This blog post examines how Thomas Aquinas reflected on morality and happiness, and how his ideas have influenced contemporary ethical inquiry.
Introduction
Thomas Aquinas is a figure who brought medieval Scholastic philosophy to its zenith, regarded alongside Anselm as a master of medieval philosophy. He is particularly the philosopher who readily comes to mind when the keyword ‘proof of God’s existence’ is mentioned. Of course, he is not the only master of medieval philosophy, but the author has chosen Thomas Aquinas as the subject for a reason. Western medieval philosophy often blurs the lines between philosophy and theology to such an extent that theology cannot be excluded from its explanation. Aquinas, however, is regarded as the figure who most clearly distinguished theology from philosophy at that time. Therefore, I was confident that examining his thought would yield a comprehensive understanding, free from bias toward either discipline. The following text is my own attempt to briefly summarize his vast ethical thought, even when confined to the scope of ethics.
Characteristics of Thomas Aquinas’ Ethics
While his ethical thought encompasses numerous concepts and examples, I believe its main characteristics can be summarized in four points. First, his ethics deals with a metaphysical analysis of human action. This stems from the fact that Aquinas systematically studied metaphysics, to the extent that he adopted and expanded Aristotle’s concepts of actuality and potentiality to establish the concept of habitus. Second, his ethics understands human action as stemming from the person. This signifies a shift in the foundation of human understanding from sociality to personhood. I believe his influence was not insignificant in the Western transition from the medieval to the modern era, where the individual began to be viewed not merely as a member of society but as a complete person possessing a unique personhood. Third, he distinguishes between actions dictated by human nature and those intentionally performed by the will. Aquinas termed actions dictated by human nature ‘necessary acts’ and those intentionally performed by the will ‘voluntary acts’; this will be discussed in greater detail later. Fourth, he reveals the meaning of human actions by measuring them against happiness, humanity’s ultimate goal. That is, he posits that all human actions inherently contain an intention to pursue metaphysical happiness, such as self-fulfillment. This signifies that his ethics possess both a teleological and a eudaimonistic character. Now, let us examine in detail several topics addressed by Thomas Aquinas from this perspective.
Thomas Aquinas’ ‘Intention’ and ‘Voluntary Act’
One notable feature of Thomas Aquinas’ ethics is his distinction between human acts and human actions. He classified the difference between the two based on the involvement of will and reason. Aquinas termed human actions (the latter), where the spiritual faculties of reason and will are engaged, making the human being the agent, as voluntary acts. However, not all human acts (the former) are automatically included in voluntary acts. Examples include sleeping or eating according to a voluntary will. In summary, voluntary acts are a necessary condition for human acts, but not a sufficient one. Yet, this concept applies only to humans who can both understand the purpose of an act and carry it out. This represents a higher level of concept compared to the spontaneous actions of animals and plants, which act without fully or even partially understanding the purpose of their actions.
His analysis of human action introduces the crucial concept of ‘intention’. Aquinas argued that in human action, besides internal principles like will and intellect, the agent’s intention and the consequences of the action are also significant. Intention, simply put, is the act of striving to realize the purpose of the action. Establishing the concept of intention was essential for Aquinas to bridge the gap between Aristotle’s notions of spontaneity and purpose. Types of actions are broadly categorized into those that are ends in themselves, those that are means to an end, and those that are unavoidable obligations. In the second case, we can see that intention exists to achieve the end through the means. Not all voluntary acts possess intention, as is the case with the third type. Therefore, intention is a concept broader than purpose but narrower than voluntariness, bridging the gap between these two.
Moral Evaluation and Judgments of Good and Evil
According to Aquinas’s logic, which introduced the concept of intention, human actions can be further divided into three categories. This classification, based on moral evaluation, comprises good acts, evil acts, and acts that are neither good nor evil. They share the commonality of being performed with some purpose within a given situation. However, for an act to be morally good, it must be performed under an intention accompanied by virtue. Aquinas supported Abelard’s view that goodness can be derived from the good will accompanying a good act. However, unlike Abelard, who argued that ‘an act in itself, stripped of intention, is value-neutral and cannot serve as a criterion for judging good or evil,’ Aquinas stated that there exist acts which, even with a good intention, can never be good. For example, if an actor holds a belief contrary to divine law, such as ‘adultery is not a sin,’ and acts upon it, that act can never be a good act. In summary, while Abelard’s perspective on human action focused solely on intention, Aquinas regarded the importance of internal action (intention) and external action (what Abelard described as value-neutral) as equal.
