T
TheDefaultMan
Guest
Thomas Aquinas’ arguments seem to go like this
Premise 1: All rational agents act ALWAYS towards an end (I agree)
Premise 2: Given that this is a form of a perfection, they are acting towards a good (I agree)
Premise 3: They must act towards their goods and their perfections (natural ends)
Now what I don’t understand is how Premise 3 follows from Premise 2. Why is it that we have to do EVERYTHING that is good for us (in the Thomistic, “conforming to natural ends” sense) if what is only established is that we always act on the basis of a PARTICULAR GOOD.
Like for example, if I turn my lamp off with the final end in mind of making me happy that my lamp is off, I only seeked the good or the perfection of pleasure. Just because I seeked the good in that particular situation, why is it that I must seek the proper good in every other?
Premise 1: All rational agents act ALWAYS towards an end (I agree)
Premise 2: Given that this is a form of a perfection, they are acting towards a good (I agree)
Premise 3: They must act towards their goods and their perfections (natural ends)
Now what I don’t understand is how Premise 3 follows from Premise 2. Why is it that we have to do EVERYTHING that is good for us (in the Thomistic, “conforming to natural ends” sense) if what is only established is that we always act on the basis of a PARTICULAR GOOD.
Like for example, if I turn my lamp off with the final end in mind of making me happy that my lamp is off, I only seeked the good or the perfection of pleasure. Just because I seeked the good in that particular situation, why is it that I must seek the proper good in every other?
Last edited: