Only reason directs to an action to an end?

[Dranu]

I was reading the Summa Theologica and ran into a claim that only reason directs actions to ends (and St. Thomas cites Aristotle’s Physics book 2 while doing so). I cannot help but think that this is right despite this being a huge contemporary critique of Aristotle.

Now (pretending to be an atheist) it would seem that many actions can happen and be directed to a fairly determinate end without reason (like many happenings in nature). ** Is there any argument anyone knows of that would demonstrate that only reason can direct actions towards an end?**

I would add its possible Aquinas is only speaking of human actions (ST 1-II, Q90, A1), but its not clear that he is/

 

[Buck_Crosswhite]

I know a lot of unreasonable people who do unreasonable stuff.

 

[bmullins]

I’m not sure why he would be talking about animal actions, when writing to humans about ‘reason’ in particular.

 

[empther]

When Acquinas or somebody like that make what look like sweeping statements,
we must consider what he’s talking about.
I suspect Acquinas was saying “when we set out to deliberately achieve an end, it is reason that guides us to the end”. This would obviously be true. However, not every action we do is reasoned out. We’re impulsive. We act foolishly. We’re blinded by a thirst for revenge. Etc, etc, etc. You can make your own list. But that’s not what Acquinas was talking about. He wanted to analyze the essentially dynamics of the soul’s operations, not irrational behavior.

---

Another matter:

The question arose in Aquinas’s writings whether the intellect leads the will, or the will leads the intellect?

On one sense, the intellect leads the will since we cannot will something we know nothing about.

In another sense, the will leads the intellect since a person’s desires, habits and inclinations can as least in part determine what the intellect seeks to understand, learn and think about.

It’s a kind of two way street,
although the first sense of leadiing would seem to be most prominent,
that is,
the reason leads the will since we cannot will something we know nothing about.

 

[Ian_Ward]

It’s a kind of two way street,
although the first sense of leadiing would seem to be most prominent,
that is,
the reason leads the will since we cannot will something we know nothing about.

Its a mystery we will never fully understand. But my 2 cents the will was put in with everything else. I guess the questions is can you will something without knowing what it is you are willing?

---

Re: Only reason directs to an action to an end?

An argument to defend this argument or statement?

Why would anyone do anything with out having a reason for doing it? Or what is done that doesn’t have a reason behind it? Even something as arbitrary as arbitrary evil has the motive of “to satisfy the evils lust for evil”

Thats a deep question with a hard but simple answer. Okay the answer is simple and easy because its there, I don’t know what the argument is but because its true the argument is out there.

 

[reggieM]

Directing something towards an end means that a purposeful act took place. Paradoxically, “the end” actually comes first in any action because the end is the goal towards which the action is directed and it has to be established first.

So, whenever there is an action which is directed to an end, there is purpose. When we have purpose involved in any action, then the only way that can exist is through reason. We have an act directed by reason to a purpose (or end).

There are acts which are the direct result of reason – such as an archer shooting an arrow at a target. The arrow moving to the target obviously does not possess reason, but it was put into motion by a reasonable act. It is directed to an end, or goal, by reason for a purpose (to hit the target). Other acts are moved indirectly through a reasonable act at the origin. A computer is directed to fulfill its ends by software, which is produced through reasonable acts.

When we see animals acting in nature to fulfill a purpose, we know they were directed to that purpose by a reasoning power. The animals themselves do not possess reason – so they must have been moved by another Reason to achieve purpose.

That Reason which moves irrational beings to a purpose is what we call God.

 

[John21652]

I was reading the Summa Theologica and ran into a claim that only reason directs actions to ends …
I would add its possible Aquinas is only speaking of human actions (ST 1-II, Q90, A1), but its not clear that he is/

1. If the statement “only reason directs actions towards ends” is true, then it is the case that all actions which have ends are reason based.
2. If all actions with ends are reason based, then the implication is that there is a choice. The choice is between reason and unreason?
3. Therefore, it is possible that some actions with ends are not directed by reason.

 

[reggieM]

1. If all actions with ends are reason based, then the implication is that there is a choice. The choice is between reason and unreason?

All actions with ends are reason based because reason is required to establish an end. When an action has an end it has been established with a purpose. The end is something chosen before the action takes place – that requires reason.
The choice is with regards to which end an action might be directed towards.
Again, an archer directs the arrow to the target. He can choose where to shoot the arrow, so wherever the arrow goes, it is directed by that choice.

It would not be possible to achieve an end by choosing unreason because unreason cannot establish an end.

