Index [<<� | >>]
Second Part of the Second Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 127 [ << | >> ]
| Deinde considerandum est de audacia. Et circa hoc quaeruntur duo. | We must now consider daring; and under this head there are two points of inquiry: |
| Primo, utrum audacia sit peccatum. | (1) Whether daring is a sin? |
| Secundo, utrum opponatur fortitudini. | (2) Whether it is opposed to fortitude? |
Index [<<� | >>]
Second Part of the Second Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 127 [ << | >> ]
Article: 1 [ << | >> ]
| Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod audacia non sit peccatum. Dicitur enim Iob XXXIX, de equo, per quem significatur bonus praedicator, secundum Gregorium, in Moral., quod audacter in occursum pergit armatis. Sed nullum vitium cedit in commendationem alicuius. Ergo esse audacem non est peccatum. |
Objection 1: It seems that daring is not a sin. For it is written (Job 39:21) concerning the horse, by which according to Gregory (Moral. xxxi) the godly preacher is denoted, that "he goeth forth boldly to meet armed men [*Vulg.: 'he pranceth boldly, he goeth forth to meet armed men']." But no vice redounds to a man's praise. Therefore it is not a sin to be daring. |
| Praeterea, sicut philosophus dicit, in VI Ethic., oportet consiliari quidem tarde, operari autem velociter consiliata. Sed ad hanc velocitatem operandi iuvat audacia. Ergo audacia non est peccatum, sed magis aliquid laudabile. | Objection 2: Further, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. vi, 9), "one should take counsel in thought, and do quickly what has been counseled." But daring helps this quickness in doing. Therefore daring is not sinful but praiseworthy. |
| Praeterea, audacia est quaedam passio quae causatur a spe, ut supra habitum est, cum de passionibus ageretur. Sed spes non ponitur peccatum, sed magis virtus. Ergo nec audacia debet poni peccatum. | Objection 3: Further, daring is a passion caused by hope, as stated above (FS, Question [45], Article [2]) when we were treating of the passions. But hope is accounted not a sin but a virtue. Neither therefore should daring be accounted a sin. |
| Sed contra est quod dicitur Eccli. VIII, cum audace non eas in via, ne forte gravet mala sua in te. Nullius autem societas est declinanda nisi propter peccatum. Ergo audacia est peccatum. | On the contrary, It is written (Ecclus. 8:18): "Go not on the way with a bold man, lest he burden thee with his evils." Now no man's fellowship is to be avoided save on account of sin. Therefore daring is a sin. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod audacia, sicut supra dictum est, est passio quaedam. Passio autem quandoque quidem est moderata secundum rationem, quandoque autem caret modo rationis, vel per excessum vel per defectum; et secundum hoc est passio vitiosa. Sumuntur autem quandoque nomina passionum a superabundanti, sicut ira dicitur non quaecumque, sed superabundans, prout scilicet est vitiosa. Et hoc etiam modo audacia, per superabundantiam dicta, ponitur esse peccatum. |
I answer that, Daring, as stated above (FS, Question [23], Article [1]; Question [55]), is a passion. Now a passion is sometimes moderated according to reason, and sometimes it lacks moderation, either by excess or by deficiency, and on this account the passion is sinful. Again, the names of the passions are sometimes employed in the sense of excess, thus we speak of anger meaning not any but excessive anger, in which case it is sinful, and in the same way daring as implying excess is accounted a sin. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod audacia ibi sumitur secundum quod est moderata ratione. Sic enim pertinet ad virtutem fortitudinis. | Reply to Objection 1: The daring spoken of there is that which is moderated by reason, for in that sense it belongs to the virtue of fortitude. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod operatio festina commendabilis est post consilium, quod est actus rationis. Sed si quis ante consilium vellet festine agere, non esset hoc laudabile, sed vitiosum, esset enim quaedam praecipitatio actionis, quod est vitium prudentiae oppositum, ut supra dictum est. Et ideo audacia, quae operatur ad velocitatem operandi, intantum laudabilis est inquantum a ratione ordinatur. |
Reply to Objection 2: It is praiseworthy to act quickly after taking counsel, which is an act of reason. But to wish to act quickly before taking counsel is not praiseworthy but sinful; for this would be to act rashly, which is a vice contrary to prudence, as stated above (Question [58], Article [3]). Wherefore daring which leads one to act quickly is so far praiseworthy as it is directed by reason. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod quaedam vitia innominata sunt, et similiter quaedam virtutes, ut patet per philosophum, in IV Ethic. Et ideo oportuit quibusdam passionibus uti nomine virtutum et vitiorum. Praecipue autem illis passionibus utimur ad vitia designanda quarum obiectum est malum, sicut patet de odio, timore et ira, et etiam audacia. Spes autem et amor habent bonum pro obiecto. Et ideo magis eis utimur ad designanda nomina virtutum. | Reply to Objection 3: Some vices are unnamed, and so also are some virtues, as the Philosopher remarks (Ethic. ii, 7; iv, 4,5,6). Hence the names of certain passions have to be applied to certain vices and virtues: and in order to designate vices we employ especially the names of those passions the object of which is an evil, as in the case of hatred, fear, anger and daring. But hope and love have a good for this object, and so we use them rather to designate virtues. |
Index [<<� | >>]
Second Part of the Second Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 127 [ << | >> ]
