Index [<<� | >>]
First Part of the Second Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 6 [ << | >> ]
| Quia igitur ad beatitudinem per actus aliquos necesse est pervenire, oportet consequenter de humanis actibus considerare, ut sciamus quibus actibus perveniatur ad beatitudinem, vel impediatur beatitudinis via. Sed quia operationes et actus circa singularia sunt, ideo omnis operativa scientia in particulari consideratione perficitur. Moralis igitur consideratio quia est humanorum actuum, primo quidem tradenda est in universali secundo vero, in particulari. | Since therefore Happiness is to be gained by means of certain acts, we must in due sequence consider human acts, in order to know by what acts we may obtain Happiness, and by what acts we are prevented from obtaining it. But because operations and acts are concerned with things singular, consequently all practical knowledge is incomplete unless it take account of things in detail. The study of Morals, therefore, since it treats of human acts, should consider first the general principles; and secondly matters of detail. |
Circa universalem autem considerationem humanorum actuum,
|
In treating of the general principles, the points that offer themselves for our consideration are
|
Humanorum autem actuum quidam sunt hominis proprii; quidam autem sunt homini et aliis animalibus communes. Et quia beatitudo est proprium hominis bonum, propinquius se habent ad beatitudinem actus qui sunt proprie humani, quam actus qui sunt homini aliisque animalibus communes.
|
Now of human acts some are proper to man; others are common to man and animals. And since Happiness is man's proper good, those acts which are proper to man have a closer connection with Happiness than have those which are common to man and the other animals.
|
Circa primum duo consideranda occurrunt,
|
The first of these points offers a twofold consideration:
|
Cum autem actus humani proprie dicantur qui sunt voluntarii, eo quod voluntas est rationalis appetitus, qui est proprius hominis; oportet considerare de actibus inquantum sunt voluntarii.
|
And since those acts are properly called human which are voluntary, because the will is the rational appetite, which is proper to man; we must consider acts in so far as they are voluntary.
|
Et quia actus voluntarii habent quasdam circumstantias, secundum quas diiudicantur,
|
And because voluntary acts have certain circumstances, according to which we form our judgment concerning them,
|
| Circa primum quaeruntur octo. | Under the first head there are eight points of inquiry: |
| Primo, utrum in humanis actibus inveniatur voluntarium. | (1) Whether there is anything voluntary in human acts? |
| Secundo, utrum inveniatur in animalibus brutis. | (2) Whether in irrational animals? |
| Tertio, utrum voluntarium esse possit absque omni actu. | (3) Whether there can be voluntariness without any action? |
| Quarto, utrum violentia voluntati possit inferri. | (4) Whether violence can be done to the will? |
| Quinto, utrum violentia causet involuntarium. | (5) Whether violence causes involuntariness? |
| Sexto, utrum metus causet involuntarium. | (6) Whether fear causes involuntariness? |
| Septimo, utrum concupiscentia involuntarium causet. | (7) Whether concupiscence causes involuntariness? |
| Octavo, utrum ignorantia. | (8) Whether ignorance causes involuntariness? |
Index [<<� | >>]
First Part of the Second Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 6 [ << | >> ]
Article: 1 [ << | >> ]
| Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod in humanis actibus non inveniatur voluntarium. Voluntarium enim est cuius principium est in ipso; ut patet per Gregorium Nyssenum, et Damascenum, et Aristotelem. Sed principium humanorum actuum non est in ipso homine, sed est extra, nam appetitus hominis movetur ad agendum ab appetibili quod est extra quod est sicut movens non motum, ut dicitur in III de anima. Ergo in humanis actibus non invenitur voluntarium. | Objection 1: It would seem that there is nothing voluntary in human acts. For that is voluntary "which has its principle within itself." as Gregory of Nyssa [*Nemesius, De Natura Hom. xxxii.], Damascene (De Fide Orth. ii, 24), and Aristotle (Ethic. iii, 1) declare. But the principle of human acts is not in man himself, but outside him: since man's appetite is moved to act, by the appetible object which is outside him, and is as a "mover unmoved" (De Anima iii, 10). Therefore there is nothing voluntary in human acts. |
| Praeterea, philosophus in VIII Physic. probat quod non invenitur in animalibus aliquis motus novus, qui non praeveniatur ab alio motu exteriori. Sed omnes actus hominis sunt novi, nullus enim actus hominis aeternus est. Ergo principium omnium humanorum actuum est ab extra. Non igitur in eis invenitur voluntarium. | Objection 2: Further, the Philosopher (Phys. viii, 2) proves that in animals no new movement arises that is not preceded by a motion from without. But all human acts are new, since none is eternal. Consequently, the principle of all human acts is from without: and therefore there is nothing voluntary in them. |
| Praeterea, qui voluntarie agit, per se agere potest. Sed hoc homini non convenit, dicitur enim Ioan. XV, sine me nihil potestis facere. Ergo voluntarium in humanis actibus non invenitur. |
Objection 3: Further, he that acts voluntarily, can act of himself. But this is not true of man; for it is written (Jn. 15:5): "Without Me you can do nothing." Therefore there is nothing voluntary in human acts. |
| Sed contra est quod dicit Damascenus, in II libro, quod voluntarium est actus qui est operatio rationalis. Tales autem sunt actus humani. Ergo in actibus humanis invenitur voluntarium. | On the contrary, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii) that "the voluntary is an act consisting in a rational operation." Now such are human acts. Therefore there is something voluntary in human acts. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod oportet in actibus humanis voluntarium esse. Ad cuius evidentiam, considerandum est quod quorundam actuum seu motuum principium est in agente, seu in eo quod movetur; quorundam autem motuum vel actuum principium est extra. Cum enim lapis movetur sursum, principium huius motionis est extra lapidem, sed cum movetur deorsum, principium huius motionis est in ipso lapide. Eorum autem quae a principio intrinseco moventur, quaedam movent seipsa, quaedam autem non. Cum enim omne agens seu motum agat seu moveatur propter finem, ut supra habitum est; illa perfecte moventur a principio intrinseco, in quibus est aliquod intrinsecum principium non solum ut moveantur, sed ut moveantur in finem. Ad hoc autem quod fiat aliquid propter finem, requiritur cognitio finis aliqualis. Quodcumque igitur sic agit vel movetur a principio intrinseco, quod habet aliquam notitiam finis, habet in seipso principium sui actus non solum ut agat, sed etiam ut agat propter finem. Quod autem nullam notitiam finis habet, etsi in eo sit principium actionis vel motus; non tamen eius quod est agere vel moveri propter finem est principium in ipso, sed in alio, a quo ei imprimitur principium suae motionis in finem. Unde huiusmodi non dicuntur movere seipsa, sed ab aliis moveri. Quae vero habent notitiam finis dicuntur seipsa movere, quia in eis est principium non solum ut agant, sed etiam ut agant propter finem. Et ideo, cum utrumque sit ab intrinseco principio, scilicet quod agunt, et quod propter finem agunt, horum motus et actus dicuntur voluntarii, hoc enim importat nomen voluntarii, quod motus et actus sit a propria inclinatione. Et inde est quod voluntarium dicitur esse, secundum definitionem Aristotelis et Gregorii Nysseni et Damasceni, non solum cuius principium est intra, sed cum additione scientiae. Unde, cum homo maxime cognoscat finem sui operis et moveat seipsum, in eius actibus maxime voluntarium invenitur. |
I answer that, There must needs be something voluntary in human acts. In order to make this clear, we must take note that the principle of some acts or movements is within the agent, or that which is moved; whereas the principle of some movements or acts is outside. For when a stone is moved upwards, the principle of this movement is outside the stone: whereas when it is moved downwards, the principle of this movement is in the stone. Now of those things that are moved by an intrinsic principle, some move themselves, some not. For since every agent or thing moved, acts or is moved for an end, as stated above (Question [1], Article [2]); those are perfectly moved by an intrinsic principle, whose intrinsic principle is one not only of movement but of movement for an end. Now in order for a thing to be done for an end, some knowledge of the end is necessary. Therefore, whatever so acts or is moved by an intrinsic principle, that it has some knowledge of the end, has within itself the principle of its act, so that it not only acts, but acts for an end. On the other hand, if a thing has no knowledge of the end, even though it have an intrinsic principle of action or movement, nevertheless the principle of acting or being moved for an end is not in that thing, but in something else, by which the principle of its action towards an end is not in that thing, but in something else, by which the principle of its action towards an end is imprinted on it. Wherefore such like things are not said to move themselves, but to be moved by others. But those things which have a knowledge of the end are said to move themselves because there is in them a principle by which they not only act but also act for an end. And consequently, since both are from an intrinsic principle, to wit, that they act and that they act for an end, the movements of such things are said to be voluntary: for the word "voluntary" implies that their movements and acts are from their own inclination. Hence it is that, according to the definitions of Aristotle, Gregory of Nyssa, and Damascene [*See Objection 1], the voluntary is defined not only as having "a principle within" the agent, but also as implying "knowledge." Therefore, since man especially knows the end of his work, and moves himself, in his acts especially is the voluntary to be found. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod non omne principium est principium primum. Licet ergo de ratione voluntarii sit quod principium eius sit intra, non tamen est contra rationem voluntarii quod principium intrinsecum causetur vel moveatur ab exteriori principio, quia non est de ratione voluntarii quod principium intrinsecum sit principium primum. Sed tamen sciendum quod contingit aliquod principium motus esse primum in genere, quod tamen non est primum simpliciter sicut in genere alterabilium primum alterans est corpus caeleste, quod tamen non est primum movens simpliciter, sed movetur motu locali a superiori movente. Sic igitur principium intrinsecum voluntarii actus, quod est vis cognoscitiva et appetitiva, est primum principium in genere appetitivi motus, quamvis moveatur ab aliquo exteriori secundum alias species motus. | Reply to Objection 1: Not every principle is a first principle. Therefore, although it is essential to the voluntary act that its principle be within the agent, nevertheless it is not contrary to the nature of the voluntary act that this intrinsic principle be caused or moved by an extrinsic principle: because it is not essential to the voluntary act that its intrinsic principle be a first principle. Yet again it must be observed that a principle of movement may happen to be first in a genus, but not first simply: thus in the genus of things subject to alteration, the first principle of alteration is a heavenly body, which is nevertheless, is not the first mover simply, but is moved locally by a higher mover. And so the intrinsic principle of the voluntary act, i.e. the cognitive and appetitive power, is the first principle in the genus of appetitive movement, although it is moved by an extrinsic principle according to other species of movement. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod motus animalis novus praevenitur quidem ab aliquo exteriori motu quantum ad duo. Uno modo, inquantum per motum exteriorem praesentatur sensui animalis aliquod sensibile, quod apprehensum movet appetitum, sicut leo videns cervum per eius motum appropinquantem, incipit moveri ad ipsum. Alio modo, inquantum per exteriorem motum incipit aliqualiter immutari naturali immutatione corpus animalis, puta per frigus vel calorem; corpore autem immutato per motum exterioris corporis, immutatur etiam per accidens appetitus sensitivus, qui est virtus organi corporei; sicut cum ex aliqua alteratione corporis commovetur appetitus ad concupiscentiam alicuius rei. Sed hoc non est contra rationem voluntarii, ut dictum est huiusmodi enim motiones ab exteriori principio sunt alterius generis. | Reply to Objection 2: New movements in animals are indeed preceded by a motion from without; and this in two respects. First, in so far as by means of an extrinsic motion an animal's senses are confronted with something sensible, which, on being apprehended, moves the appetite. Thus a lion, on seeing a stag in movement and coming towards him, begins to be moved towards the stag. Secondly, in so far as some extrinsic motion produces a physical change in an animal's body, as in the case of cold or heat; and through the body being affected by the motion of an outward body, the sensitive appetite which is the power of a bodily organ, is also moved indirectly; thus it happens that through some alteration in the body the appetite is roused to the desire of something. But this is not contrary to the nature of voluntariness, as stated above (ad 1), for such movements caused by an extrinsic principle are of another genus of movement. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod Deus movet hominem ad agendum non solum sicut proponens sensui appetibile, vel sicut immutans corpus, sed etiam sicut movens ipsam voluntatem, quia omnis motus tam voluntatis quam naturae, ab eo procedit sicut a primo movente. Et sicut non est contra rationem naturae quod motus naturae sit a Deo sicut a primo movente, inquantum natura est quoddam instrumentum Dei moventis; ita non est contra rationem actus voluntarii quod sit a Deo, inquantum voluntas a Deo movetur. Est tamen communiter de ratione naturalis et voluntarii motus, quod sint a principio intrinseco. | Reply to Objection 3: God moves man to act, not only by proposing the appetible to the senses, or by effecting a change in his body, but also by moving the will itself; because every movement either of the will or of nature, proceeds from God as the First Mover. And just as it is not incompatible with nature that the natural movement be from God as the First Mover, inasmuch as nature is an instrument of God moving it: so it is not contrary to the essence of a voluntary act, that it proceed from God, inasmuch as the will is moved by God. Nevertheless both natural and voluntary movements have this in common, that it is essential that they should proceed from a principle within the agent. |
Index [<<� | >>]
First Part of the Second Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 6 [ << | >> ]
Article: 2 [ << | >> ]
| Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod voluntarium non sit in brutis animalibus. Voluntarium enim a voluntate dicitur. Voluntas autem, cum sit in ratione, ut dicitur in III de anima, non potest esse in brutis animalibus. Ergo neque voluntarium in eis invenitur. | Objection 1: It would seem that there is nothing voluntary in irrational animals. For a thing is called "voluntary" from "voluntas" [will]. Now since the will is in the reason (De Anima iii, 9), it cannot be in irrational animals. Therefore neither is there anything voluntary in them. |
| Praeterea, secundum hoc quod actus humani sunt voluntarii, homo dicitur esse dominus suorum actuum. Sed bruta animalia non habent dominium sui actus, non enim agunt, sed magis aguntur, ut Damascenus dicit. Ergo in brutis animalibus non est voluntarium. | Objection 2: Further, according as human acts are voluntary, man is said to be master of his actions. But irrational animals are not masters of their actions; for "they act not; rather are they acted upon," as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii, 27). Therefore there is no such thing as a voluntary act in irrational animals. |
| Praeterea, Damascenus dicit quod actus voluntarios sequitur laus et vituperium. Sed actibus brutorum animalium non debetur neque laus neque vituperium. Ergo in eis non est voluntarium. | Objection 3: Further, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. 24) that "voluntary acts lead to praise and blame." But neither praise nor blame is due to the acts of irrational minds. Therefore such acts are not voluntary. |