This would be like choosing to have a random letter generator write a work of Shakespeare. But rather than just watching to see if the generator produces Hamlet or Macbeth you would let the randomizer “choose the end”. So, you would choose unreason to establish the end – and therefore, the random generator would choose which work of Shakespeare it was going to create, and then create it.

But that kind of machine cannot choose the end or purpose for itself. It has to be directed to an end by reason (intelligence). The choice would be on which work of Shakespeare it would create (and how many attempts to try and how to combine letters, etc). It has to be programmed for a purpose – and that requires reason.

 

[John21652]

All actions with ends are reason based because reason is required to establish an end.** When an action has an end it has been established with a purpose.** The end is something chosen before the action takes place – that requires reason.
The choice is with regards to which end an action might be directed towards.
Again, an archer directs the arrow to the target. He can choose where to shoot the arrow, so wherever the arrow goes, it is directed by that choice.

It would not be possible to achieve an end by choosing unreason because unreason cannot establish an end.

This would be like choosing to have a random letter generator write a work of Shakespeare. But rather than just watching to see if the generator produces Hamlet or Macbeth you would let the randomizer “choose the end”. So, you would choose unreason to establish the end – and therefore, the random generator would choose which work of Shakespeare it was going to create, and then create it.

But that kind of machine cannot choose the end or purpose for itself. It has to be directed to an end by reason (intelligence). The choice would be on which work of Shakespeare it would create (and how many attempts to try and how to combine letters, etc). It has to be programmed for a purpose – and that requires reason.

I underlined the pertinant sentence in your response.

If we look up a dictionary definition of “unreason”, we get this -

un·rea·son

[uhn-ree-zuh[URL]http://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png[/URL]
[/QUOTE]
n]
noun 1. inability or unwillingness to think or act rationally, reasonably, or sensibly; irrationality.
[LIST=1]
[*]lack of reason or sanity, madness, confusion; disorder; chaos, a world torn by unreason.
[/LIST]
Your sentence, which I underlined, is this -
[QUOTE]
[B]When an action has an end it has been established with a purpose[/B]
[/QUOTE]
The way that sentence is phrased suggests that not all actions have ends. After all, you wrote [I]“[B]when[/B] an action has an end…”[/I]. The obvious inference is that sometimes, at leat, actions don’t have ends.

However, you are asserting that actions are deliberately caused to achieve a particular end. That then rules out those adjectives used in the dictionary definition of “unreason”. Thus, you are giving the world of human actions an order and predictability that is not always true. We don’t have to think very hard to recall examples of human decision making that is chaotic, unreasonable, confused and/or disordered.

Your first sentence tells us that reason is required to establish an end. Therefore, when we see unreasonable ends, or irrational ends, or chaotic ends, according to you, there is reason behind them and not unreason. That doesn’t hold true in the observable world. Your archer, for example, might try to shoot an arrow into a target, but, not having allowed for the wind, shoots dead a stranger instead. He will be charged before a court with non-proper use of his reason and he daren’t plead intention, as your example suggests!!

 

[reggieM]

However, you are asserting that actions are deliberately caused to achieve a particular end. That then rules out those adjectives used in the dictionary definition of “unreason”. Thus, you are giving the world of human actions an order and predictability that is not always true. We don’t have to think very hard to recall examples of human decision making that is chaotic, unreasonable, confused and/or disordered.

Good points. I think the difference here is between what we might call “right reason” versus the distinction between a deliberate act and randomness.
Human reason is not perfect - true. Just because a human being thinks of a goal, doesn’t mean that the action will achieve the goal.

So I think the statement “any action directed at an end” assumes that we can determine that the action was directed at the end that it achieved. It was something that was purposeful.

Your first sentence tells us that reason is required to establish an end. Therefore, when we see unreasonable ends, or irrational ends, or chaotic ends, according to you, there is reason behind them and not unreason.

This is an interesting point. If unreasonable, irrational and chaotic results are actually “ends”, then you could argue that every act has an end.

If that was the case, then reason would not be required since whatever action that took place anywhere would have some kind of end. This, however, would destroy the meaning of the words “end” or “goal” – as well as the words “purpose” or “by design”.

That doesn’t hold true in the observable world. Your archer, for example, might try to shoot an arrow into a target, but, not having allowed for the wind, shoots dead a stranger instead. He will be charged before a court with non-proper use of his reason and he daren’t plead intention, as your example suggests!!

First, he could be charged with something if he didn’t follow necessary precautions. If he set up his target in a heavily populated shopping area, he couldn’t claim that the killing of a person was totally unrelated to the end or goal he had in mind.

