In this blog post, we will examine the ethics of these two thinkers, focusing on their views on moral good and evil, their methods of evaluating human behavior, and the philosophical limitations and ways to overcome them.

Petrus Abaelardus’ Concept of Good and Evil

Petrus Abaelardus acknowledges that God is omniscient, omnipotent, and completely good. If so, how does he explain the “evil” that we actually encounter? He first acknowledges the “existence of evil” that is prevalent in our society. Petrus explains the concept of good and evil in two ways: the first refers to “good or evil as things that exist,” and the second refers to “situations in which good or evil exist.” He argues that “the existence of evil itself” cannot always be said to be “evil.” Let’s take the example of a poor man. There was a poor man. He worked hard to escape his poverty, succeeded, and became wealthy. He then used his wealth to help the poor and started a charitable organization. In this example, “poverty” exists as evil, but the “situation where good exists,” namely the start of the charitable organization, occurred. Thus, we cannot value-judge “poverty,” the “existence of evil itself,” as “evil.”
Then, can evil be seen as a force that limits God’s will? Petrus says no. He says that the evil we see in this world converges into good in God’s world. The example of “poverty,” which is evil in this world, transforming into “the start of a charitable endeavor,” which is good, is also an example of this. In other words, humans see it as “evil” because of their ignorance, but from God’s perspective, it also converges into “good.” However, because we are ignorant, we cannot know when or how evil will be realized as good. Therefore, we must simply believe that God will realize it as good. This raises a question. If an act is always realized as good from God’s perspective, does it then become meaningless to consider whether the act is moral or immoral? However, Petrus maintains that human moral actions still have meaning. He argues that while humans cannot know whether an act is good or evil, they can know whether the act was performed with good or evil intent. Petrus believed that moral and immoral acts can be distinguished based on the goodness or evil of intentions.

Thomas Aquinas’ concept of moral good and evil

Thomas Aquinas argued that because God created perfect good, our will always desires good. For example, if a person commits murder, it is not because he desires evil, but because he desires the sensory pleasure that comes from the act of murder. He considers the sensory pleasure he desires to be good. However, Thomas states that although God granted humans free will, He did not intend for them to abuse it to commit sin. In other words, choosing evil is not an inclination granted by God. Yet, it seems contradictory that humans have free will and cannot choose evil. How did Thomas explain this? He argued that choosing evil actually signifies the absence of freedom. While humans always desire what is good, their free will makes it possible for them to choose evil. In other words, there is a “wavering before evil.” This state is dynamic, causing humans to be drawn increasingly toward evil. Regardless of freedom, humans are pulled toward evil. Since human will can incline toward both good and evil, it is natural for will to waver. Thomas therefore emphasized “reason,” which exists one step above will, and among these, “right reason.” According to his theory, actions arise from the joint action of will and reason, and actions are considered good or evil depending on how rational they are and how much the order of reason is lacking. In other words, an act based on reason is considered a moral act, while an act based on irrational stimuli is considered an immoral act.

Petrus Abaelardus’ Ethics

Petrus Abaelardus viewed all acts as value-neutral. If so, what is the evil we see? As mentioned earlier, the existence of evil does not necessarily mean that it is evil. Violence is “the existence of evil,” but violence itself cannot be judged as evil. Furthermore, humans are ignorant and cannot know whether an act will lead to good. Then, what is the criterion for evaluating an act? Petrus says it is “intention.” This is because it is always possible to know whether the actor acted with good or evil intentions. For example, a woman loved a man. They got married, but it turned out that the man was the woman’s cousin. As a result, the woman committed incest. In this case, according to Petrus, we cannot say that the act was evil. The woman did not know, so she did not commit incest with evil intent. Here, we can see that intent is a state of mind related to “knowledge” (knowing and not knowing). Let’s consider another example of violence. Violence itself is value-neutral. However, if someone uses violence with the intention of harming another person, the evaluation changes. The act becomes evil due to the evil intention to cause harm. On the other hand, if someone uses violence to save a boy who is being beaten by several people, this is evaluated as a good act because it was done with a good intention. In this way, good intentions can justify prohibited acts. Then, can evil intentions ruin acts that are good in themselves? According to Petrus, yes. He emphasized intentions, so the evaluation of an act depends on the intention. For example, a judge punishes a criminal. This act itself is a good act. However, if the judge imposed the punishment not with the good intention of upholding justice but with the evil intention of inflicting pain on the criminal because he was a friend who had tormented him, this would corrupt the good act. Additionally, Petrus believed that good intentions, even if they are not realized through actions, are worthy of praise as much as good acts. For example, suppose two people wanted to build a shelter to help the poor. However, the day before, one person was robbed and could not build the shelter, while the other person built it as planned. In this case, both people had good intentions and can be evaluated as equally good. Therefore, evil intentions should be condemned as much as evil acts. But why do humans punish actions rather than intentions? This is because humans are weak and therefore consider evil actions to be worse than evil intentions. However, Petrus advocates the theory of strict liability (the theory of consequences). This theory argues that punishment can be justified even in the absence of criminal intent, which at first glance seems to suggest that Petrus values consequences more than intentions. However, this is not the case. For example, suppose a woman accidentally kills an infant while sleeping. However, this woman is not guilty because she did not know what she was doing (i.e., she did not have the evil intention to kill). Yet Petrus argues that punishment for this woman can be justified because it serves as a warning to others to be more careful.

