This blog post examines how Thomas Aquinas thought about morality and happiness and how his ideas have influenced ethical inquiry today.

 

Introduction

Thomas Aquinas is a figure who perfected medieval scholastic philosophy and is considered, along with Anselm, to be a master of medieval philosophy. In particular, he is a philosopher who often comes to mind when the keyword “proof of the existence of God” is mentioned. Of course, there is only one master of medieval philosophy, but there is a reason why I chose Thomas Aquinas as the subject. Western medieval philosophy is often so blurred between philosophy and theology that it cannot be explained without theology. However, Aquinas is considered to have clearly distinguished theology and philosophy better than anyone else at the time. Therefore, I was confident that I would be able to fully grasp his ideas, which are comprehensive and unbiased. The following article is a brief summary of his vast ideas, even if limited to the scope of ethics.

 

Characteristics of Thomas Aquinas’ Ethics

His ethical thought includes numerous concepts and examples, but I believe that the main characteristics of his ethical thought can be summarized in four points. First, his ethics deals with the metaphysical analysis of human behavior. This is due to the fact that Aquinas studied metaphysics so systematically that he established the concept of habitus (habitus) by accepting and expanding Aristotle’s concepts of reality and potentiality. Second, his ethics understands human actions as personality. This means that the basis of understanding humans has shifted from their sociality to their personality. I believe that his ideological influence was not insignificant in the Western world’s transition from the Middle Ages to the modern era, when individuals began to be viewed not simply as members of society but as complete individuals with their own unique personalities. Third, he distinguishes between actions based on human nature and intentional actions based on will. Aquinas called actions that are in accordance with human nature “necessary actions” and actions that are intended by will “voluntary actions,” which will be discussed in more detail later. Fourth, he reveals the meaning of human actions in light of the ultimate human goal of happiness. In other words, all human actions are intended to pursue metaphysical happiness, such as self-fulfillment. This means that his ethics is both teleological and happiness-oriented. Now, let’s take a closer look at some of the topics that Thomas Aquinas addressed from this perspective.

 

Thomas Aquinas’ “Intention” and “Voluntary Action”

One of the notable features of Thomas Aquinas’s ethics is that he distinguished between human acts and human acts. He classified the difference between the former and the latter according to the presence or absence of the intervention of will and reason. Aquinas called acts in which humans are the subjects due to the intervention of reason and will, which are spiritual functions, human acts (the latter). However, human actions (electronic) are not necessarily voluntary actions. For example, sleeping or eating are voluntary actions. In short, voluntary actions are a necessary condition for human actions, but not a sufficient condition. However, this is a concept that only applies to humans who can understand and fulfill the purpose of the action themselves. This is a higher concept than the act of animals and plants acting spontaneously without fully understanding the purpose of their actions.
In his analysis of human behavior, Aquinas introduces the important concept of “intention.” Aquinas argued that in human behavior, in addition to internal principles such as will and intellect, the intention of the actor and the consequences of the act are also important. Intention is, in other words, the act of trying to realize the purpose of the act. For Aquinas, establishing the concept of intention was essential to fill the gap between Aristotle’s spontaneity and purpose. The types of actions are broadly divided into actions that are themselves the purpose, actions that are a means to an end, and actions that are unavoidable and must be done. In the second case, it can be seen that there is an intention to achieve the purpose through the means. Not all voluntary actions have an intention, and this is the case with the third example. Therefore, intention is a broader concept than purpose but narrower than spontaneity, and it bridges the gap between the two.