But let’s say it was wildly random, with no fault of his own …

The reason we look at intention is because we know the arrow could not have hit a person on its own. The fact that an “end” for the action was established beforehand (it was meant to hit the target) is actually the thing that will save this archer from going to jail.

We see it was a deliberate, purposeful act and not just a random shooting. It was intended to hit a target. We see the target, we see where he was standing, etc.

In this case, the arrow did not achieve the end it was directed at. So, our initial statement wouldn’t apply.

When an action has an end it has been established with a purpose

The end for this action was established before the act. It required the use of reason. The end for this act was that the arrow was supposed to hit the target.

So I think the problem you’ve raised is whether the arrow killing a person is an action directed to an end.

Was it the purpose of the arrow to kill a person?

I can see where this gets difficult.

The arrow itself doesn’t have a purpose of killing people or even of hitting targets, necessarily.

The question might be: “what kind of end or purpose can we determine from random acts”?

… this leads to the questions …

Are any actions truly random (or ultimately the product of unreason)? and … Is it possible for any action in the universe to not have an end or a goal?

If we could look at it from God’s perspective, every action has purpose, so there is nothing random. But from a human perspective, we make a distinction between deliberate and random actions.

Back to the OP.

Originally Posted by Dranu
I was reading the Summa Theologica and ran into a claim that only reason directs actions to ends …
I would add its possible Aquinas is only speaking of human actions (ST 1-II, Q90, A1), but its not clear that he is/

Another way to read this is like this:

“If an action is directed to an end, it must necessarily be done by reason”.

 

[Dranu]

“If an action is directed to an end, it must necessarily be done by reason”.

and if that is true, then all are directed by reason since all acts come to a end (any change from point A to B, B being the end). However, I am trying to get at is why it is true that actions can only be directed to an end by reason.

 

[John21652]

Good points. I think the difference here is between what we might call “right reason” versus the distinction between a deliberate act and randomness.

I think you are now getting onto the right track. The OP wrote that "…only reason directs actions to ends." By adding in the term “right”, it changes the nature of the debate and allows for the fact that all ends of actions are not reason based.

Human reason is not perfect - true. Just because a human being thinks of a goal, doesn’t mean that the action will achieve the goal.

True indeed. However, unintended goals might also eventuate because, to use your term, “right reason” wasn’t used.

So I think the statement “any action directed at an end” assumes that we can determine that the action was directed at the end that it achieved. It was something that was purposeful.

An act can be pirposeful, but not achieve the end it was directed at. I think it would be more correct to write “..any action directed at an end" assumes that we can determine that the action was directed at an end.…”

This is an interesting point. If unreasonable, irrational and chaotic results are actually “ends”, then you could argue that every act has an end.

True, but you can’t argue that every end is the result of “right reason”!

If that was the case, then reason would not be required since whatever action that took place anywhere would have some kind of end. This, however, would destroy the meaning of the words “end” or “goal” – as well as the words “purpose” or “by design”.

All actions have ends. But not all ends are ‘goals’ and not all ends are by ‘purpose’ or ‘design’.

First, he could be charged with something if he didn’t follow necessary precautions. If he set up his target in a heavily populated shopping area, he couldn’t claim that the killing of a person was totally unrelated to the end or goal he had in mind.

But let’s say it was wildly random, with no fault of his own …

The reason we look at intention is because we know the arrow could not have hit a person on its own. The fact that an “end” for the action was established beforehand (it was meant to hit the target) is actually the thing that will save this archer from going to jail.

If the archer hits and kills someone, he will be brought before a court and questioned about the “forseeability” of the consequences (end) of his action. In all the circumstances, if it was reasonably forseeable that his intended goal might not eventuate and the risk of killing someone was high, then he will be found guilty of having not used his “right reason”, the very concept you introduced into the debate!

This then makes much more sense than to simply assert, as the OP did, that only "reason directs actions to ends". Not all ends are directed by reason and some ends, wrong ends, are the result of non-reason, or the lack of ‘right reason’.

We see it was a deliberate, purposeful act and not just a random shooting. It was intended to hit a target. We see the target, we see where he was standing, etc.

In this case, the arrow did not achieve the end it was directed at. So, our initial statement wouldn’t apply.

When an action has an end it has been established with a purpose

The end for this action was established before the act. It required the use of reason. The end for this act was that the arrow was supposed to hit the target.The “purpose” of the action was subverted. It didn’t hit the target and so the end of the action was something not intended, despite the “intention” of the actor.

