F
fakename
Guest
Aquinas has some thoughts on this and I need help understanding him.
**
“And though we may judge falsely, our judgment in thinking well of another pertains to our good feeling and not to the evil of the intellect, even as neither does it pertain to the intellect’s perfection to know the truth of contingent singulars in themselves.”**
Now I don’t think we intend to judge people according to singulars in themselves (which is humanly impossible) but according to universals. When I ask “is he evil?” I take the universal idea of evil, and apply it to his actions and I use the universal idea of how thoughts work, to figure out his motivations. That’s how I try to figure out someone’s moral state, certainly it is how I try to figure out mine. So in no way are we trying to get singulars in themselves. So in this instance, is judging a good thing?
"He who interprets doubtful matters for the best, may happen to be deceived more often than not; yet it is better to err frequently through thinking well of a wicked man, than to err less frequently through having an evil opinion of a good man, because in the latter case an injury is inflicted, but not in the former."
Why is it better to be wrong than to be right, if we are in danger of injuring ourselves or others?
"When the truth is declared there is no obligation to accept it, and each one is free to receive it or not, as he wishes. On the other hand judgment implies an obligation, wherefore it is unjust for anyone to be judged by one who has no public authority."
There’s no obligation to accept truth? How can this be given that truth is the perfection of the intellect and if people have an obligation to pursue good things, then people should have the obligation to pursue truth? Again, if someone said that God exists and no one pays attention, then these latter persons are not guilty?
**“Judgment is lawful in so far as it is an act of justice. Now it follows from what has been stated above (1, ad 1,3) that three conditions are requisite for a judgment to be an act of justice: first, that it proceed from the inclination of justice; secondly, that it come from one who is in authority; thirdly, that it be pronounced according to the right ruling of prudence. If any one of these be lacking, the judgment will be faulty and unlawful. First, when it is contrary to the rectitude of justice, and then it is called “perverted” or “unjust”: secondly, when a man judges about matters wherein he has no authority, and this is called judgment “by usurpation”: thirdly, when the reason lacks certainty, as when a man, without any solid motive, forms a judgment on some doubtful or hidden matter, and then it is called judgment by “suspicion” or “rash” judgment.”
**
But judgment is true no matter who says it or from what motives, and since whatever is true is good, then shouldn’t anyone be allowed to speak their mind?
**
“And though we may judge falsely, our judgment in thinking well of another pertains to our good feeling and not to the evil of the intellect, even as neither does it pertain to the intellect’s perfection to know the truth of contingent singulars in themselves.”**
Now I don’t think we intend to judge people according to singulars in themselves (which is humanly impossible) but according to universals. When I ask “is he evil?” I take the universal idea of evil, and apply it to his actions and I use the universal idea of how thoughts work, to figure out his motivations. That’s how I try to figure out someone’s moral state, certainly it is how I try to figure out mine. So in no way are we trying to get singulars in themselves. So in this instance, is judging a good thing?
"He who interprets doubtful matters for the best, may happen to be deceived more often than not; yet it is better to err frequently through thinking well of a wicked man, than to err less frequently through having an evil opinion of a good man, because in the latter case an injury is inflicted, but not in the former."
Why is it better to be wrong than to be right, if we are in danger of injuring ourselves or others?
"When the truth is declared there is no obligation to accept it, and each one is free to receive it or not, as he wishes. On the other hand judgment implies an obligation, wherefore it is unjust for anyone to be judged by one who has no public authority."
There’s no obligation to accept truth? How can this be given that truth is the perfection of the intellect and if people have an obligation to pursue good things, then people should have the obligation to pursue truth? Again, if someone said that God exists and no one pays attention, then these latter persons are not guilty?
**“Judgment is lawful in so far as it is an act of justice. Now it follows from what has been stated above (1, ad 1,3) that three conditions are requisite for a judgment to be an act of justice: first, that it proceed from the inclination of justice; secondly, that it come from one who is in authority; thirdly, that it be pronounced according to the right ruling of prudence. If any one of these be lacking, the judgment will be faulty and unlawful. First, when it is contrary to the rectitude of justice, and then it is called “perverted” or “unjust”: secondly, when a man judges about matters wherein he has no authority, and this is called judgment “by usurpation”: thirdly, when the reason lacks certainty, as when a man, without any solid motive, forms a judgment on some doubtful or hidden matter, and then it is called judgment by “suspicion” or “rash” judgment.”
**
But judgment is true no matter who says it or from what motives, and since whatever is true is good, then shouldn’t anyone be allowed to speak their mind?