| Praeterea, Damascenus dicit quod actus voluntarios sequitur laus et vituperium. Sed actibus brutorum animalium non debetur neque laus neque vituperium. Ergo in eis non est voluntarium. | On the contrary, The Philosopher says (Ethic. iii, 2) that "both children and irrational animals participate in the voluntary." The same is said by Damascene (De Fide Orth. 24) and Gregory of Nyssa [*Nemesius, De Nat. Hom. xxxii.]. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, ad rationem voluntarii requiritur quod principium actus sit intra, cum aliqua cognitione finis. Est autem duplex cognitio finis, perfecta scilicet, et imperfecta. Perfecta quidem finis cognitio est quando non solum apprehenditur res quae est finis sed etiam cognoscitur ratio finis, et proportio eius quod ordinatur in finem ad ipsum. Et talis cognitio finis competit soli rationali naturae. Imperfecta autem cognitio finis est quae in sola finis apprehensione consistit, sine hoc quod cognoscatur ratio finis, et proportio actus ad finem. Et talis cognitio finis invenitur in brutis animalibus, per sensum et aestimationem naturalem. |
I answer that, As stated above (Article [1]), it is essential to the voluntary act that its principle be within the agent, together with some knowledge of the end. Now knowledge of the end is twofold; perfect and imperfect. Perfect knowledge of the end consists in not only apprehending the thing which is the end, but also in knowing it under the aspect of end, and the relationship of the means to that end. And such knowledge belongs to none but the rational nature. But imperfect knowledge of the end consists in mere apprehension of the end, without knowing it under the aspect of end, or the relationship of an act to the end. Such knowledge of the end is exercised by irrational animals, through their senses and their natural estimative power. |
| Perfectam igitur cognitionem finis sequitur voluntarium secundum rationem perfectam, prout scilicet, apprehenso fine, aliquis potest, deliberans de fine et de his quae sunt ad finem, moveri in finem vel non moveri. Imperfectam autem cognitionem finis sequitur voluntarium secundum rationem imperfectam, prout scilicet apprehendens finem non deliberat, sed subito movetur in ipsum. Unde soli rationali naturae competit voluntarium secundum rationem perfectam, sed secundum rationem imperfectam, competit etiam brutis animalibus. | Consequently perfect knowledge of the end leads to the perfect voluntary; inasmuch as, having apprehended the end, a man can, from deliberating about the end and the means thereto, be moved, or not, to gain that end. But imperfect knowledge of the end leads to the imperfect voluntary; inasmuch as the agent apprehends the end, but does not deliberate, and is moved to the end at once. Wherefore the voluntary in its perfection belongs to none but the rational nature: whereas the imperfect voluntary is within the competency of even irrational animals. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod voluntas nominat rationalem appetitum, et ideo non potest esse in his quae ratione carent. Voluntarium autem denominative dicitur a voluntate, et potest trahi ad ea in quibus est aliqua participatio voluntatis, secundum aliquam convenientiam ad voluntatem. Et hoc modo voluntarium attribuitur animalibus brutis, inquantum scilicet per cognitionem aliquam moventur in finem. | Reply to Objection 1: The will is the name of the rational appetite; and consequently it cannot be in things devoid of reason. But the word "voluntary" is derived from "voluntas" [will], and can be extended to those things in which there is some participation of will, by way of likeness thereto. It is thus that voluntary action is attributed to irrational animals, in so far as they are moved to an end, through some kind of knowledge. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod ex hoc contingit quod homo est dominus sui actus, quod habet deliberationem de suis actibus, ex hoc enim quod ratio deliberans se habet ad opposita, voluntas in utrumque potest. Sed secundum hoc voluntarium non est in brutis animalibus, ut dictum est. | Reply to Objection 2: The fact that man is master of his actions, is due to his being able to deliberate about them: for since the deliberating reason is indifferently disposed to opposite things, the will can be inclined to either. But it is not thus that voluntariness is in irrational animals, as stated above. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod laus et vituperium consequuntur actum voluntarium secundum perfectam voluntarii rationem; qualis non invenitur in brutis. | Reply to Objection 3: Praise and blame are the result of the voluntary act, wherein is the perfect voluntary; such as is not to be found in irrational animals. |
Index [<<� | >>]
First Part of the Second Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 6 [ << | >> ]
Article: 3 [ << | >> ]
| Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod voluntarium non possit esse sine actu. Voluntarium enim dicitur quod est a voluntate. Sed nihil potest esse a voluntate nisi per aliquem actum, ad minus ipsius voluntatis. Ergo voluntarium non potest esse sine actu. | Objection 1: It would seem that voluntariness cannot be without any act. For that is voluntary which proceeds from the will. But nothing can proceed from the will, except through some act, at least an act of the will. Therefore there cannot be voluntariness without act. |
| Praeterea, sicut per actum voluntatis dicitur aliquis velle, ita cessante actu voluntatis dicitur non velle. Sed non velle involuntarium causat, quod opponitur voluntario. Ergo voluntarium non potest esse, actu voluntatis cessante. | Objection 2: Further, just as one is said to wish by an act of the will, so when the act of the will ceases, one is said not to wish. But not to wish implies involuntariness, which is contrary to voluntariness. Therefore there can be nothing voluntary when the act of the will ceases. |
| Praeterea, de ratione voluntarii est cognitio, ut dictum est. Sed cognitio est per aliquem actum. Ergo voluntarium non potest esse absque aliquo actu. |
Objection 3: Further, knowledge is essential to the voluntary, as stated above (Articles [1],2). But knowledge involves an act. Therefore voluntariness cannot be without some act. |
| Sed contra, illud cuius domini sumus, dicitur esse voluntarium. Sed nos domini sumus eius quod est agere et non agere, velle et non velle. Ergo sicut agere et velle est voluntarium, ita et non agere et non velle. | On the contrary, The word "voluntary" is applied to that of which we are masters. Now we are masters in respect of to act and not to act, to will and not to will. Therefore just as to act and to will are voluntary, so also are not to act and not to will. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod voluntarium dicitur quod est a voluntate. Ab aliquo autem dicitur esse aliquid dupliciter. Uno modo, directe, quod scilicet procedit ab aliquo inquantum est agens, sicut calefactio a calore. Alio modo, indirecte, ex hoc ipso quod non agit, sicut submersio navis dicitur esse a gubernatore, inquantum desistit a gubernando. Sed sciendum quod non semper id quod sequitur ad defectum actionis, reducitur sicut in causam in agens, ex eo quod non agit, sed solum tunc cum potest et debet agere. Si enim gubernator non posset navem dirigere, vel non esset ei commissa gubernatio navis, non imputaretur ei navis submersio, quae per absentiam gubernatoris contingeret. | I answer that, Voluntary is what proceeds from the will. Now one thing proceeds from another in two ways. First, directly; in which sense something proceeds from another inasmuch as this other acts; for instance, heating from heat. Secondly, indirectly; in which sense something proceeds from another through this other not acting; thus the sinking of a ship is set down to the helmsman, from his having ceased to steer. But we must take note that the cause of what follows from want of action is not always the agent as not acting; but only then when the agent can and ought to act. For if the helmsman were unable to steer the ship or if the ship's helm be not entrusted to him, the sinking of the ship would not be set down to him, although it might be due to his absence from the helm. |