So I think the problem you’ve raised is whether the arrow killing a person is an action directed to an end.

Was it the purpose of the arrow to kill a person?

I can see where this gets difficult.

Intent and ends are not always conjoined. If an action has an intent and the intended end does not eventuate, then the ‘reason’ that was behind the action was not “right”. It was unreason!

The arrow itself doesn’t have a purpose of killing people or even of hitting targets, necessarily.

No! The arrow is just an innocent third party!!

The question might be: “what kind of end or purpose can we determine from random acts”?

Well, the archer was not caarying out a random act. He was being deliberate. However, the end of his action was random, with no directly attributable reason behind it. He did not reason that he would hit an innocent bystander.

… this leads to the questions …

Are any actions truly random (or ultimately the product of unreason)? and … Is it possible for any action in the universe to not have an end or a goal?

Don’t we need to differentiate between actions done with intent, that is, by someone with the ability to reason and those actions which are the result of mechanical, or physical processes? After all, if we are discussing ‘reason’ and ‘right reason’, then we are discussing the qctions of entities that have minds and can make choices.

If we could look at it from God’s perspective, every action has purpose, so there is nothing random. But from a human perspective, we make a distinction between deliberate and random actions.

Random actions, or random consequences?

Back to the OP.

Another way to read this is like this:

“If an action is directed to an end, it must necessarily be done by reason”.

What if the end is unreasonable? Does that infer the reasoning was unreasonable? What about if the end is random? Does that infer that the reason was not ‘right reason’?

 

[reggieM]

and if that is true, then all are directed by reason since all acts come to a end (any change from point A to B, B being the end). However, I am trying to get at is why it is true that actions can only be directed to an end by reason.

All actions come to an end, yes – but what St. Thomas is talking about is the philosophical term “end” which means “goal” or “fulfilled purpose”.

If we say that every action has a goal or purpose, then we would never be able to talk about “random acts” or “accidents”.

From the mind of God, it’s true that every movement in the universe has an End or Purpose.

But from our human perspective, we make a distinction between “purposeful acts” and “random results”.

An act that is random is not directed at an end or purpose.

When you take Scrabble letters and toss them on the table, the result is not a purposeful End. So, we don’t say that the gibberish words were directed by reason.

The works of Shakespeare, however, are writings directed at an End – and required reason.

 

[reggieM]

I will reply to John21652 later, but let’s make sure we agree on this definition … when St. Thomas talks about “end”, it’s the philosophical use of that word.
From the FreeDictionary End (philosophy)

goal, end - the state of affairs that a plan is intended to achieve and that (when achieved) terminates behavior intended to achieve it; “the ends justify the means”

So, it doesn’t mean “the last thing that happened”. We would say that’s “the end” of the action, but it’s not the way St. Thomas is using the word.
What he means is “the final goal or purpose” of the act.

When I write this sentence, I have a purpose or End in mind – then I achieve it.

So, every action directed at an End (goal, purpose) is the product of reason because you have to think about and choose an End. You can’t randomly or unconsciously have an End (purposeful, intended result) to an action.

 

[reggieM]

I think you are now getting onto the right track. The OP wrote that "…only reason directs actions to ends." By adding in the term “right”, it changes the nature of the debate and allows for the fact that all ends of actions are not reason based.

Ok, I agree and will withdraw the modifier of “right” for reason. But I think reason is not the same as unreason, chaos, randomness or crazyness in whatever form.

Maybe to restate: Only reason (rational thinking, selection by choice, design, planning) directs actions to ends (goals, fulfilled purposes).

An act can be purposeful, but not achieve the end it was directed at. I think it would be more correct to write “..any action directed at an end" assumes that we can determine that the action was directed at an end.…”

That’s a good point. If we determine that an action was directed at an end, then only reason can be responsible for that.

All actions have ends. But not all ends are ‘goals’ and not all ends are by ‘purpose’ or ‘design’.

Here’s where we are not talking about the same thing – and this explains our difference of opinion. An End is something planned. It’s the Final Cause, as it’s called. When you eat your breakfast, the End of the action is to get nutrition. It can’t be a random thing.

The “purpose” of the action was subverted. It didn’t hit the target and so the end of the action was something not intended, despite the “intention” of the actor.

That’s an interesting point – if the end of the act was not intended, then was it really an action that achieved an End? It just had a random consequence – something not planned or intended. Did the action of shooting the arrow achieve an End (goal?) – I think we’d say “no”.

Well, the archer was not caarying out a random act. He was being deliberate. However, the end of his action was random, with no directly attributable reason behind it. He did not reason that he would hit an innocent bystander.

