Articulus 8 Article 8 Utrum ignorantia causet involuntarium Whether ignorance causes involuntariness? 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. Obj. 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. Obj. 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 insofar as it deprives one of knowledge, which is a necessary condition of voluntariness, as was declared above (A1). 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, insofar as ignorance itself is voluntary: and this happens in two ways, in accordance with the two aforesaid modes of voluntary (A3). 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. Second, 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 (A3). 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. Quaestio 7 Question 7 De circumstantiis humanorum actuum Of the Circumstances of Human Acts Deinde considerandum est de circumstantiis humanorum actuum. Et circa hoc quaeruntur quatuor. We must now consider the circumstances of human acts: under which head there are four points of inquiry: Primo, quid sit circumstantia. (1) What is a circumstance? Secundo, utrum circumstantiae sint circa humanos actus attendendae a theologo. (2) Whether a theologian should take note of the circumstances of human acts? Tertio, quot sunt circumstantiae. (3) How many circumstances are there? Quarto, quae sunt in eis principaliores. (4) Which are the most important of them? Articulus 1 Article 1 Utrum circumstantia sit accidens actus humani Whether a circumstance is an accident of a human act? Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod circumstantia non sit accidens actus humani. Dicit enim Tullius, in rhetoricis, quod circumstantia est per quam argumentationi auctoritatem et firmamentum adiungit oratio. Sed oratio dat firmamentum argumentationi praecipue ab his quae sunt de substantia rei, ut definitio, genus, species, et alia huiusmodi; a quibus etiam Tullius oratorem argumentari docet. Ergo circumstantia non est accidens humani actus. Objection 1: It would seem that a circumstance is not an accident of a human act. For Tully says (De Invent. Rhetor. i) that a circumstance is that from which an orator adds authority and strength to his argument. But oratorical arguments are derived principally from things pertaining to the essence of a thing, such as the definition, the genus, the species, and the like, from which also Tully declares that an orator should draw his arguments. Therefore a circumstance is not an accident of a human act. Praeterea, accidentis proprium est inesse. Quod autem circumstat, non inest, sed magis est extra. Ergo circumstantiae non sunt accidentia humanorum actuum. Obj. 2: Further, to be in is proper to an accident. But that which surrounds is rather out than in. Therefore the circumstances are not accidents of human acts. Praeterea, accidentis non est accidens. Sed ipsi humani actus sunt quaedam accidentia. Non ergo circumstantiae sunt accidentia actuum. Obj. 3: Further, an accident has no accident. But human acts themselves are accidents. Therefore the circumstances are not accidents of acts. Sed contra, particulares conditiones cuiuslibet rei singularis dicuntur accidentia individuantia ipsam. Sed philosophus, in III Ethic., circumstantias nominat particularia, idest particulares singulorum actuum conditiones. Ergo circumstantiae sunt accidentia individualia humanorum actuum. On the contrary, The particular conditions of any singular thing are called its individuating accidents. But the Philosopher (Ethic. iii, 1) calls the circumstances particular things, i.e., the particular conditions of each act. Therefore the circumstances are individual accidents of human acts. Respondeo dicendum quod, quia nomina, secundum philosophum, sunt signa intellectuum, necesse est quod secundum processum intellectivae cognitionis, sit etiam nominationis processus. Procedit autem nostra cognitio intellectualis a notioribus ad minus nota. Et ideo apud nos a notioribus nomina transferuntur ad significandum res minus notas. Et inde est quod, sicut dicitur in X Metaphys., ab his quae sunt secundum locum, processit nomen distantiae ad omnia contraria, et similiter nominibus pertinentibus ad motum localem, utimur ad significandum alios motus, eo quod corpora, quae loco circumscribuntur, sunt maxime nobis nota. Et inde est quod nomen circumstantiae ab his quae in loco sunt, derivatur ad actus humanos. I answer that, Since, according to the Philosopher (Peri Herm. i), words are the signs of what we understand, it must needs be that in naming things we follow the process of intellectual knowledge. Now our intellectual knowledge proceeds from the better known to the less known. Accordingly with us, names of more obvious things are transferred so as to signify things less obvious: and hence it is that, as stated in Metaph. x, 4, the notion of distance has been transferred from things that are apart locally, to all kinds of opposition: and in like manner words that signify local movement are employed to designate all other movements, because bodies which are circumscribed by place, are best known to us. And hence it is that the word circumstance has passed from located things to human acts. Dicitur autem in localibus aliquid circumstare, quod est quidem extrinsecum a re, tamen attingit ipsam, vel appropinquat ei secundum locum. Et ideo quaecumque conditiones sunt extra substantiam actus, et tamen attingunt aliquo modo actum humanum, circumstantiae dicuntur. Quod autem est extra substantiam rei ad rem ipsam pertinens, accidens eius dicitur. Unde circumstantiae actuum humanorum accidentia eorum dicenda sunt. Now in things located, that is said to surround something, which is outside it, but touches it, or is placed near it. Accordingly, whatever conditions are outside the substance of an act, and yet in some way touch the human act, are called circumstances. Now what is outside a thing’s substance, while it belongs to that thing, is called its accident. Wherefore the circumstances of human acts should be called their accidents. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod oratio quidem dat firmamentum argumentationi, primo ex substantia actus, secundario vero, ex his quae circumstant actum. Sicut primo accusabilis redditur aliquis ex hoc quod homicidium fecit, secundario vero, ex hoc quod dolo fecit, vel propter lucrum, vel in tempore aut loco sacro, aut aliquid aliud huiusmodi. Et ideo signanter dicit quod per circumstantiam oratio argumentationi firmamentum adiungit, quasi secundario. Reply Obj. 1: The orator gives strength to his argument, in the first place, from the substance of the act; and second, from the circumstances of the act. Thus a man becomes indictable, first, through being guilty of murder; second, through having done it fraudulently, or from motives of greed or at a holy time or place, and so forth. And so in the passage quoted, it is said pointedly that the orator adds strength to his argument, as though this were something secondary. Ad secundum dicendum quod aliquid dicitur accidens alicuius dupliciter. Uno modo, quia inest ei, sicut album dicitur accidens Socratis. Alio modo quia est simul cum eo in eodem subiecto, sicut dicitur quod album accidit musico, inquantum conveniunt, et quodammodo se contingunt, in uno subiecto. Et per hunc modum dicuntur circumstantiae accidentia actuum. Reply Obj. 2: A thing is said to be an accident of something in two ways. First, from being in that thing: thus, whiteness is said to be an accident of Socrates. Second, because it is together with that thing in the same subject: thus, whiteness is an accident of the art of music, inasmuch as they meet in the same subject, so as to touch one another, as it were. And in this sense circumstances are said to be the accidents of human acts. Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, accidens dicitur accidenti accidere propter convenientiam in subiecto. Sed hoc contingit dupliciter. Uno modo, secundum quod duo accidentia comparantur ad unum subiectum absque aliquo ordine, sicut album et musicum ad Socratem. Alio modo, cum aliquo ordine, puta quia subiectum recipit unum accidens alio mediante, sicut corpus recipit colorem mediante superficie. Et sic unum accidens dicitur etiam alteri inesse, dicimus enim colorem esse in superficie. Reply Obj. 3: As stated above (ad 2), an accident is said to be the accident of an accident, from the fact that they meet in the same subject. But this happens in two ways. First, insofar as two accidents are both related to the same subject, without any relation to one another; as whiteness and the art of music in Socrates. Second, when such accidents are related to one another; as when the subject receives one accident by means of the other; for instance, a body receives color by means of its surface. And thus also is one accident said to be in another; for we speak of color as being in the surface. Utroque autem modo circumstantiae se habent ad actus. Nam aliquae circumstantiae ordinatae ad actum, pertinent ad agentem non mediante actu, puta locus et conditio personae, aliquae vero mediante ipso actu, sicut modus agendi. Accordingly, circumstances are related to acts in both these ways. For some circumstances that have a relation to acts, belong to the agent otherwise than through the act; as place and condition of person; whereas others belong to the agent by reason of the act, as the manner in which the act is done. Articulus 2 Article 2 Utrum circumstantiae humanorum actuum sint considerandae a theologo Whether theologians should take note of the circumstances of human acts? Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod circumstantiae humanorum actuum non sint considerandae a theologo. Non enim considerantur a theologo actus humani, nisi secundum quod sunt aliquales, idest boni vel mali. Sed circumstantiae non videntur posse facere actus aliquales, quia nihil qualificatur, formaliter loquendo, ab eo quod est extra ipsum, sed ab eo quod in ipso est. Ergo circumstantiae actuum non sunt a theologo considerandae. Objection 1: It would seem that theologians should not take note of the circumstances of human acts. Because theologians do not consider human acts otherwise than according to their quality of good or evil. But it seems that circumstances cannot give quality to human acts; for a thing is never qualified, formally speaking, by that which is outside it; but by that which is in it. Therefore theologians should not take note of the circumstances of acts. Praeterea, circumstantiae sunt accidentia actuum. Sed uni infinita accidunt, et ideo, ut dicitur in VI Metaphys., nulla ars