 

Moral evaluation and judgment of right and wrong

According to Aquinas’s logic, which introduced the concept of intention, human actions can be divided into three categories: good actions, evil actions, and actions that are neither good nor evil. These actions have something in common in that they are performed with a certain purpose in a certain situation. However, in order to be morally good, an action must be performed with the intention of virtue. Aquinas supported Abelard’s view that goodness can be derived from the good will that accompanies good actions. However, unlike Abelard, who argued that “acts without intent are value-neutral and cannot be the basis for judging good and evil,” Aquinas said that there are acts that can never be good even with good intentions. For example, if an agent follows a belief that is contrary to divine law, such as “adultery is not a sin,” it cannot be a good act. In summary, while Avellar’s view of human acts focused solely on intention, Aquinas saw the importance of both internal acts (intention) and external acts (what Avellar described as value-neutral) as equal.
Aquinas said that even good intentions can have bad results. First, this is because the actor had a bad conscience. The conscience is not universal practical reason, but the judgment of the actor’s own practical reason, which can sometimes be incorrect. On the other hand, if an actor has an incorrect conscience, he or she should be held morally responsible because the act that led to the actor having such a conscience was voluntary, he argues. Second, the evilness of the means accompanying the intention to realize good. For example, the intention to steal bread to save a hungry child cannot be considered good because the means are evil, and the act that follows will also be evil.
In conclusion, the morality of an act can be assessed in terms of the act’s spontaneity, i.e. whether or not it is done in accordance with or against one’s conscience; the spontaneity of the act itself, i.e. whether or not the actor has a correct or incorrect conscience at the time of the act; and the act itself, its means, and its consequences.

 

Discussion of evil

From the perspective of medieval theology, evil is defined as “lack of good.” All beings in the world are given existence by God, and since they share God’s goodness, the claim that evil itself exists as an entity contradicts the logic that God only gives goodness to his creatures. Therefore, evil was not given existence and attributes, but the question “Does evil exist?” can only be answered “yes” as a lack of good. Theologians have explained that evil is the result of humans abusing the free will given to them by God, and have maintained the logic that God did not create the concept of evil. Aquinas’s argument is not much different. He also considered evil to be a state in which good is removed, that is, a state without good. However, he did not consider that the absence of all good would lead to evil. The reason for this is that some of the things we perceive as lacking can acquire features that are in line with nature. Furthermore, Aquinas presented three reasons why evil cannot be a being. Let’s take a closer look at each of them.

1. The Necessity of Existents: All natural things are created from the universal first cause of existence, and they also arise from the universal first good. Since only individual goods can be derived from the universal good, if evil exists, it would be an incidental thing attached to individual goods. Therefore, evil cannot be a necessary being because it does not have necessity.

2. The Perspective of Purpose: All beings in the world seek goodness, and therefore goodness is worthy of being desired as a purpose. Things exist only because they desire a purpose, and evil has neither acts nor movements.

3. The position of the famous theory: Every being in the world has one antithesis. Existence itself has the most grounds for being desired, so something good is worth being desired, and existence is good. Therefore, evil, which is universally opposed to good, is opposed to existence, and what is opposed to existence cannot exist.

Aquinas identified ignorance, weakness, and malice as the causes of evil. According to him, lack of knowledge, or ignorance, can be classified into “unsurmountable ignorance,” “ignorance that accompanies an act,” and “ignorance as a result of negligence,” in relation to will. Unsurmountable ignorance occurs when the conditions of an act are accidental, and thus the act becomes involuntary, which gives the act a justification that can be forgiven even if it is a bad act. The ignorance that accompanies an act is ignorance that comes from the fact that the actor’s actions were planned, but the progress of the act was not accurately predicted, and ignorance as a result of negligence is ignorance that occurs when the actor consciously tries to ignore the consequences of the act. Aquinas, while reflecting on this ignorance, discusses whether ignorance can be the cause of wrongdoing and whether ignorance is indeed a sin. He believed that ignorance cannot be completely ruled out as being intentional, and if ignorance is intentional, for example, if the person committing the sin is aware of at least one of the grounds for the sin and still commits the sin, it is concluded that it is a deliberate sin. Furthermore, ignorance of the situation is not a wrong in itself, but it can be the cause of wrongdoing.
Weakness, which is considered the cause of evil, is the weakness of the soul. The wrongdoing that stems from the weakness of the soul comes from the sensual tendency expressed as “passion.” Unlike the emotional excitement of animals, human passion is induced by the mind and may involve specific physical changes. For example, the change of the soul can paralyze the reason. Aquinas argued that in this regard, humans are sometimes influenced by passion before the operation of reason.
The concept of passion does not necessarily lead to negative consequences before the act, and thus it can be said to have two sides. According to Aquinas, good will and reason strengthen positive passion, which can lead to greater good. This is a position that views passion as an external principle of the will. Although the inherent movement of the will (internal principle) has a greater influence on the judgment of the morality of an act, even if sin originates from an external act, if the actor follows it, the will itself already contains sin before the act. This is completely consistent with what Aquinas argued before Abelard. In conclusion, the concept of passion alone cannot be the subject of judgment of good and evil, and it can only become good or evil in relation to reason.
Among the three causes of evil, the sin committed by the operation of malice is considered to be more evil than other sins under all other circumstances. This is because, first, the sin in the will is internal to the human being, and second, the sin caused by malice is different from the sin that arises from passion, as it involves habit. Crucially, the sin caused by malice is committed “intentionally” and with the expectation of the outcome of the act, even though it is chosen by oneself.

