Index [<<� | >>]
First Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 48 [ << | >> ]
| Deinde considerandum est de distinctione rerum in speciali. Et primo, de distinctione boni et mali; deinde de distinctione spiritualis et corporalis creaturae. | We must now consider the distinction of things in particular; and firstly the distinction of good and evil; and then the distinction of the spiritual and corporeal creatures. |
| Circa primum, quaerendum est de malo; et de causa mali. | Concerning the first, we inquire into evil and its cause. |
| Circa malum quaeruntur sex. | Concerning evil, six points are to be considered: |
| Primo, utrum malum sit natura aliqua. | (1) Whether evil is a nature? |
| Secundo, utrum malum inveniatur in rebus. | (2) Whether evil is found in things? |
| Tertio, utrum bonum sit subiectum mali. | (3) Whether good is the subject of evil? |
| Quarto, utrum malum totaliter corrumpat bonum. | (4) Whether evil totally corrupts good? |
| Quinto, de divisione mali per poenam et culpam. | (5) The division of evil into pain and fault. |
| Sexto, quid habeat plus de ratione mali, utrum poena vel culpa. | (6) Whether pain, or fault, has more the nature of evil? |
Index [<<� | >>]
First Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 48 [ << | >> ]
Article: 1 [ << | >> ]
| Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod malum sit natura quaedam. Quia omne genus est natura quaedam. Sed malum est quoddam genus, dicitur enim in praedicamentis, quod bonum et malum non sunt in genere, sed sunt genera aliorum. Ergo malum est natura quaedam. | Objection 1: It would seem that evil is a nature. For every genus is a nature. But evil is a genus; for the Philosopher says (Praedic. x) that "good and evil are not in a genus, but are genera of other things." Therefore evil is a nature. |
| Praeterea, omnis differentia constitutiva alicuius speciei est natura quaedam. Malum autem est differentia constitutiva in moralibus, differt enim specie malus habitus a bono, ut liberalitas ab illiberalitate. Ergo malum significat naturam quandam. | Objection 2: Further, every difference which constitutes a species is a nature. But evil is a difference constituting a species of morality; for a bad habit differs in species from a good habit, as liberality from illiberality. Therefore evil signifies a nature. |
| Praeterea, utrumque contrariorum est natura quaedam. Sed malum et bonum non opponuntur ut privatio et habitus, sed ut contraria, ut probat philosophus, in praedicamentis, per hoc quod inter bonum et malum est aliquid medium, et a malo potest fieri reditus ad bonum. Ergo malum significat naturam quandam. | Objection 3: Further, each extreme of two contraries is a nature. But evil and good are not opposed as privation and habit, but as contraries, as the Philosopher shows (Praedic. x) by the fact that between good and evil there is a medium, and from evil there can be a return to good. Therefore evil signifies a nature. |
| Praeterea, quod non est, non agit. Sed malum agit, quia corrumpit bonum. Ergo malum est quoddam ens, et natura quaedam. | Objection 4: Further, what is not, acts not. But evil acts, for it corrupts good. Therefore evil is a being and a nature. |
| Praeterea, ad perfectionem universitatis rerum non pertinet nisi quod est ens et natura quaedam. Sed malum pertinet ad perfectionem universitatis rerum, dicit enim Augustinus, in Enchirid., quod ex omnibus consistit universitatis admirabilis pulchritudo; in qua etiam illud quod malum dicitur, bene ordinatum, et suo loco positum, eminentius commendat bona. Ergo malum est natura quaedam. | Objection 5: Further, nothing belongs to the perfection of the universe except what is a being and a nature. But evil belongs to the perfection of the universe of things; for Augustine says (Enchir. 10,11) that the "admirable beauty of the universe is made up of all things. In which even what is called evil, well ordered and in its place, is the eminent commendation of what is good." Therefore evil is a nature. |
| Sed contra est quod Dionysius dicit, IV cap. de Div. Nom., malum non est existens neque bonum. | On the contrary, Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv), "Evil is neither a being nor a good." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod unum oppositorum cognoscitur per alterum, sicut per lucem tenebra. Unde et quid sit malum, oportet ex ratione boni accipere. Diximus autem supra quod bonum est omne id quod est appetibile, et sic, cum omnis natura appetat suum esse et suam perfectionem, necesse est dicere quod esse et perfectio cuiuscumque naturae rationem habeat bonitatis. Unde non potest esse quod malum significet quoddam esse, aut quandam formam seu naturam. Relinquitur ergo quod nomine mali significetur quaedam absentia boni. Et pro tanto dicitur quod malum neque est existens nec bonum, quia cum ens, inquantum huiusmodi, sit bonum, eadem est remotio utrorumque. | I answer that, One opposite is known through the other, as darkness is known through light. Hence also what evil is must be known from the nature of good. Now, we have said above that good is everything appetible; and thus, since every nature desires its own being and its own perfection, it must be said also that the being and the perfection of any nature is good. Hence it cannot be that evil signifies being, or any form or nature. Therefore it must be that by the name of evil is signified the absence of good. And this is what is meant by saying that "evil is neither a being nor a good." For since being, as such, is good, the absence of one implies the absence of the other. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Aristoteles ibi loquitur secundum opinionem Pythagoricorum, qui malum existimabant esse naturam quandam, et ideo ponebant bonum et malum genera. Consuevit enim Aristoteles, et praecipue in libris logicalibus, ponere exempla quae probabilia erant suo tempore, secundum opinionem aliquorum philosophorum. Vel dicendum, sicut dicit philosophus in X Metaphys., quod prima contrarietas est habitus et privatio, quia scilicet in omnibus contrariis salvatur, cum semper unum contrariorum sit imperfectum respectu alterius, ut nigrum respectu albi, et amarum respectu dulcis. Et pro tanto bonum et malum dicuntur genera, non simpliciter, sed contrariorum, quia sicut omnis forma habet rationem boni, ita omnis privatio, inquantum huiusmodi, habet rationem mali. | Reply to Objection 1: Aristotle speaks there according to the opinion of Pythagoreans, who thought that evil was a kind of nature; and therefore they asserted the existence of the genus of good and evil. For Aristotle, especially in his logical works, brings forward examples that in his time were probable in the opinion of some philosophers. Or, it may be said that, as the Philosopher says (Metaph. iv, text 6), "the first kind of contrariety is habit and privation," as being verified in all contraries; since one contrary is always imperfect in relation to another, as black in relation to white, and bitter in relation to sweet. And in this way good and evil are said to be genera not simply, but in regard to contraries; because, as every form has the nature of good, so every privation, as such, has the nature of evil. