Respondeo dicendum quod eadem est dispositio rerum in bonitate, et in esse. Sunt enim quaedam quorum esse ex alio non dependet, et in his sufficit considerare ipsum eorum esse absolute. Quaedam vero sunt quorum esse dependet ab alio, unde oportet quod consideretur per considerationem ad causam a qua dependet. Sicut autem esse rei dependet ab agente et forma, ita bonitas rei dependet a fine. Unde in personis divinis, quae non habent bonitatem dependentem ab alio, non consideratur aliqua ratio bonitatis ex fine. Actiones autem humanae, et alia quorum bonitas dependet ab alio, habent rationem bonitatis ex fine a quo dependent, praeter bonitatem absolutam quae in eis existit. Sic igitur in actione humana bonitas quadruplex considerari potest. Una quidem secundum genus, prout scilicet est actio, quia quantum habet de actione et entitate, tantum habet de bonitate, ut dictum est. Alia vero secundum speciem, quae accipitur secundum obiectum conveniens. Tertia secundum circumstantias, quasi secundum accidentia quaedam. Quarta autem secundum finem, quasi secundum habitudinem ad causam bonitatis.
I answer that, The disposition of things as to goodness is the same as their disposition as to being. Now in some things the being does not depend on another, and in these it suffices to consider their being absolutely. But there are things the being of which depends on something else, and hence in their regard we must consider their being in its relation to the cause on which it depends. Now just as the being of a thing depends on the agent, and the form, so the goodness of a thing depends on its end. Hence in the Divine Persons, Whose goodness does not depend on another, the measure of goodness is not taken from the end. Whereas human actions, and other things, the goodness of which depends on something else, have a measure of goodness from the end on which they depend, besides that goodness which is in them absolutely. Accordingly a fourfold goodness may be considered in a human action. First, that which, as an action, it derives from its genus; because as much as it has of action and being so much has it of goodness, as stated above (A1). Second, it has goodness according to its species; which is derived from its suitable object. Third, it has goodness from its circumstances, in respect, as it were, of its accidents. Fourth, it has goodness from its end, to which it is compared as to the cause of its goodness.
Ad primum ergo dicendum quod bonum ad quod aliquis respiciens operatur, non semper est verum bonum; sed quandoque verum bonum, et quandoque apparens. Et secundum hoc, ex fine sequitur actio mala.
Reply Obj. 1: The good in view of which one acts is not always a true good; but sometimes it is a true good, sometimes an apparent good. And in the latter event, an evil action results from the end in view.
Ad secundum dicendum quod, quamvis finis sit causa extrinseca, tamen debita proportio ad finem et relatio in ipsum, inhaeret actioni.
Reply Obj. 2: Although the end is an extrinsic cause, nevertheless due proportion to the end, and relation to the end, are inherent to the action.
Ad tertium dicendum quod nihil prohibet actioni habenti unam praedictarum bonitatum, deesse aliam. Et secundum hoc, contingit actionem quae est bona secundum speciem suam vel secundum circumstantias, ordinari ad finem malum, et e converso. Non tamen est actio bona simpliciter, nisi omnes bonitates concurrant, quia quilibet singularis defectus causat malum, bonum autem causatur ex integra causa, ut Dionysius dicit, IV cap. de Div. Nom.
Reply Obj. 3: Nothing hinders an action that is good in one of the way mentioned above, from lacking goodness in another way. And thus it may happen that an action which is good in its species or in its circumstances is ordained to an evil end, or vice versa. However, an action is not good simply, unless it is good in all those ways: since evil results from any single defect, but good from the complete cause, as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv).
Utrum actus morales differant specie secundum bonum et malum
Whether moral acts differ in species according to good and evil?
Ad quintum sic proceditur. Videtur quod actus morales non differant specie secundum bonum et malum. Bonum enim et malum in actibus invenitur conformiter rebus, ut dictum est. Sed in rebus bonum et malum non diversificant speciem, idem enim specie est homo bonus et malus. Ergo neque etiam bonum et malum in actibus diversificant speciem.
Objection 1: It would seem that good and evil in moral actions do not make a difference of species. For the existence of good and evil in actions is in conformity with their existence in things, as stated above (A1). But good and evil do not make a specific difference in things; for a good man is specifically the same as a bad man. Therefore neither do they make a specific difference in actions.
Praeterea, malum, cum sit privatio, est quoddam non ens. Sed non ens non potest esse differentia, secundum philosophum, in III Metaphys. Cum ergo differentia constituat speciem, videtur quod aliquis actus, ex hoc quod est malus, non constituatur in aliqua specie. Et ita bonum et malum non diversificant speciem humanorum actuum.
