Good = perfect and Deficient pertains to evil?

[Odell]

What does Aquinas mean when he says to be perfect is good and Deficency pertains to evil? To me we are all deficent but not evil, We are not perfect but good. I’m coussedENINDEN

 

[danserr]

What does Aquinas mean when he says to be perfect is good and Deficency pertains to evil? To me we are all deficent but not evil, We are not perfect but good. I’m coussed[ENINDEN

I saw this yesterday but didn’t answer because I wasn’t sure, but since no one else has yet, I’ll try, but take this with a grain of salt.

Aquinas saw being as good and he always saw evil as some sort of defect. Hatred is a defect of love, sadism a defect of sex, weakness a defect of strength etc. Your concern is does deficiency automatically imply evil?

Possibly, what we need to do is distinguish between “moral evil” and “natural/physical evil.” In this sense, weakness is a defect of strength and therefore is a natural evil, but a person is not morally culpable because they are less strong then another person. So a person can be defective in a natural sense and not morally evil because of that.

Then what about moral evil and defect? All people are also morally defective. (St. Paul, “I will the things I do not want, I do not will the things I want…”). So all people are in some sense or another defective in their morality. My short temper is a defect in patience etc. When I give into my short temper, I commit a moral evil. Snapping at a wife or husband, for instance. Here, one behaves in a way where one displays a defect in goodness, and the result is moral evil. Maybe it sounds overly harsh or even dramatic to call something like snapping at another person evil, but I think we have to say that it is. If one doesn’t restrain the harsh words, maybe next time they get worse and even lead to blows. The gradual road to hell is the easiest one.

Finally, does it make me evil because I am morally deficient? This part is hardest to answer, since to call us evil implies to me a certain degree of extremeness and finality, and “we don’t know yet what we will be.” Maybe it’s enough to say that insofar as we display and will moral defects (impatience, cowardice, injustice, etc.) our actions are certainly evil and we risk turning ourselves on the road to doing worse and worse actions and then in the end making ourselves either fully good or evil beyond recall (heaven or hell).

Aquinas, of course, reasoned that God has no defect in any respect, whether, knowledge, power, goodness, being, etc and since he is completely without defect, he is the highest being and ground of all being.
[/quote]

 

[tonyrey]

Aquinas saw being as good and he always saw evil as some sort of defect. Hatred is a defect of love, sadism a defect of sex, weakness a defect of strength etc. Your concern is does deficiency automatically imply evil?

Hatred is certainly a defect of love but it is not completely negative. Sometimes it is culpable because it is willed. All evil is negative in its **consequences **but it has positive causes - like decisions or physical events.

 

[DPMartin]

What does Aquinas mean when he says to be perfect is good and Deficency pertains to evil? To me we are all deficent but not evil, We are not perfect but good. I’m coussed[ENINDEN

Odell

This many not be as Aquinas meant by perfect, but then again.

In older English language perfect meant to be fulfilled, complete. And if you look at when God declared His creation as good it was complete fulfilled. Even Jesus stated on the Cross “it is done”. For He Jesus, fulfilled the law and prophets, in the matter of the salvation of man. And our salvation is in His fulfillment.

So Aquinas’s statement would stand to reason.

When God said: let there be Light certainly God would have expectation of the fulfillment of what God said. And when it was fulfilled “perfect” He declared it good. And the lack of the fulfillment of what God said is not declared good “Deficency”.

We know that the Father is satisfied in His Son Jesus Christ and it is through Jesus Christ does God the Father see us as good. A fulfilled, complete, work in Christ. And that Grace allows us to follow Jesus in the Holy Spirit.
[/quote]

 

[danserr]

Hatred is certainly a defect of love but it is not completely negative. Sometimes it is culpable because it is willed. All evil is negative in its **consequences **but it has positive causes - like decisions or physical events.

Good point. Chesterton referred positively to one’s hatred of hell and all its works. Maybe I should have said “indifference is a defect of love.”