| Quia igitur voluntas, volendo et agendo, potest impedire hoc quod est non velle et non agere, et aliquando debet; hoc quod est non velle et non agere, imputatur ei, quasi ab ipsa existens. Et sic voluntarium potest esse absque actu, quandoque quidem absque actu exteriori, cum actu interiori, sicut cum vult non agere; aliquando autem et absque actu interiori, sicut cum non vult. | Since, then, the will by willing and acting, is able, and sometimes ought, to hinder not-willing and not-acting; this not-willing and not-acting is imputed to, as though proceeding from, the will. And thus it is that we can have the voluntary without an act; sometimes without outward act, but with an interior act; for instance, when one wills not to act; and sometimes without even an interior act, as when one does not will to act. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod voluntarium dicitur non solum quod procedit a voluntate directe, sicut ab agente; sed etiam quod est ab ea indirecte, sicut a non agente. | Reply to Objection 1: We apply the word "voluntary" not only to that which proceeds from the will directly, as from its action; but also to that which proceeds from it indirectly as from its inaction. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod non velle dicitur dupliciter. Uno modo, prout sumitur in vi unius dictionis, secundum quod est infinitivum huius verbi nolo. Unde sicut cum dico nolo legere, sensus est, volo non legere; ita hoc quod est non velle legere, significat velle non legere. Et sic non velle causat involuntarium. Alio modo sumitur in vi orationis. Et tunc non affirmatur actus voluntatis. Et huiusmodi non velle non causat involuntarium. | Reply to Objection 2: "Not to wish" is said in two senses. First, as though it were one word, and the infinitive of "I-do-not-wish." Consequently just as when I say "I do not wish to read," the sense is, "I wish not to read"; so "not to wish to read" is the same as "to wish not to read," and in this sense "not to wish" implies involuntariness. Secondly it is taken as a sentence: and then no act of the will is affirmed. And in this sense "not to wish" does not imply involuntariness. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod eo modo requiritur ad voluntarium actus cognitionis, sicut et actus voluntatis; ut scilicet sit in potestate alicuius considerare et velle et agere. Et tunc sicut non velle et non agere, cum tempus fuerit, est voluntarium, ita etiam non considerare. | Reply to Objection 3: Voluntariness requires an act of knowledge in the same way as it requires an act of will; namely, in order that it be in one's power to consider, to wish and to act. And then, just as not to wish, and not to act, when it is time to wish and to act, is voluntary, so is it voluntary not to consider. |
Index [<<� | >>]
First Part of the Second Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 6 [ << | >> ]
Article: 4 [ << | >> ]
| Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod voluntati possit violentia inferri. Unumquodque enim potest cogi a potentiori. Sed aliquid est humana voluntate potentius, scilicet Deus. Ergo saltem ab eo cogi potest. | Objection 1: It would seem that violence can be done to the will. For everything can be compelled by that which is more powerful. But there is something, namely, God, that is more powerful than the human will. Therefore it can be compelled, at least by Him. |
| Praeterea, omne passivum cogitur a suo activo, quando immutatur ab eo. Sed voluntas est vis passiva, est enim movens motum, ut dicitur in III de anima. Cum ergo aliquando moveatur a suo activo, videtur quod aliquando cogatur. | Objection 2: Further, every passive subject is compelled by its active principle, when it is changed by it. But the will is a passive force: for it is a "mover moved" (De Anima iii, 10). Therefore, since it is sometimes moved by its active principle, it seems that sometimes it is compelled. |
| Praeterea, motus violentus est qui est contra naturam. Sed motus voluntatis aliquando est contra naturam; ut patet de motu voluntatis ad peccandum, qui est contra naturam, ut Damascenus dicit. Ergo motus voluntatis potest esse coactus. | Objection 3: Further, violent movement is that which is contrary to nature. But the movement of the will is sometimes contrary to nature; as is clear of the will's movement to sin, which is contrary to nature, as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv, 20). Therefore the movement of the will can be compelled. |
| Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, in V de Civ. Dei, quod si aliquid fit voluntate, non fit ex necessitate. Omne autem coactum fit ex necessitate. Ergo quod fit ex voluntate, non potest esse coactum. Ergo voluntas non potest cogi ad agendum. | On the contrary, Augustine says (De Civ. Dei v, 10) that what is done by the will is not done of necessity. Now, whatever is done under compulsion is done of necessity: consequently what is done by the will, cannot be compelled. Therefore the will cannot be compelled to act. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod duplex est actus voluntatis, unus quidem qui est eius immediate, velut ab ipsa elicitus, scilicet velle; alius autem est actus voluntatis a voluntate imperatus, et mediante alia potentia exercitus, ut ambulare et loqui, qui a voluntate imperantur mediante potentia motiva. | I answer that, The act of the will is twofold: one is its immediate act, as it were, elicited by it, namely, "to wish"; the other is an act of the will commanded by it, and put into execution by means of some other power, such as "to walk" and "to speak," which are commanded by the will to be executed by means of the motive power. |
| Quantum igitur ad actus a voluntate imperatos, voluntas violentiam pati potest, inquantum per violentiam exteriora membra impediri possunt ne imperium voluntatis exequantur. Sed quantum ad ipsum proprium actum voluntatis, non potest ei violentia inferri. | As regards the commanded acts of the will, then, the will can suffer violence, in so far as violence can prevent the exterior members from executing the will's command. But as to the will's own proper act, violence cannot be done to the will. |
| Et huius ratio est quia actus voluntatis nihil est aliud quam inclinatio quaedam procedens ab interiori principio cognoscente, sicut appetitus naturalis est quaedam inclinatio ab interiori principio et sine cognitione. Quod autem est coactum vel violentum, est ab exteriori principio. Unde contra rationem ipsius actus voluntatis est quod sit coactus vel violentus, sicut etiam est contra rationem naturalis inclinationis vel motus. Potest enim lapis per violentiam sursum ferri, sed quod iste motus violentus sit ex eius naturali inclinatione, esse non potest. Similiter etiam potest homo per violentiam trahi, sed quod hoc sit ex eius voluntate, repugnat rationi violentiae. | The reason of this is that the act of the will is nothing else than an inclination proceeding from the interior principle of knowledge: just as the natural appetite is an inclination proceeding from an interior principle without knowledge. Now what is compelled or violent is from an exterior principle. Consequently it is contrary to the nature of the will's own act, that it should be subject to compulsion and violence: just as it is also contrary to the nature of a natural inclination or movement. For a stone may have an upward movement from violence, but that this violent movement be from its natural inclination is impossible. In like manner a man may be dragged by force: but it is contrary to the very notion of violence, that he be dragged of his own will. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Deus, qui est potentior quam voluntas humana, potest voluntatem humanam movere; secundum illud Prov. XXI, cor regis in manu Dei est, et quocumque voluerit, vertet illud. Sed si hoc esset per violentiam, iam non esset cum actu voluntatis nec ipsa voluntas moveretur, sed aliquid contra voluntatem. | Reply to Objection 1: God Who is more powerful than the human will, can move the will of man, according to Prov. 21:1: "The heart of the king is in the hand of the Lord; whithersoever He will He shall turn it." But if this were by compulsion, it would no longer be by an act of the will, nor would the will itself be moved, but something else against the will. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod non semper est motus violentus, quando passivum immutatur a suo activo, sed quando hoc fit contra interiorem inclinationem passivi. Alioquin omnes alterationes et generationes simplicium corporum essent innaturales et violentae. Sunt autem naturales, propter naturalem aptitudinem interiorem materiae vel subiecti ad talem dispositionem. Et similiter quando voluntas movetur ab appetibili secundum propriam inclinationem, non est motus violentus, sed voluntarius. | Reply to Objection 2: It is not always a violent movement, when a passive subject is moved by its active principle; but only when this is done against the interior inclination of the passive subject. Otherwise every alteration and generation of simply bodies would be unnatural and violent: whereas they are natural by reason of the natural interior aptitude of the matter or subject to such a disposition. In like manner when the will is moved, according to its own inclination, by the appetible object, this movement is not violent but voluntary. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod id in quod voluntas tendit peccando, etsi sit malum et contra rationalem naturam secundum rei veritatem, apprehenditur tamen ut bonum et conveniens naturae, inquantum est conveniens homini secundum aliquam passionem sensus, vel secundum aliquem habitum corruptum. | Reply to Objection 3: That to which the will tends by sinning, although in reality it is evil and contrary to the rational nature, nevertheless is apprehended as something good and suitable to nature, in so far as it is suitable to man by reason of some pleasurable sensation or some vicious habit. |
Index [<<� | >>]
First Part of the Second Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 6 [ << | >> ]
Article: 5 [ << | >> ]
| Ad quintum sic proceditur. Videtur quod violentia non causet involuntarium. Voluntarium enim et involuntarium secundum voluntatem dicuntur. Sed voluntati violentia inferri non potest, ut ostensum est. Ergo violentia involuntarium causare non potest. |
Objection 1: It would seem that violence does not cause involuntariness. For we speak of voluntariness and involuntariness in respect of the will. But violence cannot be done to the will, as shown above (Article [4]). Therefore violence cannot cause involuntariness. |
| Praeterea, id quod est involuntarium, est cum tristitia, ut Damascenus et philosophus dicunt. Sed aliquando patitur aliquis violentiam, nec tamen inde tristatur. Ergo violentia non causat involuntarium. | Objection 2: Further, that which is done involuntarily is done with grief, as Damascene (De Fide Orth. ii, 24) and the Philosopher (Ethic. iii, 5) say. But sometimes a man suffers compulsion without being grieved thereby. Therefore violence does not cause involuntariness. |
| Praeterea, id quod est a voluntate, non potest esse involuntarium. Sed aliqua violenta sunt a voluntate, sicut cum aliquis cum corpore gravi sursum ascendit; et sicut cum aliquis inflectit membra contra naturalem eorum flexibilitatem. Ergo violentia non causat involuntarium. | Objection 3: Further, what is from the will cannot be involuntary. But some violent actions proceed from the will: for instance, when a man with a heavy body goes upwards; or when a man contorts his limbs in a way contrary to their natural flexibility. Therefore violence does not cause involuntariness. |
| Sed contra est quod philosophus et Damascenus dicunt, quod aliquid est involuntarium per violentiam. | On the contrary, The Philosopher (Ethic. iii, 1) and Damascene (De Fide Orth. ii, 24) say that "things done under compulsion are involuntary." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod violentia directe opponitur voluntario, sicut etiam et naturali. Commune est enim voluntario et naturali quod utrumque sit a principio intrinseco, violentum autem est a principio extrinseco. Et propter hoc, sicut in rebus quae cognitione carent, violentia aliquid facit contra naturam; ita in rebus cognoscentibus facit aliquid esse contra voluntatem. Quod autem est contra naturam, dicitur esse innaturale, et similiter quod est contra voluntatem, dicitur esse involuntarium. Unde violentia involuntarium causat. | I answer that, Violence is directly opposed to the voluntary, as likewise to the natural. For the voluntary and the natural have this in common, that both are from an intrinsic principle; whereas violence is from an extrinsic principle. And for this reason, just as in things devoid of knowledge, violence effects something against nature: so in things endowed with knowledge, it effects something against the will. Now that which is against nature is said to be "unnatural"; and in like manner that which is against the will is said to be "involuntary." Therefore violence causes involuntariness. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod involuntarium voluntario opponitur. Dictum est autem supra quod voluntarium dicitur non solum actus qui est immediate ipsius voluntatis, sed etiam actus a voluntate imperatus. Quantum igitur ad actum qui est immediate ipsius voluntatis, ut supra dictum est, violentia voluntati inferri non potest, unde talem actum violentia involuntarium facere non potest. Sed quantum ad actum imperatum, voluntas potest pati violentiam. Et quantum ad hunc actum, violentia involuntarium facit. |
Reply to Objection 1: The involuntary is opposed to the voluntary. Now it has been said (Article [4]) that not only the act, which proceeds immediately from the will, is called voluntary, but also the act commanded by the will. Consequently, as to the act which proceeds immediately from the will, violence cannot be done to the will, as stated above (Article [4]): wherefore violence cannot make that act involuntary. But as to the commanded act, the will can suffer violence: and consequently in this respect violence causes involuntariness. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod, sicut naturale dicitur quod est secundum inclinationem naturae, ita voluntarium dicitur quod est secundum inclinationem voluntatis. Dicitur autem aliquid naturale dupliciter. Uno modo, quia est a natura sicut a principio activo, sicut calefacere est naturale igni. Alio modo, secundum principium passivum, quia scilicet est in natura inclinatio ad recipiendum actionem a principio extrinseco, sicut motus caeli dicitur esse naturalis, propter aptitudinem naturalem caelestis corporis ad talem motum, licet movens sit voluntarium. Et similiter voluntarium potest aliquid dici dupliciter, uno modo, secundum actionem, puta cum aliquis vult aliquid agere; alio modo, secundum passionem, scilicet cum aliquis vult pati ab alio. Unde cum actio infertur ab aliquo exteriori, manente in eo qui patitur voluntate patiendi, non est simpliciter violentum, quia licet ille qui patitur non conferat agendo, confert tamen volendo pati. Unde non potest dici involuntarium. | Reply to Objection 2: As that is said to be natural, which is according to the inclination of nature; so that is said to be voluntary, which is according to the inclination of the will. Now a thing is said to be natural in two ways. First, because it is from nature as from an active principle: thus it is natural for fire to produce heat. Secondly, according to a passive principle; because, to wit, there is in nature an inclination to receive an action from an extrinsic principle: thus the movement of the heavens is said to be natural, by reason of the natural aptitude in a heavenly body to receive such movement; although the cause of that movement is a voluntary agent. In like manner an act is said to be voluntary in two ways. First, in regard to action, for instance, when one wishes to be passive to another. Hence when action is brought to bear on something, by an extrinsic agent, as long as the will to suffer that action remains in the passive subject, there is not violence simply: for although the patient does nothing by way of action, he does something by being willing to suffer. Consequently this cannot be called involuntary. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut philosophus dicit in VIII Physic., motus animalis quo interdum movetur animal contra naturalem inclinationem corporis, etsi non sit naturalis corpori, est tamen quodammodo naturalis animali, cui naturale est quod secundum appetitum moveatur. Et ideo hoc non est violentum simpliciter, sed secundum quid. Et similiter est dicendum cum aliquis inflectit membra contra naturalem dispositionem. Hoc enim est violentum secundum quid, scilicet quantum ad membrum particulare non tamen simpliciter, quantum ad ipsum hominem. | Reply to Objection 3: As the Philosopher says (Phys. viii, 4) the movement of an animal, whereby at times an animal is moved against the natural inclination of the body, although it is not natural to the body, is nevertheless somewhat natural to the animal, to which it is natural to be moved according to its appetite. Accordingly this is violent, not simply but in a certain respect. The same remark applies in the case of one who contorts his limbs in a way that is contrary to their natural disposition. For this is violent in a certain respect, i.e. as to that particular limb; but not simply, i.e. as to the man himself. |