Obj. 2: Further, since evil is a privation, it is a non-being. But non-being cannot be a difference, according to the Philosopher (Metaph. iii, 3). Since therefore the difference constitutes the species, it seems that an action is not constituted in a species through being evil. Consequently good and evil do not diversify the species of human actions.
Praeterea, diversorum actuum secundum speciem, diversi sunt effectus. Sed idem specie effectus potest consequi ex actu bono et malo, sicut homo generatur ex adulterio, et ex matrimoniali concubitu. Ergo actus bonus et malus non differunt specie.
Obj. 3: Further, acts that differ in species produce different effects. But the same specific effect results from a good and from an evil action: thus a man is born of adulterous or of lawful wedlock. Therefore good and evil actions do not differ in species.
Praeterea, bonum et malum dicitur in actibus quandoque secundum circumstantiam, ut dictum est. Sed circumstantia, cum sit accidens, non dat speciem actui. Ergo actus humani non differunt specie propter bonitatem et malitiam.
Obj. 4: Further, actions are sometimes said to be good or bad from a circumstance, as stated above (A3). But since a circumstance is an accident, it does not give an action its species. Therefore human actions do not differ in species on account of their goodness or malice.
Sed contra, secundum philosophum, in II Ethic., similes habitus similes actus reddunt. Sed habitus bonus et malus differunt specie, ut liberalitas et prodigalitas. Ergo et actus bonus et malus differunt specie.
On the contrary, According to the Philosopher (Ethic ii. 1) like habits produce like actions. But a good and a bad habit differ in species, as liberality and prodigality. Therefore also good and bad actions differ in species.
Respondeo dicendum quod omnis actus speciem habet ex suo obiecto, sicut supra dictum est. Unde oportet quod aliqua differentia obiecti faciat diversitatem speciei in actibus. Est autem considerandum quod aliqua differentia obiecti facit differentiam speciei in actibus, secundum quod referuntur ad unum principium activum, quod non facit differentiam in actibus, secundum quod referuntur ad aliud principium activum. Quia nihil quod est per accidens, constituit speciem, sed solum quod est per se, potest autem aliqua differentia obiecti esse per se in comparatione ad unum activum principium, et per accidens in comparatione ad aliud; sicut cognoscere colorem et sonum, per se differunt per comparationem ad sensum, non autem per comparationem ad intellectum.
I answer that, Every action derives its species from its object, as stated above (A2). Hence it follows that a difference of object causes a difference of species in actions. Now, it must be observed that a difference of objects causes a difference of species in actions, according as the latter are referred to one active principle, which does not cause a difference in actions, according as they are referred to another active principle. Because nothing accidental constitutes a species, but only that which is essential; and a difference of object may be essential in reference to one active principle, and accidental in reference to another. Thus to know color and to know sound, differ essentially in reference to sense, but not in reference to the intellect.
In actibus autem humanis bonum et malum dicitur per comparationem ad rationem, quia, ut Dionysius dicit, IV cap. de Div. Nom., bonum hominis est secundum rationem esse, malum autem quod est praeter rationem. Unicuique enim rei est bonum quod convenit ei secundum suam formam; et malum quod est ei praeter ordinem suae formae. Patet ergo quod differentia boni et mali circa obiectum considerata, comparatur per se ad rationem, scilicet secundum quod obiectum est ei conveniens vel non conveniens. Dicuntur autem aliqui actus humani, vel morales, secundum quod sunt a ratione. Unde manifestum est quod bonum et malum diversificant speciem in actibus moralibus, differentiae enim per se diversificant speciem.
Now in human actions, good and evil are predicated in reference to the reason; because as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv), the good of man is to be in accordance with reason, and evil is to be against reason. For that is good for a thing which suits it in regard to its form; and evil, that which is against the order of its form. It is therefore evident that the difference of good and evil considered in reference to the object is an essential difference in relation to reason; that is to say, according as the object is suitable or unsuitable to reason. Now certain actions are called human or moral, inasmuch as they proceed from the reason. Consequently it is evident that good and evil diversify the species in human actions; since essential differences cause a difference of species.
Ad primum ergo dicendum quod etiam in rebus naturalibus bonum et malum, quod est secundum naturam et contra naturam, diversificant speciem naturae, corpus enim mortuum et corpus vivum non sunt eiusdem speciei. Et similiter bonum, inquantum est secundum rationem, et malum, inquantum est praeter rationem, diversificant speciem moris.