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod bonum et malum non sunt differentiae constitutivae nisi in moralibus, quae recipiunt speciem ex fine, qui est obiectum voluntatis, a qua moralia dependent. Et quia bonum habet rationem finis, ideo bonum et malum sunt differentiae specificae in moralibus; bonum per se, sed malum inquantum est remotio debiti finis. Nec tamen remotio debiti finis constituit speciem in moralibus, nisi secundum quod adiungitur fini indebito, sicut neque in naturalibus invenitur privatio formae substantialis, nisi adiuncta alteri formae. Sic igitur malum quod est differentia constitutiva in moralibus, est quoddam bonum adiunctum privationi alterius boni, sicut finis intemperati est, non quidem carere bono rationis, sed delectabile sensus absque ordine rationis. Unde malum, inquantum malum, non est differentia constitutiva; sed ratione boni adiuncti. | Reply to Objection 2: Good and evil are not constitutive differences except in morals, which receive their species from the end, which is the object of the will, the source of all morality. And because good has the nature of an end, therefore good and evil are specific differences in moral things; good in itself, but evil as the absence of the due end. Yet neither does the absence of the due end by itself constitute a moral species, except as it is joined to the undue end; just as we do not find the privation of the substantial form in natural things, unless it is joined to another form. Thus, therefore, the evil which is a constitutive difference in morals is a certain good joined to the privation of another good; as the end proposed by the intemperate man is not the privation of the good of reason, but the delight of sense without the order of reason. Hence evil is not a constitutive difference as such, but by reason of the good that is annexed. |
| Et per hoc etiam patet responsio ad tertium. Nam ibi philosophus loquitur de bono et malo, secundum quod inveniuntur in moralibus. Sic enim inter bonum et malum invenitur medium, prout bonum dicitur quod est ordinatum; malum autem, quod non solum est deordinatum, sed etiam nocivum alteri. Unde dicit philosophus in IV Ethic., quod prodigus vanus quidem est, sed non malus. Ab hoc etiam malo quod est secundum morem, contingit fieri reditum ad bonum; non autem ex quocumque malo. Non enim ex caecitate fit reditus ad visionem, cum tamen caecitas sit malum quoddam. | Reply to Objection 3: This appears from the above. For the Philosopher speaks there of good and evil in morality. Because in that respect, between good and evil there is a medium, as good is considered as something rightly ordered, and evil as a thing not only out of right order, but also as injurious to another. Hence the Philosopher says (Ethic. iv, i) that a "prodigal man is foolish, but not evil." And from this evil in morality, there may be a return to good, but not from any sort of evil, for from blindness there is no return to sight, although blindness is an evil. |
| Ad quartum dicendum quod aliquid agere dicitur tripliciter. Uno modo, formaliter, eo modo loquendi quo dicitur albedo facere album. Et sic malum, etiam ratione ipsius privationis, dicitur corrumpere bonum, quia est ipsa corruptio vel privatio boni. Alio modo dicitur aliquid agere effective, sicut pictor dicitur facere album parietem. Tertio modo, per modum causae finalis, sicut finis dicitur efficere, movendo efficientem. His autem duobus modis malum non agit aliquid per se, idest secundum quod est privatio quaedam, sed secundum quod ei bonum adiungitur, nam omnis actio est ab aliqua forma, et omne quod desideratur ut finis, est perfectio aliqua. Et ideo, ut Dionysius dicit, IV cap. de Div. Nom., malum non agit neque desideratur nisi virtute boni adiuncti; per se autem est infinitum, et praeter voluntatem et intentionem. | Reply to Objection 4: A thing is said to act in a threefold sense. In one way, formally, as when we say that whiteness makes white; and in that sense evil considered even as a privation is said to corrupt good, forasmuch as it is itself a corruption or privation of good. In another sense a thing is said to act effectively, as when a painter makes a wall white. Thirdly, it is said in the sense of the final cause, as the end is said to effect by moving the efficient cause. But in these two ways evil does not effect anything of itself, that is, as a privation, but by virtue of the good annexed to it. For every action comes from some form; and everything which is desired as an end, is a perfection. And therefore, as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv): "Evil does not act, nor is it desired, except by virtue of some good joined to it: while of itself it is nothing definite, and beside the scope of our will and intention." |
| Ad quintum dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, partes universi habent ordinem ad invicem, secundum quod una agit in alteram, et est finis alterius et exemplar. Haec autem, ut dictum est, non possunt convenire malo, nisi ratione boni adiuncti. Unde malum neque ad perfectionem universi pertinet, neque sub ordine universi concluditur, nisi per accidens, idest ratione boni adiuncti. | Reply to Objection 5: As was said above, the parts of the universe are ordered to each other, according as one acts on the other, and according as one is the end and exemplar of the other. But, as was said above, this can only happen to evil as joined to some good. Hence evil neither belongs to the perfection of the universe, nor does it come under the order of the same, except accidentally, that is, by reason of some good joined to it. |
Index [<<� | >>]
First Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 48 [ << | >> ]
Article: 2 [ << | >> ]
| Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod malum non inveniatur in rebus. Quidquid enim invenitur in rebus, vel est ens aliquod, vel privatio entis alicuius, quod est non ens. Sed Dionysius dicit, IV cap. de Div. Nom., quod malum distat ab existente, et adhuc plus distat a non existente. Ergo malum nullo modo invenitur in rebus. | Objection 1: It would seem that evil is not found in things. For whatever is found in things, is either something, or a privation of something, that is a "not-being." But Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv) that "evil is distant from existence, and even more distant from non-existence." Therefore evil is not at all found in things. |
| Praeterea, ens et res convertuntur. Si ergo malum est ens in rebus, sequitur quod malum sit res quaedam. Quod est contra praedicta. |
Objection 2: Further, "being" and "thing" are convertible. If therefore evil is a being in things, it follows that evil is a thing, which is contrary to what has been said (Article [1]). |
| Praeterea, albius est quod est nigro impermixtius, ut dicitur in III libro Topic. Aristotelis. Ergo et melius est quod est malo impermixtius. Sed Deus facit semper quod melius est, multo magis quam natura. Ergo in rebus a Deo conditis nihil malum invenitur. | Objection 3: Further, "the white unmixed with black is the most white," as the Philosopher says (Topic. iii, 4). Therefore also the good unmixed with evil is the greater good. But God makes always what is best, much more than nature does. Therefore in things made by God there is no evil. |
| Sed contra est quod secundum hoc removerentur omnes prohibitiones et poenae, quae non sunt nisi malorum. | On the contrary, On the above assumptions, all prohibitions and penalties would cease, for they exist only for evils. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, perfectio universi requirit inaequalitatem esse in rebus, ut omnes bonitatis gradus impleantur. Est autem unus gradus bonitatis ut aliquid ita bonum sit, quod nunquam deficere possit. Alius autem gradus bonitatis est, ut sic aliquid bonum sit, quod a bono deficere possit. Qui etiam gradus in ipso esse inveniuntur, quaedam enim sunt, quae suum esse amittere non possunt, ut incorporalia; quaedam vero sunt, quae amittere possunt, ut corporalia. |
I answer that, As was said above (Question [47], Articles [1],2), the perfection of the universe requires that there should be inequality in things, so that every grade of goodness may be realized. Now, one grade of goodness is that of the good which cannot fail. Another grade of goodness is that of the good which can fail in goodness, and this grade is to be found in existence itself; for some things there are which cannot lose their existence as incorruptible things, while some there are which can lose it, as things corruptible. |
| Sicut igitur perfectio universitatis rerum requirit ut non solum sint entia incorruptibilia, sed etiam corruptibilia; ita perfectio universi requirit ut sint quaedam quae a bonitate deficere possint; ad quod sequitur ea interdum deficere. In hoc autem consistit ratio mali, ut scilicet aliquid deficiat a bono. Unde manifestum est quod in rebus malum invenitur, sicut et corruptio, nam et ipsa corruptio malum quoddam est. | As, therefore, the perfection of the universe requires that there should be not only beings incorruptible, but also corruptible beings; so the perfection of the universe requires that there should be some which can fail in goodness, and thence it follows that sometimes they do fail. Now it is in this that evil consists, namely, in the fact that a thing fails in goodness. Hence it is clear that evil is found in things, as corruption also is found; for corruption is itself an evil. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod malum distat et ab ente simpliciter, et non ente simpliciter, quia neque est sicut habitus, neque sicut pura negatio, sed sicut privatio. | Reply to Objection 1: Evil is distant both from simple being and from simple "not-being," because it is neither a habit nor a pure negation, but a privation. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod, sicut dicitur in V Metaphys., ens dupliciter dicitur. Uno modo, secundum quod significat entitatem rei, prout dividitur per decem praedicamenta, et sic convertitur cum re. Et hoc modo, nulla privatio est ens, unde nec malum. Alio modo dicitur ens, quod significat veritatem propositionis, quae in compositione consistit, cuius nota est hoc verbum est, et hoc est ens quo respondetur ad quaestionem an est. Et sic caecitatem dicimus esse in oculo, vel quamcumque aliam privationem. Et hoc modo etiam malum dicitur ens. Propter huius autem distinctionis ignorantiam, aliqui, considerantes quod aliquae res dicuntur malae, vel quod malum dicitur esse in rebus, crediderunt quod malum esset res quaedam. | Reply to Objection 2: As the Philosopher says (Metaph. v, text 14), being is twofold. In one way it is considered as signifying the entity of a thing, as divisible by the ten "predicaments"; and in that sense it is convertible with thing, and thus no privation is a being, and neither therefore is evil a being. In another sense being conveys the truth of a proposition which unites together subject and attribute by a copula, notified by this word "is"; and in this sense being is what answers to the question, "Does it exist?" and thus we speak of blindness as being in the eye; or of any other privation. In this way even evil can be called a being. Through ignorance of this distinction some, considering that things may be evil, or that evil is said to be in things, believed that evil was a positive thing in itself. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod Deus et natura, et quodcumque agens, facit quod melius est in toto; sed non quod melius est in unaquaque parte, nisi per ordinem ad totum, ut supra dictum est. Ipsum autem totum quod est universitas creaturarum, melius et perfectius est, si in eo sint quaedam quae a bono deficere possunt, quae interdum deficiunt, Deo hoc non impediente. Tum quia providentiae non est naturam destruere, sed salvare, ut Dionysius dicit, IV cap. de Div. Nom., ipsa autem natura rerum hoc habet, ut quae deficere possunt, quandoque deficiant. Tum quia, ut dicit Augustinus in Enchirid., Deus est adeo potens, quod etiam potest bene facere de malis. Unde multa bona tollerentur, si Deus nullum malum permitteret esse. Non enim generaretur ignis, nisi corrumperetur aer; neque conservaretur vita leonis, nisi occideretur asinus; neque etiam laudaretur iustitia vindicans, et patientia sufferens, si non esset iniquitas. |
