is partly white and partly black. So too nothing prevents an act from being one with respect to the natural genus but not as referred to a moral genus, and vice versa, as has been said. An uninterrupted walk is one act with respect to its natural genus, but it can happen that it is many moral acts, if the will of the walker alters, will being the principle of moral acts.
Therefore, if we take an act which is of one moral kind, it is impossible for it to be both good and bad with moral goodness and badness. But if the unity is of the natural, not the moral, genus, the act can be both good and bad.
Ad 1. It should be said, therefore, that a continuous motion which proceeds from different intentions, although it is one with the unity of nature, is not one with moral unity.
Ad 2. It should be said that action and passion belong to the genus of morals insofar as they have the mark of the voluntary. Therefore, insofar as voluntary acts are due to different willings they are morally two, and the one can be good and the other bad.
Ad 3. It should be said that the act of the servant, insofar as it proceeds from the will of the servant, is not the act of the master, but only when it proceeds from the command of the master. Hence the evil will of the servant does not make the master bad.