Index [<<� | >>]
First Part of the Second Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 6 [ << | >> ]
Article: 6 [ << | >> ]
| Ad sextum sic proceditur. Videtur quod metus causet involuntarium simpliciter. Sicut enim violentia est respectu eius quod contrariatur praesentialiter voluntati, ita metus est respectu mali futuri quod repugnat voluntati. Sed violentia causat involuntarium simpliciter. Ergo et metus involuntarium simpliciter causat. | Objection 1: It would seem that fear causes involuntariness simply. For just as violence regards that which is contrary to the will at the time, so fear regards a future evil which is repugnant to the will. But violence causes involuntariness simply. Therefore fear too causes involuntariness simply. |
| Praeterea, quod est secundum se tale, quolibet addito remanet tale, sicut quod secundum se est calidum, cuicumque coniungatur, nihilominus est calidum, ipso manente. Sed illud quod per metum agitur, secundum se est involuntarium. Ergo etiam adveniente metu est involuntarium. | Objection 2: Further, that which is such of itself, remains such, whatever be added to it: thus what is hot of itself, as long as it remains, is still hot, whatever be added to it. But that which is done through fear, is involuntary in itself. Therefore, even with the addition of fear, it is involuntary. |
| Praeterea, quod sub conditione est tale, secundum quid est tale; quod autem absque conditione est tale, simpliciter est tale, sicut quod est necessarium ex conditione, est necessarium secundum quid; quod autem est necessarium absolute, est necessarium simpliciter. Sed id quod per metum agitur, est involuntarium absolute, non est autem voluntarium nisi sub conditione, scilicet ut vitetur malum quod timetur. Ergo id quod per metum agitur, est simpliciter involuntarium. | Objection 3: Further, that which is such, subject to a condition, is such in a certain respect; whereas what is such, without any condition, is such simply: thus what is necessary, subject to a condition, is necessary in some respect: but what is necessary absolutely, is necessary simply. But that which is done through fear, is absolutely involuntary; and is not voluntary, save under a condition, namely, in order that the evil feared may be avoided. Therefore that which is done through fear, is involuntary simply. |
| Sed contra est quod Gregorius Nyssenus dicit, et etiam philosophus quod huiusmodi quae per metum aguntur, sunt magis voluntaria quam involuntaria. | On the contrary, Gregory of Nyssa [*Nemesius, De Nat. Hom. xxx.] and the Philosopher (Ethic. iii, 1) say that such things as are done through fear are "voluntary rather than involuntary." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut philosophus dicit in III Ethic., et idem dicit Gregorius Nyssenus in libro suo de homine, huiusmodi quae per metum aguntur, mixta sunt ex voluntario et involuntario. Id enim quod per metum agitur, in se consideratum, non est voluntarium, sed fit voluntarium in casu, scilicet ad vitandum malum quod timetur. | I answer that, As the Philosopher says (Ethic. iii) and likewise Gregory of Nyssa in his book on Man (Nemesius, De Nat. Hom. xxx), such things are done through fear "are of a mixed character," being partly voluntary and partly involuntary. For that which is done through fear, considered in itself, is not voluntary; but it becomes voluntary in this particular case, in order, namely, to avoid the evil feared. |
| Sed si quis recte consideret, magis sunt huiusmodi voluntaria quam involuntaria, sunt enim voluntaria simpliciter, involuntaria autem secundum quid. Unumquodque enim simpliciter esse dicitur secundum quod est in actu, secundum autem quod est in sola apprehensione, non est simpliciter, sed secundum quid. Hoc autem quod per metum agitur, secundum hoc est in actu, secundum quod fit, cum enim actus in singularibus sint, singulare autem, inquantum huiusmodi, est hic et nunc; secundum hoc id quod fit est in actu, secundum quod est hic et nunc et sub aliis conditionibus individualibus. Sic autem hoc quod fit per metum, est voluntarium, inquantum scilicet est hic et nunc, prout scilicet in hoc casu est impedimentum maioris mali quod timebatur, sicut proiectio mercium in mare fit voluntarium tempore tempestatis, propter timorem periculi. Unde manifestum est quod simpliciter voluntarium est. Unde et competit ei ratio voluntarii, quia principium eius est intra. Sed quod accipiatur id quod per metum fit, ut extra hunc casum existens, prout repugnat voluntati, hoc non est nisi secundum considerationem tantum. Et ideo est involuntarium secundum quid, idest prout consideratur extra hunc casum existens. | But if the matter be considered aright, such things are voluntary rather than involuntary; for they are voluntary simply, but involuntary in a certain respect. For a thing is said to be simply, according as it is in act; but according as it is only in apprehension, it is not simply, but in a certain respect. Now that which is done through fear, is in act in so far as it is done. For, since acts are concerned with singulars; and the singular, as such, is here and now; that which is done is in act, in so far as it is here and now and under other individuating circumstances. And that which is done through fear is voluntary, inasmuch as it is here and now, that is to say, in so far as, under the circumstances, it hinders a greater evil which was feared; thus the throwing of the cargo into the sea becomes voluntary during the storm, through fear of the danger: wherefore it is clear that it is voluntary simply. And hence it is that what is done out of fear is essentially voluntary, because its principle is within. But if we consider what is done through fear, as outside this particular case, and inasmuch as it is repugnant to the will, this is merely a consideration of the mind. And consequently what is done through fear is involuntary, considered in that respect, that is to say, outside the actual circumstances of the case. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod ea quae aguntur per metum et per vim, non solum differunt secundum praesens et futurum, sed etiam secundum hoc, quod in eo quod agitur per vim, voluntas non consentit, sed omnino est contra motum voluntatis, sed id quod per metum agitur, fit voluntarium, ideo quia motus voluntatis fertur in id, licet non propter seipsum, sed propter aliud, scilicet ad repellendum malum quod timetur. Sufficit enim ad rationem voluntarii quod sit propter aliud voluntarium, voluntarium enim est non solum quod propter seipsum volumus ut finem, sed etiam quod propter aliud volumus ut propter finem. Patet ergo quod in eo quod per vim agitur, voluntas interior nihil agit, sed in eo quod per metum agitur, voluntas aliquid agit. Et ideo, ut Gregorius Nyssenus dicit, ad excludendum ea quae per metum aguntur, in definitione violenti non solum dicitur quod violentum est cuius principium est extra, sed additur, nihil conferente vim passo, quia ad id quod agitur per metum, voluntas timentis aliquid confert. | Reply to Objection 1: Things done through fear and compulsion differ not only according to present and future time, but also in this, that the will does not consent, but is moved entirely counter to that which is done through compulsion: whereas what is done through fear, becomes voluntary, because the will is moved towards it, albeit not for its own sake, but on account of something else, that is, in order to avoid an evil which is feared. For the conditions of a voluntary act are satisfied, if it be done on account of something else voluntary: since the voluntary is not only what we wish, for its own sake, as an end, but also what we wish for the sake of something else, as an end. It is clear therefore that in what is done from compulsion, the will does nothing inwardly; whereas in what is done through fear, the will does something. Accordingly, as Gregory of Nyssa [*Nemesius, De Nat. Hom. xxx.] says, in order to exclude things done through fear, a violent action is defined as not only one, "the principal whereof is from without," but with the addition, "in which he that suffers violence concurs not at all"; because the will of him that is in fear, does concur somewhat in that which he does through fear. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod ea quae absolute dicuntur, quolibet addito remanent talia, sicut calidum et album, sed ea quae relative dicuntur, variantur secundum comparationem ad diversa; quod enim est magnum comparatum huic, est parvum comparatum alteri. Voluntarium autem dicitur aliquid non solum propter seipsum, quasi absolute, sed etiam propter aliud, quasi relative. Et ideo nihil prohibet aliquid quod non esset voluntarium alteri comparatum fieri voluntarium per comparationem ad aliud. | Reply to Objection 2: Things that are such absolutely, remain such, whatever be added to them; for instance, a cold thing, or a white thing: but things that are such relatively, vary according as they are compared with different things. For what is big in comparison with one thing, is small in comparison with another. Now a thing is said to be voluntary, not only for its own sake, as it were absolutely; but also for the sake of something else, as it were relatively. Accordingly, nothing prevents a thing which was not voluntary in comparison with one thing, from becoming voluntary when compared with another. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod illud quod per metum agitur, absque conditione est voluntarium, idest secundum quod actu agitur, sed involuntarium est sub conditione, idest si talis metus non immineret. Unde secundum illam rationem magis potest concludi oppositum. | Reply to Objection 3: That which is done through fear, is voluntary without any condition, that is to say, according as it is actually done: but it is involuntary, under a certain condition, that is to say, if such a fear were not threatening. Consequently, this argument proves rather the opposite. |
Index [<<� | >>]
First Part of the Second Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 6 [ << | >> ]
Article: 7 [ << | >> ]
| Ad septimum sic proceditur. Videtur quod concupiscentia causet involuntarium. Sicut enim metus est quaedam passio, ita et concupiscentia. Sed metus causat quodammodo involuntarium. Ergo etiam concupiscentia. | Objection 1: It would seem that concupiscence causes involuntariness. For just as fear is a passion, so is concupiscence. But fear causes involuntariness to a certain extent. Therefore concupiscence does so too. |
| Praeterea, sicut per timorem timidus agit contra id quod proponebat, ita incontinens propter concupiscentiam. Sed timor aliquo modo causat involuntarium. Ergo et concupiscentia. | Objection 2: Further, just as the timid man through fear acts counter to that which he proposed, so does the incontinent, through concupiscence. But fear causes involuntariness to a certain extent. Therefore concupiscence does so also. |
| Praeterea, ad voluntarium requiritur cognitio. Sed concupiscentia corrumpit cognitionem, dicit enim philosophus, in VI Ethic., quod delectatio, sive concupiscentia delectationis, corrumpit aestimationem prudentiae. Ergo concupiscentia causat involuntarium. | Objection 3: Further, knowledge is necessary for voluntariness. But concupiscence impairs knowledge; for the Philosopher says (Ethic. vi, 5) that "delight," or the lust of pleasure, "destroys the judgment of prudence." Therefore concupiscence causes involuntariness. |
| Sed contra est quod Damascenus dicit, involuntarium est misericordia vel indulgentia dignum, et cum tristitia agitur. Sed neutrum horum competit ei quod per concupiscentiam agitur. Ergo concupiscentia non causat involuntarium. | On the contrary, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii, 24): "The involuntary act deserves mercy or indulgence, and is done with regret." But neither of these can be said of that which is done out of concupiscence. Therefore concupiscence does not cause involuntariness. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod concupiscentia non causat involuntarium, sed magis facit aliquid voluntarium. Dicitur enim aliquid voluntarium ex eo quod voluntas in id fertur. Per concupiscentiam autem voluntas inclinatur ad volendum id quod concupiscitur. Et ideo concupiscentia magis facit ad hoc quod aliquid sit voluntarium, quam quod sit involuntarium. | I answer that, Concupiscence does not cause involuntariness, but on the contrary makes something to be voluntary. For a thing is said to be voluntary, from the fact that the will is moved to it. Now concupiscence inclines the will to desire the object of concupiscence. Therefore the effect of concupiscence is to make something to be voluntary rather than involuntary. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod timor est de malo, concupiscentia autem respicit bonum. Malum autem secundum se contrariatur voluntati, sed bonum est voluntati consonum. Unde magis se habet timor ad causandum involuntarium quam concupiscentia. | Reply to Objection 1: Fear regards evil, but concupiscence regards good. Now evil of itself is counter to the will, whereas good harmonizes with the will. Therefore fear has a greater tendency than concupiscence to cause involuntariness. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod in eo qui per metum aliquid agit, manet repugnantia voluntatis ad id quod agitur, secundum quod in se consideratur. Sed in eo qui agit aliquid per concupiscentiam, sicut est incontinens, non manet prior voluntas, qua repudiabat illud quod concupiscitur, sed mutatur ad volendum id quod prius repudiabat. Et ideo quod per metum agitur, quodammodo est involuntarium, sed quod per concupiscentiam agitur, nullo modo. Nam incontinens concupiscentiae agit contra id quod prius proponebat, non autem contra id quod nunc vult, sed timidus agit contra id quod etiam nunc secundum se vult. | Reply to Objection 2: He who acts from fear retains the repugnance of the will to that which he does, considered in itself. But he that acts from concupiscence, e.g. an incontinent man, does not retain his former will whereby he repudiated the object of his concupiscence; for his will is changed so that he desires that which previously he repudiated. Accordingly, that which is done out of fear is involuntary, to a certain extent, but that which is done from concupiscence is nowise involuntary. For the man who yields to concupiscence acts counter to that which he purposed at first, but not counter to that which he desires now; whereas the timid man acts counter to that which in itself he desires now. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod, si concupiscentia totaliter cognitionem auferret, sicut contingit in illis qui propter concupiscentiam fiunt amentes, sequeretur quod concupiscentia voluntarium tolleret. Nec tamen proprie esset ibi involuntarium, quia in his quae usum rationis non habent, neque voluntarium est neque involuntarium. Sed quandoque in his quae per concupiscentiam aguntur, non totaliter tollitur cognitio, quia non tollitur potestas cognoscendi; sed solum consideratio actualis in particulari agibili. Et tamen hoc ipsum est voluntarium, secundum quod voluntarium dicitur quod est in potestate voluntatis, ut non agere et non velle, similiter autem et non considerare, potest enim voluntas passioni resistere, ut infra dicetur. | Reply to Objection 3: If concupiscence were to destroy knowledge altogether, as happens with those whom concupiscence has rendered mad, it would follow that concupiscence would take away voluntariness. And yet properly speaking it would not result in the act being involuntary, because in things bereft of reason, there is neither voluntary nor involuntary. But sometimes in those actions which are done from concupiscence, knowledge is not completely destroyed, because the power of knowing is not taken away entirely, but only the actual consideration in some particular possible act. Nevertheless, this itself is voluntary, according as by voluntary we mean that which is in the power of the will, for example "not to act" or "not to will," and in like manner "not to consider"; for the will can resist the passion, as we shall state later on (Question [10], Article [3]; Question [77], Article [7]). |