Reply to Objection 3: God and nature and any other agent make what is best in the whole, but not what is best in every single part, except in order to the whole, as was said above (Question [47], Article [2]). And the whole itself, which is the universe of creatures, is all the better and more perfect if some things in it can fail in goodness, and do sometimes fail, God not preventing this. This happens, firstly, because "it belongs to Providence not to destroy, but to save nature," as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv); but it belongs to nature that what may fail should sometimes fail; secondly, because, as Augustine says (Enchir. 11), "God is so powerful that He can even make good out of evil." Hence many good things would be taken away if God permitted no evil to exist; for fire would not be generated if air was not corrupted, nor would the life of a lion be preserved unless the ass were killed. Neither would avenging justice nor the patience of a sufferer be praised if there were no injustice. |
Index [<<� | >>]
First Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 48 [ << | >> ]
Article: 3 [ << | >> ]
| Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod malum non sit in bono sicut in subiecto. Omnia enim bona sunt existentia. Sed Dionysius dicit, IV cap. de Div. Nom., quod malum non est existens, neque in existentibus. Ergo malum non est in bono sicut in subiecto. | Objection 1: It would seem that evil is not in good as its subject. For good is something that exists. But Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv, 4) that "evil does not exist, nor is it in that which exists." Therefore, evil is not in good as its subject. |
| Praeterea, malum non est ens, bonum vero est ens. Sed non ens non requirit ens, in quo sit sicut in subiecto. Ergo nec malum requirit bonum, in quo sit sicut in subiecto. | Objection 2: Further, evil is not a being; whereas good is a being. But "non-being" does not require being as its subject. Therefore, neither does evil require good as its subject. |
| Praeterea, unum contrariorum non est subiectum alterius. Sed bonum et malum sunt contraria. Ergo malum non est in bono sicut in subiecto. | Objection 3: Further, one contrary is not the subject of another. But good and evil are contraries. Therefore, evil is not in good as in its subject. |
| Praeterea, id in quo est albedo sicut in subiecto, dicitur esse album. Ergo et id in quo est malum sicut in subiecto, est malum. Si ergo malum sit in bono sicut in subiecto, sequitur quod bonum sit malum, contra id quod dicitur Isai. V, vae, qui dicitis malum bonum, et bonum malum. |
Objection 4: Further, the subject of whiteness is called white. Therefore also the subject of evil is evil. If, therefore, evil is in good as in its subject, it follows that good is evil, against what is said (Is. 5:20): "Woe to you who call evil good, and good evil!" |
| Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, in Enchirid., quod malum non est nisi in bono. | On the contrary, Augustine says (Enchiridion 14) that "evil exists only in good." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, malum importat remotionem boni. Non autem quaelibet remotio boni malum dicitur. Potest enim accipi remotio boni et privative, et negative. Remotio igitur boni negative accepta, mali rationem non habet, alioquin sequeretur quod ea quae nullo modo sunt, mala essent; et iterum quod quaelibet res esset mala, ex hoc quod non habet bonum alterius rei, utpote quod homo esset malus, quia non habet velocitatem capreae, vel fortitudinem leonis. Sed remotio boni privative accepta, malum dicitur, sicut privatio visus caecitas dicitur. |
I answer that, As was said above (Article [1]), evil imports the absence of good. But not every absence of good is evil. For absence of good can be taken in a privative and in a negative sense. Absence of good, taken negatively, is not evil; otherwise, it would follow that what does not exist is evil, and also that everything would be evil, through not having the good belonging to something else; for instance, a man would be evil who had not the swiftness of the roe, or the strength of a lion. But the absence of good, taken in a privative sense, is an evil; as, for instance, the privation of sight is called blindness. |
| Subiectum autem privationis et formae est unum et idem, scilicet ens in potentia, sive sit ens in potentia simpliciter, sicut materia prima, quae est subiectum formae substantialis et privationis oppositae; sive sit ens in potentia secundum quid et in actu simpliciter, ut corpus diaphanum, quod est subiectum tenebrarum et lucis. Manifestum est autem quod forma per quam aliquid est actu, perfectio quaedam est, et bonum quoddam, et sic omne ens in actu, bonum quoddam est. Et similiter omne ens in potentia, inquantum huiusmodi, bonum quoddam est, secundum quod habet ordinem ad bonum, sicut enim est ens in potentia, ita et bonum in potentia. Relinquitur ergo quod subiectum mali sit bonum. | Now, the subject of privation and of form is one and the same—viz. being in potentiality, whether it be being in absolute potentiality, as primary matter, which is the subject of the substantial form, and of privation of the opposite form; or whether it be being in relative potentiality, and absolute actuality, as in the case of a transparent body, which is the subject both of darkness and light. It is, however, manifest that the form which makes a thing actual is a perfection and a good; and thus every actual being is a good; and likewise every potential being, as such, is a good, as having a relation to good. For as it has being in potentiality, so has it goodness in potentiality. Therefore, the subject of evil is good. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Dionysius intelligit malum non esse in existentibus sicut partem, aut sicut proprietatem naturalem alicuius existentis. | Reply to Objection 1: Dionysius means that evil is not in existing things as a part, or as a natural property of any existing thing. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod non ens negative acceptum non requirit subiectum. Sed privatio est negatio in subiecto, ut dicitur in IV Metaphys., et tale non ens est malum. | Reply to Objection 2: "Not-being," understood negatively, does not require a subject; but privation is negation in a subject, as the Philosopher says (Metaph. iv, text 4), and such "not-being" is an evil. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod malum non est sicut in subiecto in bono quod ei opponitur, sed in quodam alio bono, subiectum enim caecitatis non est visus, sed animal. Videtur tamen, ut Augustinus dicit, hic fallere dialecticorum regula, quae dicit contraria simul esse non posse. Hoc tamen intelligendum est secundum communem acceptionem boni et mali, non autem secundum quod specialiter accipitur hoc bonum et hoc malum. Album autem et nigrum, dulce et amarum, et huiusmodi contraria, non accipiuntur nisi specialiter, quia sunt in quibusdam generibus determinatis. Sed bonum circuit omnia genera, unde unum bonum potest simul esse cum privatione alterius boni. | Reply to Objection 3: Evil is not in the good opposed to it as in its subject, but in some other good, for the subject of blindness is not "sight," but "animal." Yet, it appears, as Augustine says (Enchiridion 13), that the rule of dialectics here fails, where it is laid down that contraries cannot exist together. But this is to be taken as referring to good and evil in general, but not in reference to any particular good and evil. For white and black, sweet and bitter, and the like contraries, are only considered as contraries in a special sense, because they exist in some determinate genus; whereas good enters into every genus. Hence one good can coexist with the privation of another good. |
| Ad quartum dicendum quod propheta imprecatur vae illis qui dicunt id quod est bonum, secundum quod est bonum, esse malum. Hoc autem non sequitur ex praemissis, ut per praedicta patet. | Reply to Objection 4: The prophet invokes woe to those who say that good as such is evil. But this does not follow from what is said above, as is clear from the explanation given. |
Index [<<� | >>]
First Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 48 [ << | >> ]
Article: 4 [ << | >> ]
| Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod malum corrumpat totum bonum. Unum enim contrariorum totaliter corrumpitur per alterum. Sed bonum et malum sunt contraria. Ergo malum potest corrumpere totum bonum. | Objection 1: It would seem that evil corrupts the whole good. For one contrary is wholly corrupted by another. But good and evil are contraries. Therefore evil corrupts the whole good. |
| Praeterea, Augustinus dicit, in Enchirid., quod malum nocet inquantum adimit bonum. Sed bonum est sibi simile et uniforme. Ergo totaliter tollitur per malum. | Objection 2: Further, Augustine says (Enchiridion 12) that "evil hurts inasmuch as it takes away good." But good is all of a piece and uniform. Therefore it is wholly taken away by evil. |
| Praeterea, malum, quandiu est, nocet et aufert bonum. Sed illud a quo semper aliquid aufertur, quandoque consumitur, nisi sit infinitum; quod non potest dici de aliquo bono creato. Ergo malum consumit totaliter bonum. | Objection 3: Further, evil, as long as it lasts, hurts, and takes away good. But that from which something is always being removed, is at some time consumed, unless it is infinite, which cannot be said of any created good. Therefore evil wholly consumes good. |
| Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, in Enchirid., quod malum non potest totaliter consumere bonum. | On the contrary, Augustine says (Enchiridion 12) that "evil cannot wholly consume good." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod malum non potest totaliter consumere bonum. Ad cuius evidentiam, considerandum est quod est triplex bonum. Quoddam, quod per malum totaliter tollitur, et hoc est bonum oppositum malo; sicut lumen totaliter per tenebras tollitur, et visus per caecitatem. Quoddam vero bonum est, quod nec totaliter tollitur per malum, nec diminuitur, scilicet bonum quod est subiectum mali; non enim per tenebras aliquid de substantia aeris diminuitur. Quoddam vero bonum est, quod diminuitur quidem per malum, sed non totaliter tollitur, et hoc bonum est habilitas subiecti ad actum. | I answer that, Evil cannot wholly consume good. To prove this we must consider that good is threefold. One kind of good is wholly destroyed by evil, and this is the good opposed to evil, as light is wholly destroyed by darkness, and sight by blindness. Another kind of good is neither wholly destroyed nor diminished by evil, and that is the good which is the subject of evil; for by darkness the substance of the air is not injured. And there is also a kind of good which is diminished by evil, but is not wholly taken away; and this good is the aptitude of a subject to some actuality. |
| Diminutio autem huius boni non est accipienda per subtractionem, sicut est diminutio in quantitatibus, sed per remissionem, sicut est diminutio in qualitatibus et formis. Remissio autem huius habilitatis est accipienda e contrario intensioni ipsius. Intenditur enim huiusmodi habilitas per dispositiones quibus materia praeparatur ad actum; quae quanto magis multiplicantur in subiecto, tanto habilius est ad recipiendum perfectionem et formam. Et e contrario remittitur per dispositiones contrarias; quae quanto magis multiplicatae sunt in materia, et magis intensae, tanto magis remittitur potentia ad actum. | The diminution, however, of this kind of good is not to be considered by way of subtraction, as diminution in quantity, but rather by way of remission, as diminution in qualities and forms. The remission likewise of this habitude is to be taken as contrary to its intensity. For this kind of aptitude receives its intensity by the dispositions whereby the matter is prepared for actuality; which the more they are multiplied in the subject the more is it fitted to receive its perfection and form; and, on the contrary, it receives its remission by contrary dispositions which, the more they are multiplied in the matter, and the more they are intensified, the more is the potentiality remitted as regards the actuality. |