Reply Obj. 1: Even in natural things, good and evil, inasmuch as something is according to nature, and something against nature, diversify the natural species; for a dead body and a living body are not of the same species. In like manner, good, inasmuch as it is in accord with reason, and evil, inasmuch as it is against reason, diversify the moral species.
Ad secundum dicendum quod malum importat privationem non absolutam, sed consequentem talem potentiam. Dicitur enim malus actus secundum suam speciem, non ex eo quod nullum habeat obiectum; sed quia habet obiectum non conveniens rationi, sicut tollere aliena. Unde inquantum obiectum est aliquid positive, potest constituere speciem mali actus.
Reply Obj. 2: Evil implies privation, not absolute, but affecting some potentiality. For an action is said to be evil in its species, not because it has no object at all; but because it has an object in disaccord with reason, for instance, to appropriate another’s property. Wherefore insofar as the object is something positive, it can constitute the species of an evil act.
Ad tertium dicendum quod actus coniugalis et adulterium, secundum quod comparantur ad rationem, differunt specie, et habent effectus specie differentes, quia unum eorum meretur laudem et praemium, aliud vituperium et poenam. Sed secundum quod comparantur ad potentiam generativam, non differunt specie. Et sic habent unum effectum secundum speciem.
Reply Obj. 3: The conjugal act and adultery, as compared to reason, differ specifically and have effects specifically different; because the other deserves praise and reward, the other, blame and punishment. But as compared to the generative power, they do not differ in species; and thus they have one specific effect.
Ad quartum dicendum quod circumstantia quandoque sumitur ut differentia essentialis obiecti, secundum quod ad rationem comparatur, et tunc potest dare speciem actui morali. Et hoc oportet esse, quandocumque circumstantia transmutat actum de bonitate in malitiam, non enim circumstantia faceret actum malum, nisi per hoc quod rationi repugnat.
Reply Obj. 4: A circumstance is sometimes taken as the essential difference of the object, as compared to reason; and then it can specify a moral act. And it must needs be so whenever a circumstance transforms an action from good to evil; for a circumstance would not make an action evil, except through being repugnant to reason.
Utrum bonum et malum quod est ex fine, diversificent speciem in actibus
Whether an action has the species of good or evil from its end?
Ad sextum sic proceditur. Videtur quod bonum et malum quod est ex fine, non diversificent speciem in actibus. Actus enim habent speciem ex obiecto. Sed finis est praeter rationem obiecti. Ergo bonum et malum quod est ex fine, non diversificant speciem actus.
Objection 1: It would seem that the good and evil which are from the end do not diversify the species of actions. For actions derive their species from the object. But the end is altogether apart from the object. Therefore the good and evil which are from the end do not diversify the species of an action.
Praeterea, id quod est per accidens, non constituit speciem, ut dictum est. Sed accidit alicui actui quod ordinetur ad aliquem finem; sicut quod aliquis det eleemosynam propter inanem gloriam. Ergo secundum bonum et malum quod est ex fine, non diversificantur actus secundum speciem.
Obj. 2: Further, that which is accidental does not constitute the species, as stated above (A5). But it is accidental to an action to be ordained to some particular end; for instance, to give alms from vainglory. Therefore actions are not diversified as to species, according to the good and evil which are from the end.
Praeterea, diversi actus secundum speciem, ad unum finem ordinari possunt, sicut ad finem inanis gloriae ordinari possunt actus diversarum virtutum, et diversorum vitiorum. Non ergo bonum et malum quod accipitur secundum finem, diversificat speciem actuum.
Obj. 3: Further, acts that differ in species, can be ordained to the same end: thus to the end of vainglory, actions of various virtues and vices can be ordained. Therefore the good and evil which are taken from the end, do not diversify the species of action.
Sed contra est quod supra ostensum est, quod actus humani habent speciem a fine. Ergo bonum et malum quod accipitur secundum finem, diversificat speciem actuum.
On the contrary, It has been shown above (Q1, A3) that human actions derive their species from the end. Therefore good and evil in respect of the end diversify the species of actions.
Respondeo dicendum quod aliqui actus dicuntur humani, inquantum sunt voluntarii, sicut supra dictum est. In actu autem voluntario invenitur duplex actus, scilicet actus interior voluntatis, et actus exterior, et uterque horum actuum habet suum obiectum. Finis autem proprie est obiectum interioris actus voluntarii, id autem circa quod est actio exterior, est obiectum eius. Sicut igitur actus exterior accipit speciem ab obiecto circa quod est; ita actus interior voluntatis accipit speciem a fine, sicut a proprio obiecto.