Limitations of Petrus Abaelardus’s Ethics of Intent

Petrus Abaelardus argued that intent is an important factor in evaluating the goodness or badness of an act. However, this argument has limitations. The first limitation is that even if one has a false conscience, one can be exempt from guilt. For example, suppose a man believed that adultery was not a sin.
Therefore, he committed adultery, and since he believed that adultery was not a sin, he cannot be said to have acted intentionally. According to Petrus’ ethics, he could be exempt from guilt. However, this seems to loosen the standards of value judgment. The second limitation is that even if the intention is good, evil means can be justified. For example, suppose someone steals to help a poor person. According to Petrus, the act of stealing is justified because the intention to help the poor is good. However, this also seems to be a loose evaluation of the act. Next, we will examine Thomas Aquinas’ ethics and compare it with Petrus Abaelardus’ ethics. We will then explore how Thomas Aquinas explains the limitations of Petrus Abaelardus.

Thomas Aquinas’ Ethics (Focusing on Differences from Petrus Abaelardus)

Thomas Aquinas divided human actions into three categories in terms of moral evaluation. The first is actions that can be evaluated as good. For example, charitable acts. The second is actions that can be evaluated as evil. For example, rape.
The third are acts that are neither good nor evil. For example, taking a walk. This reveals the difference between Thomas and Peter. While Peter viewed acts as value-neutral, Thomas believed that acts could be evaluated as good or evil. According to Thomas, for an act to be morally good, it must satisfy three conditions. First, the act must belong to the category of acts that are not evil. Second, the act must be performed in an appropriate situation. Third, it must be performed with an intention accompanied by virtue. If any one of these three conditions is missing, the act becomes evil. Both agree that an act can only be evaluated as good if it is accompanied by a good intention, but Thomas requires more conditions than Petrus for an act to be evaluated as good. Thomas also acknowledges that an evil intention can corrupt a good act. However, unlike Peter, he does not believe that good intentions can make an evil act good. For example, Peter believed that stealing to help a poor person cannot be considered evil because it was done with good intentions. However, Thomas believes that stealing is an evil act because it harms someone else, and therefore cannot be considered good. This is because, regardless of the outcome, if the act itself is evil, it does not satisfy the first of Thomas’s three conditions. Additionally, Thomas believed that an act must be performed in an appropriate situation. For example, suppose a person is in mortal danger, and someone who witnesses this situation prays instead of actually helping. Praying to God is a good act, but it is difficult to evaluate it as good in that situation. Similarly, Petrus and Thomas differ in their views on “performance.” Petrus believes that if one has good intentions, the act should be evaluated equally even if it is not carried out. On the other hand, Thomas believes that an act is morally good only if it is carried out in an appropriate situation, not just because of good intentions. However, he believes that one can be exempt from the guilt of not carrying out an act if the failure was involuntary.
In the case of the two people who wanted to build a shelter, one person can be exempted from the sin of not building the shelter (i.e., not executing it) because they were unlucky (i.e., it was not voluntary). Next, let us examine Thomas’s argument regarding wrong conscience.
Thomas argues that even if our conscience is wrong, we must follow it. However, he does not claim that guilt is always exempted. If the wrong is factual and one was not negligent in discovering the fact, then guilt can be exempted. In other words, if one acted in a certain way but would not have done so had they not been ignorant, then one cannot be held responsible for the consequences of that action due to their ignorance. For example, suppose a man commits adultery without knowing that the woman is married. In this case, if he did not neglect to make an effort to find out whether the woman was married, he can be exempt from guilt. However, wrongdoing against sacred law cannot be exempted from guilt. In other words, ignorance that could have been avoided cannot be exempted from guilt. For example, suppose a man commits rape believing that rape is not a crime. According to Petrus, the man is exempt from guilt because he did not have evil intent, but according to Thomas, the mistaken belief is a violation of divine law and therefore cannot exempt him from guilt.
Thomas argued that we must distinguish between foreknowledge and intent. He said that intention and foreknowledge are different, and that sometimes unintended consequences can be foreseen. For example, consider a person who crosses a field to commit adultery. He knows that he may damage the field, but he does not intend to do so. He crosses the field with the evil intention of committing adultery. However, damaging the field is a foreseen fact, but it is not intended. In this way, there can be unforeseen consequences that were not intended. However, in cases like this example, where an evil act produces an evil result, distinguishing between intention and consequence is meaningless. Rather, the evil result makes the evil act even more evil. The cases where it is necessary to distinguish between intention and consequence are those where a good act produces a bad result. For example, consider murder in self-defense. Through self-defense, two consequences are foreseeable. One is the preservation of one’s own life, and the other is the death of the attacker. There was a morally good intention to preserve one’s own life, but the death of the attacker was not intended. In this case, although the death of the attacker occurred as an unintended consequence, the use of reasonable force is permissible. On the other hand, if the killing was intentional, it cannot be considered reasonable.

Comparison of the ethics of Petrus Abaelardus and Thomas Aquinas

Let us compare them based on intention, action, performance, and result. First, both of them considered intention to be important. Both emphasized that one must act with good intentions. The difference is that Petrus placed greater importance on the power of intention. He believed that if the intention is good, the action can be evaluated as good. On the other hand, Thomas viewed good intention as one of the elements for evaluating an action as good.
Regarding actions, the two philosophers’ opinions diverge. Petrus viewed actions as value-neutral, with their value determined by intention. However, Thomas classified actions into three categories based on their value and regarded good actions as elements necessary for an action to be evaluated as good.
Regarding performance, Petrus stated that even if an action is not carried out, it is praiseworthy if the intention is good.