| Si igitur contrariae dispositiones in infinitum multiplicari et intendi non possunt, sed usque ad certum terminum, neque habilitas praedicta in infinitum diminuitur vel remittitur. Sicut patet in qualitatibus activis et passivis elementorum, frigiditas enim et humiditas, per quae diminuitur sive remittitur habilitas materiae ad formam ignis, non possunt multiplicari in infinitum. Si vero dispositiones contrariae in infinitum multiplicari possunt, et habilitas praedicta in infinitum diminuitur vel remittitur. Non tamen totaliter tollitur, quia semper manet in sua radice, quae est substantia subiecti. Sicut si in infinitum interponantur corpora opaca inter solem et aerem, in infinitum diminuetur habilitas aeris ad lumen, nunquam tamen totaliter tollitur, manente aere, qui secundum naturam suam est diaphanus. Similiter in infinitum potest fieri additio in peccatis, per quae semper magis ac magis minuitur habilitas animae ad gratiam, quae quidem peccata sunt quasi obstacula interposita inter nos et Deum secundum illud Isaiae LIX, peccata nostra diviserunt inter nos et Deum. Neque tamen tollitur totaliter ab anima praedicta habilitas, quia consequitur naturam ipsius. | Therefore, if contrary dispositions cannot be multiplied and intensified to infinity, but only to a certain limit, neither is the aforesaid aptitude diminished or remitted infinitely, as appears in the active and passive qualities of the elements; for coldness and humidity, whereby the aptitude of matter to the form of fire is diminished or remitted, cannot be infinitely multiplied. But if the contrary dispositions can be infinitely multiplied, the aforesaid aptitude is also infinitely diminished or remitted; yet, nevertheless, it is not wholly taken away, because its root always remains, which is the substance of the subject. Thus, if opaque bodies were interposed to infinity between the sun and the air, the aptitude of the air to light would be infinitely diminished, but still it would never be wholly removed while the air remained, which in its very nature is transparent. Likewise, addition in sin can be made to infinitude, whereby the aptitude of the soul to grace is more and more lessened; and these sins, indeed, are like obstacles interposed between us and God, according to Is. 59:2: "Our sins have divided between us and God." Yet the aforesaid aptitude of the soul is not wholly taken away, for it belongs to its very nature. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod bonum quod opponitur malo, totaliter tollitur, sed alia bona non totaliter tolluntur, ut dictum est. | Reply to Objection 1: The good which is opposed to evil is wholly taken away; but other goods are not wholly removed, as said above. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod habilitas praedicta est media inter subiectum et actum. Unde ex ea parte qua attingit actum, diminuitur per malum, sed ex ea parte qua tenet se cum subiecto, remanet. Ergo, licet bonum in se sit simile, tamen, propter comparationem eius ad diversa, non totaliter tollitur, sed in parte. | Reply to Objection 2: The aforesaid aptitude is a medium between subject and act. Hence, where it touches act, it is diminished by evil; but where it touches the subject, it remains as it was. Therefore, although good is like to itself, yet, on account of its relation to different things, it is not wholly, but only partially taken away. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod quidam, imaginantes diminutionem boni praedicti ad similitudinem diminutionis quantitatis, dixerunt quod, sicut continuum dividitur in infinitum, facta divisione secundum eandem proportionem (ut puta quod accipiatur medium medii, vel tertium tertii), sic in proposito accidit. Sed haec ratio hic locum non habet. Quia in divisione in qua semper servatur eadem proportio, semper subtrahitur minus et minus, minus enim est medium medii quam medium totius. Sed secundum peccatum non de necessitate minus diminuit de habilitate praedicta, quam praecedens, sed forte aut aequaliter, aut magis. | Reply to Objection 3: Some, imagining that the diminution of this kind of good is like the diminution of quantity, said that just as the continuous is infinitely divisible, if the division be made in an ever same proportion (for instance, half of half, or a third of a third), so is it in the present case. But this explanation does not avail here. For when in a division we keep the same proportion, we continue to subtract less and less; for half of half is less than half of the whole. But a second sin does not necessarily diminish the above mentioned aptitude less than a preceding sin, but perchance either equally or more. |
| Dicendum est ergo quod, licet ista habilitas sit quoddam finitum, diminuitur tamen in infinitum, non per se, sed per accidens, secundum quod contrariae dispositiones etiam in infinitum augentur, ut dictum est. | Therefore it must be said that, although this aptitude is a finite thing, still it may be so diminished infinitely, not "per se," but accidentally; according as the contrary dispositions are also increased infinitely, as explained above. |
Index [<<� | >>]
First Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 48 [ << | >> ]
Article: 5 [ << | >> ]
| [*Pain here means "penalty": such was its original signification, being derived from "poena." In this sense we say "Pain of death, Pain of loss, Pain of sense."—Ed.] | |
| Ad quintum sic proceditur. Videtur quod malum insufficienter dividatur per poenam et culpam. Omnis enim defectus malum quoddam esse videtur. Sed in omnibus creaturis est quidam defectus, quod se in esse conservare non possunt, qui tamen nec poena nec culpa est. Non ergo sufficienter malum dividitur per poenam et culpam. | Objection 1: It would seem that evil is not adequately divided into pain and fault. For every defect is a kind of evil. But in all creatures there is the defect of not being able to preserve their own existence, which nevertheless is neither a pain nor a fault. Therefore evil is inadequately divided into pain and fault. |
| Praeterea, in rebus irrationalibus non invenitur culpa nec poena. Invenitur tamen in eis corruptio et defectus, quae ad rationem mali pertinent. Ergo non omne malum est poena vel culpa. | Objection 2: Further, in irrational creatures there is neither fault nor pain; but, nevertheless, they have corruption and defect, which are evils. Therefore not every evil is a pain or a fault. |
| Praeterea, tentatio quoddam malum est. Nec tamen est culpa, quia tentatio cui non consentitur, non est peccatum, sed materia exercendae virtutis, ut dicitur in Glossa II Cor. XII. Nec etiam poena, quia tentatio praecedit culpam, poena autem subsequitur. Insufficienter ergo malum dividitur per poenam et culpam. | Objection 3: Further, temptation is an evil, but it is not a fault; for "temptation which involves no consent, is not a sin, but an occasion for the exercise of virtue," as is said in a gloss on 2 Cor. 12; not is it a pain; because temptation precedes the fault, and the pain follows afterwards. Therefore, evil is not sufficiently divided into pain and fault. |