I answer that, Certain actions are called human, inasmuch as they are voluntary, as stated above (Q1, A1). Now, in a voluntary action, there is a twofold action, viz., the interior action of the will, and the external action: and each of these actions has its object. The end is properly the object of the interior act of the will: while the object of the external action, is that on which the action is brought to bear. Therefore just as the external action takes its species from the object on which it bears; so the interior act of the will takes its species from the end, as from its own proper object.
Ita autem quod est ex parte voluntatis, se habet ut formale ad id quod est ex parte exterioris actus, quia voluntas utitur membris ad agendum, sicut instrumentis; neque actus exteriores habent rationem moralitatis, nisi inquantum sunt voluntarii. Et ideo actus humani species formaliter consideratur secundum finem, materialiter autem secundum obiectum exterioris actus. Unde philosophus dicit, in V Ethic., quod ille qui furatur ut committat adulterium, est, per se loquendo, magis adulter quam fur.
Now that which is on the part of the will is formal in regard to that which is on the part of the external action: because the will uses the limbs to act as instruments; nor have external actions any measure of morality, save insofar as they are voluntary. Consequently the species of a human act is considered formally with regard to the end, but materially with regard to the object of the external action. Hence the Philosopher says (Ethic. v, 2) that he who steals that he may commit adultery, is strictly speaking, more adulterer than thief.
Ad primum ergo dicendum quod etiam finis habet rationem obiecti, ut dictum est.
Reply Obj. 1: The end also has the character of an object, as stated above.
Ad secundum dicendum quod ordinari ad talem finem, etsi accidat exteriori actui, non tamen accidit actui interiori voluntatis, qui comparatur ad exteriorem sicut formale ad materiale.
Reply Obj. 2: Although it is accidental to the external action to be ordained to some particular end, it is not accidental to the interior act of the will, which act is compared to the external act, as form to matter.
Ad tertium dicendum quod quando multi actus specie differentes ordinantur ad unum finem, est quidem diversitas speciei ex parte exteriorum actuum; sed unitas speciei ex parte actus interioris.
Reply Obj. 3: When many actions, differing in species, are ordained to the same end, there is indeed a diversity of species on the part of the external actions; but unity of species on the part of the internal action.
Utrum species bonitatis quae est ex fine, contineatur sub specie bonitatis quae est ex obiecto, sicut species sub genere
Whether the species derived from the end is contained under the species derived from the object, as under its genus?
Ad septimum sic proceditur. Videtur quod species bonitatis quae est ex fine, contineatur sub specie bonitatis quae est ex obiecto, sicut species sub genere, puta cum aliquis vult furari ut det eleemosynam. Actus enim habet speciem ex obiecto, ut dictum est. Sed impossibile est quod aliquid contineatur in aliqua alia specie, quae sub propria specie non continetur, quia idem non potest esse in diversis speciebus non subalternis. Ergo species quae est ex fine, continetur sub specie quae est ex obiecto.
Objection 1: It would seem that the species of goodness derived from the end is contained under the species of goodness derived from the object, as a species is contained under its genus; for instance, when a man commits a theft in order to give alms. For an action takes its species from its object, as stated above (AA2,6). But it is impossible for a thing to be contained under another species, if this species be not contained under the proper species of that thing; because the same thing cannot be contained in different species that are not subordinate to one another. Therefore the species which is taken from the end, is contained under the species which is taken from the object.
Praeterea, semper ultima differentia constituit speciem specialissimam. Sed differentia quae est ex fine, videtur esse posterior quam differentia quae est ex obiecto, quia finis habet rationem ultimi. Ergo species quae est ex fine, continetur sub specie quae est ex obiecto, sicut species specialissima.
Obj. 2: Further, the last difference always constitutes the most specific species. But the difference derived from the end seems to come after the difference derived from the object: because the end is something last. Therefore the species derived from the end, is contained under the species derived from the object, as its most specific species.
Praeterea, quanto aliqua differentia est magis formalis, tanto magis est specialis, quia differentia comparatur ad genus ut forma ad materiam. Sed species quae est ex fine, est formalior ea quae est ex obiecto, ut dictum est. Ergo species quae est ex fine, continetur sub specie quae est ex obiecto, sicut species specialissima sub genere subalterno.
Obj. 3: Further, the more formal a difference is, the more specific it is: because difference is compared to genus, as form to matter. But the species derived from the end, is more formal than that which is derived from the object, as stated above (A6). Therefore the species derived from the end is contained under the species derived from the object, as the most specific species is contained under the subaltern genus.
Sed contra, cuiuslibet generis sunt determinatae differentiae. Sed actus eiusdem speciei ex parte obiecti, potest ad infinitos fines ordinari, puta furtum ad infinita bona vel mala. Ergo species quae est ex fine, non continetur sub specie quae est ex obiecto, sicut sub genere.