Index [<<� | >>]
First Part of the Second Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 6 [ << | >> ]
Article: 8 [ << | >> ]
| Ad octavum sic proceditur. Videtur quod ignorantia non causet involuntarium. Involuntarium enim veniam meretur, ut Damascenus dicit. Sed interdum quod per ignorantiam agitur, veniam non meretur; secundum illud I ad Cor. XIV, si quis ignorat, ignorabitur. Ergo ignorantia non causat involuntarium. | Objection 1: It would seem that ignorance does not cause involuntariness. For "the involuntary act deserves pardon," as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii, 24). But sometimes that which is done through ignorance does not deserve pardon, according to 1 Cor. 14:38: "If any man know not, he shall not be known." Therefore ignorance does not cause involuntariness. |
| Praeterea, omne peccatum est cum ignorantia; secundum illud Prov. XIV, errant qui operantur malum. Si igitur ignorantia involuntarium causet, sequeretur quod omne peccatum esset involuntarium. Quod est contra Augustinum dicentem quod omne peccatum est voluntarium. | Objection 2: Further, every sin implies ignorance; according to Prov. 14: 22: "They err, that work evil." If, therefore, ignorance causes involuntariness, it would follow that every sin is involuntary: which is opposed to the saying of Augustine, that "every sin is voluntary" (De Vera Relig. xiv). |
| Praeterea, involuntarium cum tristitia est, ut Damascenus dicit. Sed quaedam ignoranter aguntur, et sine tristitia, puta si aliquis occidit hostem quem quaerit occidere, putans occidere cervum. Ergo ignorantia non causat involuntarium. | Objection 3: Further, "involuntariness is not without sadness," as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii, 24). But some things are done out of ignorance, but without sadness: for instance, a man may kill a foe, whom he wishes to kill, thinking at the time that he is killing a stag. Therefore ignorance does not cause involuntariness. |
| Sed contra est quod Damascenus et philosophus dicunt, quod involuntarium quoddam est per ignorantiam. | On the contrary, Damascene (De Fide Orth. ii, 24) and the Philosopher (Ethic. iii, 1) say that "what is done through ignorance is involuntary." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod ignorantia habet causare involuntarium ea ratione qua privat cognitionem, quae praeexigitur ad voluntarium, ut supra dictum est. Non tamen quaelibet ignorantia huiusmodi cognitionem privat. Et ideo sciendum quod ignorantia tripliciter se habet ad actum voluntatis, uno modo, concomitanter; alio modo, consequenter; tertio modo, antecedenter. Concomitanter quidem, quando ignorantia est de eo quod agitur, tamen, etiam si sciretur, nihilominus ageretur. Tunc enim ignorantia non inducit ad volendum ut hoc fiat, sed accidit simul esse aliquid factum et ignoratum, sicut, in exemplo posito, cum aliquis vellet quidem occidere hostem, sed ignorans occidit eum, putans occidere cervum. Et talis ignorantia non facit involuntarium, ut philosophus dicit, quia non causat aliquid quod sit repugnans voluntati, sed facit non voluntarium, quia non potest esse actu volitum quod ignoratum est. Consequenter autem se habet ignorantia ad voluntatem, inquantum ipsa ignorantia est voluntaria. Et hoc contingit dupliciter, secundum duos modos voluntarii supra positos. Uno modo, quia actus voluntatis fertur in ignorantiam, sicut cum aliquis ignorare vult ut excusationem peccati habeat, vel ut non retrahatur a peccando, secundum illud Iob XXI, scientiam viarum tuarum nolumus. Et haec dicitur ignorantia affectata. Alio modo dicitur ignorantia voluntaria eius quod quis potest scire et debet, sic enim non agere et non velle voluntarium dicitur, ut supra dictum est. Hoc igitur modo dicitur ignorantia, sive cum aliquis actu non considerat quod considerare potest et debet, quae est ignorantia malae electionis, vel ex passione vel ex habitu proveniens, sive cum aliquis notitiam quam debet habere, non curat acquirere; et secundum hunc modum, ignorantia universalium iuris, quae quis scire tenetur, voluntaria dicitur, quasi per negligentiam proveniens. Cum autem ipsa ignorantia sit voluntaria aliquo istorum modorum, non potest causare simpliciter involuntarium. Causat tamen secundum quid involuntarium, inquantum praecedit motum voluntatis ad aliquid agendum, qui non esset scientia praesente. Antecedenter autem se habet ad voluntatem ignorantia, quando non est voluntaria, et tamen est causa volendi quod alias homo non vellet. Sicut cum homo ignorat aliquam circumstantiam actus quam non tenebatur scire, et ex hoc aliquid agit, quod non faceret si sciret, puta cum aliquis, diligentia adhibita, nesciens aliquem transire per viam, proiicit sagittam, qua interficit transeuntem. Et talis ignorantia causat involuntarium simpliciter. |
I answer that, If ignorance causes involuntariness, it is in so far as it deprives one of knowledge, which is a necessary condition of voluntariness, as was declared above (Article [1]). But it is not every ignorance that deprives one of this knowledge. Accordingly, we must take note that ignorance has a threefold relationship to the act of the will: in one way, "concomitantly"; in another, "consequently"; in a third way, "antecedently." "Concomitantly," when there is ignorance of what is done; but, so that even if it were known, it would be done. For then, ignorance does not induce one to wish this to be done, but it just happens that a thing is at the same time done, and not known: thus in the example given (OBJ 3) a man did indeed wish to kill his foe, but killed him in ignorance, thinking to kill a stag. And ignorance of this kind, as the Philosopher states (Ethic. iii, 1), does not cause involuntariness, since it is not the cause of anything that is repugnant to the will: but it causes "non-voluntariness," since that which is unknown cannot be actually willed. Ignorance is "consequent" to the act of the will, in so far as ignorance itself is voluntary: and this happens in two ways, in accordance with the two aforesaid modes of voluntary (Article [3]). First, because the act of the will is brought to bear on the ignorance: as when a man wishes not to know, that he may have an excuse for sin, or that he may not be withheld from sin; according to Job 21:14: "We desire not the knowledge of Thy ways." And this is called "affected ignorance." Secondly, ignorance is said to be voluntary, when it regards that which one can and ought to know: for in this sense "not to act" and "not to will" are said to be voluntary, as stated above (Article [3]). And ignorance of this kind happens, either when one does not actually consider what one can and ought to consider; this is called "ignorance of evil choice," and arises from some passion or habit: or when one does not take the trouble to acquire the knowledge which one ought to have; in which sense, ignorance of the general principles of law, which one to know, is voluntary, as being due to negligence. Accordingly, if in either of these ways, ignorance is voluntary, it cannot cause involuntariness simply. Nevertheless it causes involuntariness in a certain respect, inasmuch as it precedes the movement of the will towards the act, which movement would not be, if there were knowledge. Ignorance is "antecedent" to the act of the will, when it is not voluntary, and yet is the cause of man's willing what he would not will otherwise. Thus a man may be ignorant of some circumstance of his act, which he was not bound to know, the result being that he does that which he would not do, if he knew of that circumstance; for instance, a man, after taking proper precaution, may not know that someone is coming along the road, so that he shoots an arrow and slays a passer-by. Such ignorance causes involuntariness simply. |
| Et per hoc patet responsio ad obiecta. Nam prima ratio procedebat de ignorantia eorum quae quis tenetur scire. Secunda autem, de ignorantia electionis, quae quodammodo est voluntaria, ut dictum est. Tertia vero, de ignorantia quae concomitanter se habet ad voluntatem. | From this may be gathered the solution of the objections. For the first objection deals with ignorance of what a man is bound to know. The second, with ignorance of choice, which is voluntary to a certain extent, as stated above. The third, with that ignorance which is concomitant with the act of the will. |