 

Happiness

So far, we have discussed the human will, voluntary action, moral judgment, and good and evil in Thomas Aquinas. It is not an exaggeration to say that these discussions began with the fact that humans ultimately have the intention to achieve the most important goal, which is happiness. In fact, the nature and purpose of each virtue are evaluated in the light of this goal of human existence. So, what was Aquinas’ view on happiness? First of all, as shown in his proof of the existence of God, he believed that God exists as the foundation of all creatures in the world. He also argued that beings with intelligence reflect God in a special way, and that they feel ultimate fulfillment in acts such as grasping and contemplating God. This is where the concept of beatitude comes in. This is a continuation of Aristotle’s ideas, and it represents the ultimate goal and the highest good of all human mental entities. For Aquinas, beatitude is a state of perfect goodness, a state in which no evil can exist, and it is a state of recognizing God. Humans are beings who innately desire to reach perfect happiness, or beatitude. But paradoxically, beatitude is a utopian thing that cannot be reached in reality. If beatitude is the absolute good, then reaching it means the exclusion of all evil, which is impossible in reality.
Through the concrete establishment of the concept of beatitude, Aquinas derived the logic that the attainment of human happiness, or beatitude, cannot be obtained from external goods, including health and physical pleasure. This is because the desire to pursue these things is not the highest good and therefore cannot be good in itself. However, he argued that only the goodness of the soul can be the path to bliss, as humans can approach God through mental activities such as meditation. According to his logic, humans can only reach ultimate happiness through a sense of self-sufficiency that comes from the mind (inside).

 

Conclusion

So far, we have looked at the main keywords and Thomas Aquinas’s ideas in ethics. Although I have intentionally arranged the keywords in a certain order, even those who have no knowledge of his ideas and philosophy will eventually notice that they are connected to the long-standing and ongoing search for ultimate happiness. I, too, was about to lose my way if I had jumped into the sea of knowledge of this great saint with only my shallow knowledge, but I was able to come to a conclusion. I think the purpose of philosophy is to ultimately explore the world we live in, to give identity to the existence of this world, including humans, and to find answers to the direction humans should go from these. In particular, by reading Thomas Aquinas’s thoughts, I was able to indirectly experience the ancient sages’ views on happiness, a topic I have always been concerned about, and I was able to spend time thinking about the direction of a human life with true reason in relation to his concept of reason.
Although I did not mention it in the introduction, the reason I chose ethics over countless other topics, including metaphysics and theology, is that I believe that the importance of moral concepts and ethics is still important for humans to live together in society, not only during the time when philosophers such as Thomas Aquinas were active, but also in the 21st century in which we live today. Furthermore, we believe that all of us living in the modern world need to explore more fundamental and ultimate morality based on human nature, rather than trying to fit ourselves into the framework of morality established by the older generation.
Of course, I am not trying to say that the morals I have learned so far are superior or more valuable than those of Thomas Aquinas. I just want to argue that, as we have seen through the concept of beatitude, humans can never be perfect, so we need to look back at the past as well as the present. Although we have only discussed ethics here, I think the path that humans must inevitably walk is to move forward while constantly reflecting on other topics with the attitude of learning from the past.