 

[tonyrey]

Hatred is certainly a defect of love but it is not completely negative. Sometimes it is culpable because it is willed. All evil is negative in its consequences but it has positive causes - like decisions or physical events.

No matter what we say some one can always add something.

 

[Odell]

Thanks a lot I’m sure I will have more as I read more into his book. You Guys are Are a big help

 

[tonyrey]

Hatred is certainly a defect of love but it is not completely negative. Sometimes it is culpable because it is willed. All evil is negative in its **consequences **but it has positive causes - like decisions or physical events.

The range of morality is evident in eight possible permutations according to whether the intention, means and result are good or evil:

Intention Means Result

1. Good Good Good
2. Good Good Evil !
3. Good Evil Good
4. Good Evil Evil
5. Evil Good Good
6. Evil Good Evil
7. Evil Evil Good !
8. Evil Evil Evil

Only #1 is good in every respect. All the others are evil, i.e. defective, but #2, #3 and #4 are not necessarily culpable.

 

[davidv]

The range of morality is evident in eight possible permutations according to whether the intention, means and result are good or evil:

Intention Means Result

1. Good Good Good
2. Good Good Evil !
3. Good Evil Good
4. Good Evil Evil
5. Evil Good Good
6. Evil Good Evil
7. Evil Evil Good !
8. Evil Evil Evil

Only #1 is good in every respect. All the others are evil, i.e. defective, but #2, #3 and #4 are not necessarily culpable.

Depending on the level of knowledge, 5-8 may result in diminished culpability as well.

 

[Odell]

How could I relate this to homosexuality? The Church says homosexuality/contraception is evil. Someone reading what the church says on these two topics and sees that the church calls this an evil will turn a blind eye. I’m just not quite ready to use the term evil with all the connotations that may come with it. I think personally the Church migh be using the term as Aqunas would but I can’t bring the two together in my head.

 

[tarboy]

How could I relate this to homosexuality? The Church says homosexuality/contraception is evil. Someone reading what the church says on these two topics and sees that the church calls this an evil will turn a blind eye. I’m just not quite ready to use the term evil with all the connotations that may come with it. I think personally the Church migh be using the term as Aqunas would but I can’t bring the two together in my head.

Interesting discussion. Here is my swag response
Thinking of love the sinner, hate the sin, wouldn’t it be like

1. 
   *]Intention - Good if you controlled your mental imagery; Evil if you lust (go to confession)
   *]Means - Not relevant since the evil is in 1 or 3
   *]Results - Same as intention, good if you control your physicial actions; Evil if you take action
   
   And how is this any different than with an unmarried heterosexual?

 

[tonyrey]

Interesting discussion. Here is my swag response
Thinking of love the sinner, hate the sin, wouldn’t it be like

1. 
   *]Intention - Good if you controlled your mental imagery; Evil if you lust (go to confession)
   *]Means - Not relevant since the evil is in 1 or 3
   *]Results - Same as intention, good if you control your physicial actions; Evil if you take action
   
   And how is this any different than with an unmarried heterosexual?

1. 
   Welcome to the forum!
   
   Why do you think the means is irrelevant?

 

[tonyrey]

*The range of morality is evident in eight possible permutations according to whether the intention, means and result are good or evil:

Intention*

You are right, David! There is also the element of chance which may diminish culpability - or merit - in some cases.

 

[tarboy]

For example, if we assume **means **= being fully equipped.
A eunuch can still commit evil by thought, or ill intention
A eunuch can find an alternative “means” to achieve evil results

Or you could say anyone who has a brain by default has the ‘means’ to commit evil thoughts

Welcome to the forum!

Why do you think the means is irrelevant?

 

[danserr]

How could I relate this to homosexuality? The Church says homosexuality/contraception is evil. Someone reading what the church says on these two topics and sees that the church calls this an evil will turn a blind eye. I’m just not quite ready to use the term evil with all the connotations that may come with it. I think personally the Church migh be using the term as Aqunas would but I can’t bring the two together in my head.