vel scientia est circa ens per accidens, nisi sola sophistica. Ergo theologos non habet considerare circumstantias humanorum actuum. Obj. 2: Further, circumstances are the accidents of acts. But one thing may be subject to an infinity of accidents; hence the Philosopher says (Metaph. vi, 2) that no art or science considers accidental being, except only the art of sophistry. Therefore the theologian has not to consider circumstances. Praeterea, circumstantiarum consideratio pertinet ad rhetorem. Rhetorica autem non est pars theologiae. Ergo consideratio circumstantiarum non pertinet ad theologum. Obj. 3: Further, the consideration of circumstances belongs to the orator. But oratory is not a part of theology. Therefore it is not a theologian’s business to consider circumstances. Sed contra, ignorantia circumstantiarum causat involuntarium, ut Damascenus et Gregorius Nyssenus dicunt. Sed involuntarium excusat a culpa, cuius consideratio pertinet ad theologum. Ergo et consideratio circumstantiarum ad theologum pertinet. On the contrary, Ignorance of circumstances causes an act to be involuntary, according to Damascene (De Fide Orth. ii, 24) and Gregory of Nyssa. But involuntariness excuses from sin, the consideration of which belongs to the theologian. Therefore circumstances also should be considered by the theologian. Respondeo dicendum quod circumstantiae pertinent ad considerationem theologi triplici ratione. Primo quidem, quia theologus considerat actus humanos secundum quod per eos homo ad beatitudinem ordinatur. Omne autem quod ordinatur ad finem, oportet esse proportionatum fini. Actus autem proportionantur fini secundum commensurationem quandam, quae fit per debitas circumstantias. Unde consideratio circumstantiarum ad theologum pertinet. Secundo, quia theologus considerat actus humanos secundum quod in eis invenitur bonum et malum, et melius et peius, et hoc diversificatur secundum circumstantias, ut infra patebit. Tertio, quia theologus considerat actus humanos secundum quod sunt meritorii vel demeritorii, quod convenit actibus humanis; ad quod requiritur quod sint voluntarii. Actus autem humanus iudicatur voluntarius vel involuntarius, secundum cognitionem vel ignorantiam circumstantiarum, ut dictum est. Et ideo consideratio circumstantiarum pertinet ad theologum. I answer that, Circumstances come under the consideration of the theologian, for a threefold reason. First, because the theologian considers human acts, inasmuch as man is thereby directed to happiness. Now, everything that is directed to an end should be proportionate to that end. But acts are made proportionate to an end by means of a certain commensurateness, which results from the due circumstances. Hence the theologian has to consider the circumstances. Second, because the theologian considers human acts according as they are found to be good or evil, better or worse: and this diversity depends on circumstances, as we shall see further on (Q18, A10–11; Q73, A7). Third, because the theologian considers human acts under the aspect of merit and demerit, which is proper to human acts; and for this it is requisite that they be voluntary. Now a human act is deemed to be voluntary or involuntary, according to knowledge or ignorance of circumstances, as stated above (Q6, A8). Therefore the theologian has to consider circumstances. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod bonum ordinatum ad finem dicitur utile, quod importat relationem quandam, unde philosophus dicit, in I Ethic., quod in ad aliquid bonum est utile. In his autem quae ad aliquid dicuntur, denominatur aliquid non solum ab eo quod inest, sed etiam ab eo quod extrinsecus adiacet, ut patet in dextro et sinistro, aequali et inaequali, et similibus. Et ideo, cum bonitas actuum sit inquantum sunt utiles ad finem, nihil prohibet eos bonos vel malos dici secundum proportionem ad aliqua quae exterius adiacent. Reply Obj. 1: Good directed to the end is said to be useful; and this implies some kind of relation: wherefore the Philosopher says (Ethic. i, 6) that the good in the genus ‘relation’ is the useful. Now, in the genus relation a thing is denominated not only according to that which is inherent in the thing, but also according to that which is extrinsic to it: as may be seen in the expressions right and left, equal and unequal, and such like. Accordingly, since the goodness of acts consists in their utility to the end, nothing hinders their being called good or bad according to their proportion to extrinsic things that are adjacent to them. Ad secundum dicendum quod accidentia quae omnino per accidens se habent, relinquuntur ab omni arte, propter eorum incertitudinem et infinitatem. Sed talia accidentia non habent rationem circumstantiae, quia, ut dictum est, sic circumstantiae sunt extra actum, quod tamen actum aliquo modo contingunt, ordinatae ad ipsum. Accidentia autem per se cadunt sub arte. Reply Obj. 2: Accidents which are altogether accidental are neglected by every art, by reason of their uncertainty and infinity. But such like accidents are not what we call circumstances; because circumstances although, as stated above (A1), they are extrinsic to the act, nevertheless are in a kind of contact with it, by being related to it. Proper accidents, however, come under the consideration of art.