| Sed contra, videtur quod divisio sit superflua. Ut enim Augustinus dicit, in Enchirid., malum dicitur quia nocet. Quod autem nocet, poenale est. Omne ergo malum sub poena continetur. | Objection 4: On the contrary, It would seem that this division is superfluous: for, as Augustine says (Enchiridion 12), a thing is evil "because it hurts." But whatever hurts is penal. Therefore every evil comes under pain. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod malum, sicut supra dictum est, est privatio boni, quod in perfectione et actu consistit principaliter et per se. Actus autem est duplex, primus, et secundus. Actus quidem primus est forma et integritas rei, actus autem secundus est operatio. Contingit ergo malum esse dupliciter. Uno modo, per subtractionem formae, aut alicuius partis, quae requiritur ad integritatem rei; sicut caecitas malum est, et carere membro. Alio modo, per subtractionem debitae operationis; vel quia omnino non est; vel quia debitum modum et ordinem non habet. Quia vero bonum simpliciter est obiectum voluntatis, malum, quod est privatio boni, secundum specialem rationem invenitur in creaturis rationalibus habentibus voluntatem. Malum igitur quod est per subtractionem formae vel integritatis rei, habet rationem poenae; et praecipue supposito quod omnia divinae providentiae et iustitiae subdantur, ut supra ostensum est, de ratione enim poenae est, quod sit contraria voluntati. Malum autem quod consistit in subtractione debitae operationis in rebus voluntariis, habet rationem culpae. Hoc enim imputatur alicui in culpam, cum deficit a perfecta actione, cuius dominus est secundum voluntatem. Sic igitur omne malum in rebus voluntariis consideratum vel est poena vel culpa. |
I answer that, Evil, as was said above (Article [3]) is the privation of good, which chiefly and of itself consists in perfection and act. Act, however, is twofold; first, and second. The first act is the form and integrity of a thing; the second act is its operation. Therefore evil also is twofold. In one way it occurs by the subtraction of the form, or of any part required for the integrity of the thing, as blindness is an evil, as also it is an evil to be wanting in any member of the body. In another way evil exists by the withdrawal of the due operation, either because it does not exist, or because it has not its due mode and order. But because good in itself is the object of the will, evil, which is the privation of good, is found in a special way in rational creatures which have a will. Therefore the evil which comes from the withdrawal of the form and integrity of the thing, has the nature of a pain; and especially so on the supposition that all things are subject to divine providence and justice, as was shown above (Question [22], Article [2]); for it is of the very nature of a pain to be against the will. But the evil which consists in the subtraction of the due operation in voluntary things has the nature of a fault; for this is imputed to anyone as a fault to fail as regards perfect action, of which he is master by the will. Therefore every evil in voluntary things is to be looked upon as a pain or a fault. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, quia malum privatio est boni, et non negatio pura, ut dictum est supra; non omnis defectus boni est malum, sed defectus boni quod natum est et debet haberi. Defectus enim visionis non est malum in lapide, sed in animali, quia contra rationem lapidis est, quod visum habeat. Similiter etiam contra rationem creaturae est, quod in esse conservetur a seipsa, quia idem dat esse et conservat. Unde iste defectus non est malum creaturae. |
Reply to Objection 1: Because evil is the privation of good, and not a mere negation, as was said above (Article [3]), therefore not every defect of good is an evil, but the defect of the good which is naturally due. For the want of sight is not an evil in a stone, but it is an evil in an animal; since it is against the nature of a stone to see. So, likewise, it is against the nature of a creature to be preserved in existence by itself, because existence and conservation come from one and the same source. Hence this kind of defect is not an evil as regards a creature. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod poena et culpa non dividunt malum simpliciter; sed malum in rebus voluntariis. | Reply to Objection 2: Pain and fault do not divide evil absolutely considered, but evil that is found in voluntary things. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod tentatio, prout importat provocationem ad malum, semper malum culpae est in tentante. Sed in eo qui tentatur, non est proprie, nisi secundum quod aliqualiter immutatur, sic enim actio agentis est in patiente. Secundum autem quod tentatus immutatur ad malum a tentante, incidit in culpam. | Reply to Objection 3: Temptation, as importing provocation to evil, is always an evil of fault in the tempter; but in the one tempted it is not, properly speaking, a fault; unless through the temptation some change is wrought in the one who is tempted; for thus is the action of the agent in the patient. And if the tempted is changed to evil by the tempter he falls into fault. |
| Ad quartum dicendum quod de ratione poenae est, quod noceat agenti in seipso. Sed de ratione culpae est, quod noceat agenti in sua actione. Et sic utrumque sub malo continetur, secundum quod habet rationem nocumenti. | Reply to Objection 4: In answer to the opposite argument, it must be said that the very nature of pain includes the idea of injury to the agent in himself, whereas the idea of fault includes the idea of injury to the agent in his operation; and thus both are contained in evil, as including the idea of injury. |
Index [<<� | >>]
First Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 48 [ << | >> ]
Article: 6 [ << | >> ]
| Ad sextum sic proceditur. Videtur quod habeat plus de ratione mali poena quam culpa. Culpa enim se habet ad poenam, ut meritum ad praemium. Sed praemium habet plus de ratione boni quam meritum, cum sit finis eius. Ergo poena plus habet de ratione mali quam culpa. | Objection 1: It would seem that pain has more of evil than fault. For fault is to pain what merit is to reward. But reward has more good than merit, as its end. Therefore pain has more evil in it than fault has. |
| Praeterea, illud est maius malum, quod opponitur maiori bono. Sed poena, sicut dictum est, opponitur bono agentis, culpa autem bono actionis. Cum ergo melius sit agens quam actio, videtur quod peius sit poena quam culpa. |
Objection 2: Further, that is the greater evil which is opposed to the greater good. But pain, as was said above (Article [5]), is opposed to the good of the agent, while fault is opposed to the good of the action. Therefore, since the agent is better than the action, it seems that pain is worse than fault. |