On the contrary, Each genus has its determinate differences. But an action of one same species on the part of its object, can be ordained to an infinite number of ends: for instance, theft can be ordained to an infinite number of good and bad ends. Therefore the species derived from the end is not contained under the species derived from the object, as under its genus.
Respondeo dicendum quod obiectum exterioris actus dupliciter potest se habere ad finem voluntatis, uno modo, sicut per se ordinatum ad ipsum, sicut bene pugnare per se ordinatur ad victoriam; alio modo, per accidens, sicut accipere rem alienam per accidens ordinatur ad dandum eleemosynam. Oportet autem, ut philosophus dicit in VII Metaphys., quod differentiae dividentes aliquod genus, et constituentes speciem illius generis, per se dividant illud. Si autem per accidens, non recte procedit divisio, puta si quis dicat, animalium aliud rationale, aliud irrationale; et animalium irrationalium aliud alatum, aliud non alatum, alatum enim et non alatum non sunt per se determinativa eius quod est irrationale. Oportet autem sic dividere, animalium aliud habens pedes, aliud non habens pedes; et habentium pedes, aliud habet duos, aliud quatuor, aliud multos, haec enim per se determinant priorem differentiam. Sic igitur quando obiectum non est per se ordinatum ad finem, differentia specifica quae est ex obiecto, non est per se determinativa eius quae est ex fine, nec e converso. Unde una istarum specierum non est sub alia, sed tunc actus moralis est sub duabus speciebus quasi disparatis. Unde dicimus quod ille qui furatur ut moechetur, committit duas malitias in uno actu. Si vero obiectum per se ordinetur ad finem, una dictarum differentiarum est per se determinativa alterius. Unde una istarum specierum continebitur sub altera.
I answer that, The object of the external act can stand in a twofold relation to the end of the will: first, as being of itself ordained thereto; thus to fight well is of itself ordained to victory; second, as being ordained thereto accidentally; thus to take what belongs to another is ordained accidentally to the giving of alms. Now the differences that divide a genus, and constitute the species of that genus, must, as the Philosopher says (Metaph. vii, 12), divide that genus essentially: and if they divide it accidentally, the division is incorrect: as, if one were to say: Animals are divided into rational and irrational; and the irrational into animals with wings, and animals without wings; for winged and wingless are not essential determinations of the irrational being. But the following division would be correct: Some animals have feet, some have no feet: and of those that have feet, some have two feet, some four, some many: because the latter division is an essential determination of the former. Accordingly when the object is not of itself ordained to the end, the specific difference derived from the object is not an essential determination of the species derived from the end, nor is the reverse the case. Wherefore one of these species is not under the other; but then the moral action is contained under two species that are disparate, as it were. Consequently we say that he that commits theft for the sake of adultery, is guilty of a twofold malice in one action. On the other hand, if the object be of itself ordained to the end, one of these differences is an essential determination of the other. Wherefore one of these species will be contained under the other.
Considerandum autem restat quae sub qua. Ad cuius evidentiam, primo considerandum est quod quanto aliqua differentia sumitur a forma magis particulari, tanto magis est specifica. Secundo, quod quanto agens est magis universale, tanto ex eo est forma magis universalis. Tertio, quod quanto aliquis finis est posterior, tanto respondet agenti universaliori, sicut victoria, quae est ultimus finis exercitus, est finis intentus a summo duce; ordinatio autem huius aciei vel illius, est finis intentus ab aliquo inferiorum ducum. Et ex istis sequitur quod differentia specifica quae est ex fine, est magis generalis; et differentia quae est ex obiecto per se ad talem finem ordinato, est specifica respectu eius. Voluntas enim, cuius proprium obiectum est finis, est universale motivum respectu omnium potentiarum animae, quarum propria obiecta sunt obiecta particularium actuum.
It remains to be considered which of the two is contained under the other. In order to make this clear, we must first of all observe that the more particular the form is from which a difference is taken, the more specific is the difference. Second, that the more universal an agent is, the more universal a form does it cause. Third, that the more remote an end is, the more universal the agent to which it corresponds; thus victory, which is the last end of the army, is the end intended by the commander in chief; while the right ordering of this or that regiment is the end intended by one of the lower officers. From all this it follows that the specific difference derived from the end, is more general; and that the difference derived from an object which of itself is ordained to that end, is a specific difference in relation to the former. For the will, the proper object of which is the end, is the universal mover in respect of all the powers of the soul, the proper objects of which are the objects of their particular acts.