Aquinas stated that even with good intentions, an act could produce evil consequences. First, this is because the agent possessed a faulty conscience. Conscience is not universal practical reason; it can sometimes be incorrect because the agent’s own practical reason may judge wrongly. Moreover, if the agent possesses an erroneous conscience, Aquinas argued that the agent bears moral responsibility for the act that led to that erroneous conscience, precisely because that act was voluntary. Second, the evil of the means employed to achieve a good intention can be cited. For example, the intention to steal bread to save a starving child cannot be deemed good because the means are evil; consequently, the subsequent act itself becomes evil.
In conclusion, the morality of an act can be evaluated based on: first, the spontaneity of the act itself in following or not following conscience; second, the spontaneity of the action that ‘gives rise to’ the agent’s right or wrong conscience at the moment of the act; and third, the act itself, its means, and its consequences.
Discussion on Evil
From the perspective of medieval theology, evil is defined as ‘the absence of good’. All beings existing in the world have been granted existence by God, and since they share in God’s goodness, the claim that evil itself exists as a being contradicts the logic that God bestows only goodness upon His creatures. Therefore, evil has not been granted existence or attributes, yet to the question ‘Does evil exist?’, one must answer ‘Yes’ as the absence of good. Theologians explained that evil arises from humanity’s abuse of the free will granted by God, thereby maintaining the logic that God did not create the concept of evil Himself. Aquinas’s argument is not significantly different. He too viewed evil as a state where goodness is removed, that is, a state devoid of goodness. However, he did not believe that every absence of goodness necessarily leads to evil. The reason is that among the things we perceive as absences, some acquire characteristics that are natural to them. Furthermore, Aquinas presented three grounds for why evil cannot be a being. We will examine each in detail.
1. The Necessity of Being: All natural beings are generated from the universal first cause of existence, and they also arise from the universal first good. Since only particular goods can be derived from the universal good, if evil were to exist, it would be merely an accessory attached to particular goods. Therefore, evil cannot be a being because it lacks necessity.
2. The Perspective of Purpose: Every being in the world pursues the good, and thus the good is worthy of being desired as an end. Existing things move solely because of the desire for an end, but evil has neither action nor motion.
3. The Nominalist Position: Every existent in the world has an opposite. Existence itself possesses the greatest basis for being desired; thus, something good is desirable, and existence is good. Therefore, evil, which universally opposes the good, opposes existence, and that which opposes existence cannot exist.
Aquinas identified ignorance, weakness, and malice as the causes of evil. According to him, a lack of knowledge—ignorance—can be classified in relation to the will as ‘insurmountable ignorance,’ ‘ignorance accompanying action,‘ and ‘ignorance resulting from negligence.’ Irresistible ignorance arises when the conditions for an action are contingent, rendering the action involuntary. Thus, even if the action is bad, it possesses a justification that can be forgiven. Ignorance accompanying the act occurs when the agent’s action was planned but the precise course of the action could not be foreseen. Ignorance resulting from negligence arises when the agent consciously disregards the consequences of the action. Aquinas, examining these forms of ignorance, discusses whether ignorance can be the cause of wrongdoing and whether ignorance itself constitutes sin. He held that ignorance cannot entirely exclude an element of intention. If ignorance is intentional—for example, if the sinner recognizes even one basis for the sin and commits it nonetheless—he concluded this constitutes intentional sin. Furthermore, ignorance of the situation is not wrong in itself but can be a cause of wrongdoing.
The weakness identified as a cause of evil is the weakness of the soul. Wrongdoing arising from the soul’s weakness stems from the sensual tendencies expressed as ‘passions’. Unlike the emotional excitement of animals, human passions are guided by the intellect and may involve specific physical changes. For example, this includes cases where reason becomes paralyzed due to changes in the soul. Aquinas argued in this context that humans are sometimes influenced by passions before the operation of reason.