| Praeterea, ipsa privatio finis poena quaedam est, quae dicitur carentia visionis divinae. Malum autem culpae est per privationem ordinis ad finem. Ergo poena est maius malum quam culpa. | Objection 3: Further, the privation of the end is a pain consisting in forfeiting the vision of God; whereas the evil of fault is privation of the order to the end. Therefore pain is a greater evil than fault. |
| Sed contra, sapiens artifex inducit minus malum ad vitandum maius; sicut medicus praecidit membrum, ne corrumpatur corpus. Sed Dei sapientia infert poenam ad vitandam culpam. Ergo culpa est maius malum quam poena. | On the contrary, A wise workman chooses a less evil in order to prevent a greater, as the surgeon cuts off a limb to save the whole body. But divine wisdom inflicts pain to prevent fault. Therefore fault is a greater evil than pain. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod culpa habet plus de ratione mali quam poena, et non solum quam poena sensibilis, quae consistit in privatione corporalium bonorum, cuiusmodi poenas plures intelligunt; sed etiam universaliter accipiendo poenam, secundum quod privatio gratiae vel gloriae poenae quaedam sunt. | I answer that, Fault has the nature of evil more than pain has; not only more than pain of sense, consisting in the privation of corporeal goods, which kind of pain appeals to most men; but also more than any kind of pain, thus taking pain in its most general meaning, so as to include privation of grace or glory. |
| Cuius est duplex ratio. Prima quidem est, quia ex malo culpae fit aliquis malus, non autem ex malo poenae; secundum illud Dionysii, IV cap. de Div. Nom., puniri non est malum, sed fieri poena dignum. Et hoc ideo est quia, cum bonum simpliciter consistat in actu, et non in potentia, ultimus autem actus est operatio, vel usus quarumcumque rerum habitarum; bonum hominis simpliciter consideratur in bona operatione, vel bono usu rerum habitarum. Utimur autem rebus omnibus per voluntatem. Unde ex bona voluntate, qua homo bene utitur rebus habitis, dicitur homo bonus; et ex mala, malus. Potest enim qui habet malam voluntatem, etiam bono quod habet, male uti; sicut si grammaticus voluntarie incongrue loquatur. Quia ergo culpa consistit in deordinato actu voluntatis, poena vero in privatione alicuius eorum quibus utitur voluntas; perfectius habet rationem mali culpa quam poena. | There is a twofold reason for this. The first is that one becomes evil by the evil of fault, but not by the evil of pain, as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv): "To be punished is not an evil; but it is an evil to be made worthy of punishment." And this because, since good absolutely considered consists in act, and not in potentiality, and the ultimate act is operation, or the use of something possessed, it follows that the absolute good of man consists in good operation, or the good use of something possessed. Now we use all things by the act of the will. Hence from a good will, which makes a man use well what he has, man is called good, and from a bad will he is called bad. For a man who has a bad will can use ill even the good he has, as when a grammarian of his own will speaks incorrectly. Therefore, because the fault itself consists in the disordered act of the will, and the pain consists in the privation of something used by the will, fault has more of evil in it than pain has. |
| Secunda ratio sumi potest ex hoc, quod Deus est auctor mali poenae, non autem mali culpae. Cuius ratio est, quia malum poenae privat bonum creaturae, sive accipiatur bonum creaturae aliquid creatum, sicut caecitas privat visum; sive sit bonum increatum, sicut per carentiam visionis divinae tollitur creaturae bonum increatum. Malum vero culpae opponitur proprie ipsi bono increato, contrariatur enim impletioni divinae voluntatis, et divino amori quo bonum divinum in seipso amatur; et non solum secundum quod participatur a creatura. Sic igitur patet quod culpa habet plus de ratione mali quam poena. | The second reason can be taken from the fact that God is the author of the evil of pain, but not of the evil of fault. And this is because the evil of pain takes away the creature's good, which may be either something created, as sight, destroyed by blindness, or something uncreated, as by being deprived of the vision of God, the creature forfeits its uncreated good. But the evil of fault is properly opposed to uncreated good; for it is opposed to the fulfilment of the divine will, and to divine love, whereby the divine good is loved for itself, and not only as shared by the creature. Therefore it is plain that fault has more evil in it than pain has. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, licet culpa terminetur ad poenam, sicut meritum ad praemium, tamen culpa non intenditur propter poenam, sicut meritum propter praemium, sed potius e converso poena inducitur ut vitetur culpa. Et sic culpa est peius quam poena. | Reply to Objection 1: Although fault results in pain, as merit in reward, yet fault is not intended on account of the pain, as merit is for the reward; but rather, on the contrary, pain is brought about so that the fault may be avoided, and thus fault is worse than pain. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod ordo actionis, qui tollitur per culpam, est perfectius bonum agentis, cum sit perfectio secunda, quam bonum quod tollitur per poenam, quod est perfectio prima. | Reply to Objection 2: The order of action which is destroyed by fault is the more perfect good of the agent, since it is the second perfection, than the good taken away by pain, which is the first perfection. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod non est comparatio culpae ad poenam sicut finis et ordinis ad finem, quia utrumque potest privari aliquo modo et per culpam, et per poenam. Sed per poenam quidem, secundum quod ipse homo removetur a fine, et ab ordine ad finem, per culpam vero, secundum quod ista privatio pertinet ad actionem, quae non ordinatur ad finem debitum. | Reply to Objection 3: Pain and fault are not to be compared as end and order to the end; because one may be deprived of both of these in some way, both by fault and by pain; by pain, accordingly as a man is removed from the end and from the order to the end; by fault, inasmuch as this privation belongs to the action which is not ordered to its due end. |