To have a homosexual orientation is a natural evil. This is why the Church teaches that to simply have a homosexual orientation is not a sin. The sin comes in acting on those desires, since sin in the will. When a person wills to commit a homosexual act, he commits a moral evil. Hence “homosexuality” insofar as it refers to a person with a homosexual orientation, is not morally evil, but homosexual actions are moral evils.

Regarding contraception, to contracept is a moral evil (as is any sin or violation of God’s commandments). To be naturally infertile is a natural evil, but obviously there is no sin involved. But to deliberately cause oneself to be infertile and to have (contracepted) sex is indeed a moral evil.

 

[Odell]

To have a homosexual orientation is a natural evil. This is why the Church teaches that to simply have a homosexual orientation is not a sin. The sin comes in acting on those desires, since sin in the will. When a person wills to commit a homosexual act, he commits a moral evil. Hence “homosexuality” insofar as it refers to a person with a homosexual orientation, is not morally evil, but homosexual actions are moral evils.

Regarding contraception, to contracept is a moral evil (as is any sin or violation of God’s commandments). To be naturally infertile is a natural evil, but obviously there is no sin involved. But to deliberately cause oneself to be infertile and to have (contracepted) sex is indeed a moral evil.

It’s starting to make better sense to me. Thanks danserr.

So you would say anything that is not oriented to its nature is a deficiency-evil. Has the word evil just taken on such a bad rap has it always been viewed in this way? It’s like you said way back it can sound awful harsh and hard to swallow. Would you say a hosexual act is evil because it’s deficient of its unitive and procreative purpose?

And how would you respond to someone if they were to ask you why is Elton John evil? It’s not like he is a Charles Manson.

 

[danserr]

It’s starting to make better sense to me. Thanks danserr.

So you would say anything that is not oriented to its nature is a deficiency-evil. Has the word evil just taken on such a bad rap has it always been viewed in this way? It’s like you said way back it can sound awful harsh and hard to swallow. Would you say a hosexual act is evil because it’s deficient of its unitive and procreative purpose?

And how would you respond to someone if they were to ask you why is Elton John evil? It’s not like he is a Charles Manson.

And how would you respond to someone if they were to ask you why is Elton John evil

I would say that I am not saying that Elton John is evil. That would be to judge the state of a person’s soul, which Christians are forbidden to do. This is probably what Jesus meant when he said “don’t judge,” and “let he without sin cast the first stone.” What we do judge, are actions. Hence, why Jesus also said “neither do I condemn you, go and sin no more.” He did not condemn her, but he did judge her action as sinful and commanded her to avoid it in the future.

Yes, I would say that a homosexual act is evil because it is deficient in its unitive and procreative purpose. Insofar as that act is willed by people, it is a sin.

So you would say anything that is not oriented to its nature is a deficiency-evil.

Maybe. That might make sense, but I’m not totally sure. I can’t think of any counter-examples though. I could see someone claiming “but the nature of a murderer is to murder,” but the problem with that is that such a person is actually showing a deficiency in kindness, justice, love, virtue etc. So on this question, maybe, but I’d have to think about it more.

 

[Odell]

I would say that I am not saying that Elton John is evil. That would be to judge the state of a person’s soul, which Christians are forbidden to do. This is probably what Jesus meant when he said “don’t judge,” and “let he without sin cast the first stone.” What we do judge, are actions. Hence, why Jesus also said “neither do I condemn you, go and sin no more.” He did not condemn her, but he did judge her action as sinful and commanded her to avoid it in the future.

Yes, I would say that a homosexual act is evil because it is deficient in its unitive and procreative purpose. Insofar as that act is willed by people, it is a sin.

Maybe. That might make sense, but I’m not totally sure. I can’t think of any counter-examples though. I could see someone claiming “but the nature of a murderer is to murder,” but the problem with that is that such a person is actually showing a deficiency in kindness, justice, love, virtue etc. So on this question, maybe, but I’d have to think about it more.

Cool and thanks. If you have anything else please share!