The concept of passion does not necessarily lead to negative consequences before the act, and thus can be said to have duality. According to Aquinas, good will and reason strengthen positive passions, enabling the achievement of greater good. This perspective views passion as an external principle to the will. Although the will’s own movement (the internal principle) exerts a greater influence on the moral judgment of an action, even if sin originates in an external act, if the agent conforms to it, the will itself already contains sin prior to the act. This is entirely consistent with what Abelard asserted before Aquinas. In conclusion, the concept of passion alone cannot be the subject of a judgment of good or evil; it can only become good or evil in relation to reason.
Among the three causes of evil, sins committed through the action of malice are considered more evil than other sins when all other circumstances are equal. This is firstly because sin residing in the will is internal to the human person, and secondly because sin arising from malice, unlike sin arising from the passions, involves habituality. Crucially, sin arising from malice is committed ‘intentionally’ and through deliberate choice, while anticipating the consequences of the act.
Happiness
Thus far, we have covered Thomas Aquinas’s discussions on the human will, voluntary acts, moral judgment, and good and evil. It would not be an exaggeration to say that these discussions ultimately stem from the premise that humans possess an intention to realize happiness, the most crucial ultimate goal. Indeed, the nature and purpose of each virtue are evaluated in light of this goal of human existence. So, what was Thomas Aquinas’s view on happiness? First, as evident in his proofs for the existence of God, he believed God exists as the foundation of all creatures in the world. Furthermore, he argued that rational beings reflect God in a special way and find ultimate fulfillment in acts such as comprehending and contemplating God. Here, the concept of the beatific vision emerges. Inheriting Aristotle’s thought, it signifies the final goal and highest good of all human spiritual entities. For Aquinas, the beatific vision is a state of perfect goodness where no evil can exist—a state of perfect good, which is the state of knowing God. Human beings are inherently creatures striving to attain perfect happiness, or the beatific vision. Paradoxically, however, the beatific vision is a utopian ideal unattainable in reality. If the beatific vision is the absolute good, then attaining it would necessitate the exclusion of all evil, which is practically impossible.
Through the concrete establishment of the concept of the beatific vision, Aquinas deduced the logic that human happiness, or the attainment of the beatific vision, cannot be derived from external goods obtained from outside, nor from bodily goods including health and physical pleasures. This is because the desire to pursue such things is not the highest good and therefore can never be good in itself. However, he argued that only the good of the soul can be the path to beatitude, as humans can approach God through spiritual activities like contemplation. According to his logic, humans can attain ultimate happiness only through self-sufficiency originating from the spirit (the inner self).
Conclusion
We have now examined Thomas Aquinas’s thought in ethics alongside key concepts. While the author intentionally adjusted the order of keywords, readers who have followed this far will likely discern that even those unfamiliar with his philosophy ultimately arrive at the age-old contemplation of ultimate happiness. The author, too, nearly lost direction by plunging into the vast ocean of knowledge of this great saint with only superficial understanding, yet ultimately reached a conclusion. Regardless of the era, the purpose of philosophy lies in the ultimate inquiry into the world we inhabit, in conferring identity upon the beings of this world, including humanity, and in finding answers to the direction humanity should pursue, derived from these. In particular, encountering the thought of Thomas Aquinas this time allowed me to indirectly experience the perspective of ancient sages on happiness, a subject I have always pondered. It also provided an opportunity to reflect on the direction of human life possessing true reason, in relation to his concept of reason.
Though not mentioned in the introduction, the reason I chose ethics over countless other subjects, including metaphysics and theology, is that I believe morality and ethics remain crucial not only during the era when Thomas Aquinas and other philosophers were active, but also in the 21st century we live in today. Humans continue to live in societies, and thus the moral concepts and ethics necessary for humans to live together remain vital. Furthermore, I believe that for all of us living in the modern era, rather than forcing ourselves to fit into the moral frameworks established by previous generations, there is a need to first explore a more fundamental and ultimate morality rooted in human nature.
Of course, I do not mean to suggest that the morality I have studied thus far is superior or more valuable than that of Thomas Aquinas. I merely wish to argue that, as we saw earlier through the concept of the beatific vision, humans can never be perfect beings. Therefore, we need to revisit not only modern ideas but also the old ones. Although I have limited my discussion here to ethics, I believe that for other subjects as well, the path humans must inevitably walk is one of constant reflection, advancing with an attitude of learning from the past to understand the present.