Article: 2 [ << | >> ]
| Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod audacia non opponatur fortitudini. Superfluitas enim audaciae videtur ex animi praesumptione procedere. Sed praesumptio pertinet ad superbiam, quae opponitur humilitati. Ergo audacia magis opponitur humilitati quam fortitudini. | Objection 1: It seems that daring is not opposed to fortitude. For excess of daring seems to result from presumption of mind. But presumption pertains to pride which is opposed to humility. Therefore daring is opposed to humility rather than to fortitude. |
| Praeterea, audacia non videtur esse vituperabilis nisi inquantum ex ea provenit vel nocumentum aliquod ipsi audaci, qui se periculis inordinate ingerit; vel etiam aliis, quos per audaciam aggreditur vel in pericula praecipitat. Sed hoc videtur ad iniustitiam pertinere. Ergo audacia, secundum quod est peccatum, non opponitur fortitudini, sed iustitiae. | Objection 2: Further, daring does not seem to call for blame, except in so far as it results in harm either to the daring person who puts himself in danger inordinately, or to others whom he attacks with daring, or exposes to danger. But this seemingly pertains to injustice. Therefore daring, as designating a sin, is opposed, not to fortitude but to justice. |
| Praeterea, fortitudo est et circa timores et circa audacias, ut supra habitum est. Sed quia timiditas opponitur fortitudini secundum excessum timoris, habet aliud vitium oppositum timiditati secundum defectum timoris. Si ergo audacia opponatur fortitudini propter excessum audaciae, pari ratione opponetur ei aliquod vitium propter audaciae defectum. Sed hoc non invenitur. Ergo nec audacia debet poni vitium oppositum fortitudini. |
Objection 3: Further, fortitude is concerned about fear and daring, as stated above (Question [123], Article [3]). Now since timidity is opposed to fortitude in respect of an excess of fear, there is another vice opposed to timidity in respect of a lack of fear. If then, daring is opposed to fortitude, in the point of excessive daring, there will likewise be a vice opposed to it in the point of deficient daring. But there is no such vice. Therefore neither should daring be accounted a vice in opposition to fortitude. |
| Sed contra est quod philosophus, in II et III Ethic., ponit audaciam fortitudini oppositam. | On the contrary, The Philosopher in both the Second and Third Books of Ethics accounts daring to be opposed to fortitude. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, ad virtutem moralem pertinet modum rationis observare in materia circa quam est. Et ideo omne vitium quod importat immoderantiam circa materiam alicuius virtutis moralis, opponitur illi virtuti morali sicut immoderatum moderato. Audacia autem, secundum quod sonat in vitium, importat excessum passionis quae audacia dicitur. Unde manifestum est quod opponitur virtuti fortitudinis, quae est circa timores et audacias, ut supra dictum est. |
I answer that, As stated above (Question [126], Article [2]), it belongs to a moral virtue to observe the rational mean in the matter about which it is concerned. Wherefore every vice that denotes lack of moderation in the matter of a moral virtue is opposed to that virtue, as immoderate to moderate. Now daring, in so far as it denotes a vice, implies excess of passion, and this excess goes by the name of daring. Wherefore it is evident that it is opposed to the virtue of fortitude which is concerned about fear and daring, as stated above (Question [122], Article [3]). |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod oppositio vitii ad virtutem non attenditur principaliter secundum causam vitii, sed secundum ipsam vitii speciem. Et ideo non oportet quod audacia opponatur eidem virtuti cui opponitur praesumptio, quae est causa ipsius. | Reply to Objection 1: Opposition between vice and virtue does not depend chiefly on the cause of the vice but on the vice's very species. Wherefore it is not necessary that daring be opposed to the same virtue as presumption which is its cause. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod sicut directa oppositio vitii non attenditur circa eius causam, ita etiam non attenditur secundum eius effectum. Nocumentum autem quod provenit ex audacia est effectus ipsius. Unde nec etiam secundum hoc attenditur oppositio audaciae. | Reply to Objection 2: Just as the direct opposition of a vice does not depend on its cause, so neither does it depend on its effect. Now the harm done by daring is its effect. Wherefore neither does the opposition of daring depend on this. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod motus audaciae consistit in invadendo id quod est homini contrarium, ad quod natura inclinat, nisi inquantum talis inclinatio impeditur per timorem patiendi nocumentum ab eo. Et ideo vitium quod excedit in audacia non habet contrarium defectum nisi timiditatem tantum. Sed audacia non semper concomitatur tantum defectum timiditatis. Quia sicut philosophus dicit, in III Ethic., audaces sunt praevolantes et volentes ante pericula, sed in ipsis discedunt, scilicet prae timore. | Reply to Objection 3: The movement of daring consists in a man taking the offensive against that which is in opposition to him: and nature inclines him to do this except in so far as such inclination is hindered by the fear of receiving harm from that source. Hence the vice which exceeds in daring has no contrary deficiency, save only timidity. Yet daring does not always accompany so great a lack of timidity, for as the Philosopher says (Ethic. iii, 7), "the daring are precipitate and eager to meet danger, yet fail when the danger is present," namely through fear. |