As that definition I posted earlier gives: “The ends justify the means”. We reject that idea as immoral, but the concept can help explain. The Ends are what the goal of the action is. The soldiers want to liberate the people. That’s the End. It’s a goal - to free the people. The means would be the battle that they wage to attain the End.
If the final result was that they lost the battle, that is not the End that was planned.

Don’t we need to differentiate between actions done with intent, that is, by someone with the ability to reason and those actions which are the result of mechanical, or physical processes? After all, if we are discussing ‘reason’ and ‘right reason’, then we are discussing the qctions of entities that have minds and can make choices.

Yes, that’s where I was not clear. I think St. Thomas looked at actions in nature or physical processes as having Ends which we can see – and therefore they were intended by God.

So, we see various creatures fulfilling purpose in nature. Their actions are Ends because they are purposeful and not random. But they do not possess reason. Therefore, since only reason directs actions to ends, then some reason must have directed these actions in nature to their Ends. This Reason is what we call God.

 

[Dranu]

All actions come to an end, yes – but what St. Thomas is talking about is the philosophical term “end” which means “goal” or “fulfilled purpose”.

True, but we need not add additional complexities to the philosophical term. I see no reason from distinguishing ‘goal’ from ‘final result.’ If all action only moves because of an end then any completed movement was for the end result (the ball moving to x was for the sake of being at x, even if that end is incidental to another). And if things are only directed to an end by reason, then all things only move because of reason. My big issue (one I buy but am looking for a reason for) is how only reason can direct towards ends.

 

[reggieM]

True, but we need not add additional complexities to the philosophical term. I see no reason from distinguishing ‘goal’ from ‘final result.’ If all action only moves because of an end then any completed movement was for the end result (the ball moving to x was for the sake of being at x, even if that end is incidental to another). And if things are only directed to an end by reason, then all things only move because of reason. My big issue (one I buy but am looking for a reason for) is how only reason can direct towards ends.

That’s not what St. Thomas means by the term “end” though. That’s why you’re having an issue with his statement.

If every possible action of every kind is “directed at an end”, then the term “purpose” would be meaningless.

When I deliberately roll a ball to point X, then I “directed it to an end”. Additionally, I gave the rolling ball a purpose, though the use of my reason.

Another ball that falls off of the back of a truck lands on point X. What gave that ball the purpose of landing on X?

In common terms, we have to either say “Nothing”, or “we don’t know”.

In either case, we can’t call the accidental movement of the ball an “action directed at an end” because either there was no direction, or we don’t know if there was a direction.

St. Thomas is talking about actions that are directed to purposeful ends. Like a group of beavers building a dam. They move the logs with a purpose, and the logs are in place not accidentally, but directed to an end.

We know that beavers do not possess reason. But we see an action directed to an end. Therefore, the beavers must have been moved by a greater reasoning power (their creator) to direct an action to a purposeful end.

 

[Dranu]

That’s not what St. Thomas means by the term “end” though. That’s why you’re having an issue with his statement.

If every possible action of every kind is “directed at an end”, then the term “purpose” would be meaningless.
.

I am really not sure St. Thomas means something different than what I am saying by ‘end’. Also it would not make ‘purpose’ have no meaning, it would just mean every action had it and only inaction did not. For instance, just because everything that ‘is’ has some degree of being does not make the term ‘being’ without meaning.

 

[reggieM]

I am really not sure St. Thomas means something different than what I am saying by ‘end’. Also it would not make ‘purpose’ have no meaning, it would just mean every action had it and only inaction did not. For instance, just because everything that ‘is’ has some degree of being does not make the term ‘being’ without meaning.

I was going to explain more, but let’s take a look at the passage in question:

ST 1-II, Q90, A1

I answer that, Law is a rule and measure of acts, whereby man is induced to act or is restrained from acting: for “lex” [law] is derived from “ligare” [to bind], because it binds one to act. Now the rule and measure of human acts is the reason, which is the first principle of human acts, as is evident from what has been stated above (1, 1, ad 3); since it belongs to the reason to direct to the end, which is the first principle in all matters of action, according to the Philosopher (Phys. ii).

The first principle of human acts is the reason. Because human acts are intelligent and proceed from a being that has reasoning power.

It belongs to reason to direct to the end.

Now, the question is, what does the next part mean:

it belongs to the reason to direct to the end, which is the first principle in all matters of action

In the Reply to Objection 3 it says:

Reason has its power of moving from the will, as stated above (Question 17, Article 1): for it is due to the fact that one wills the end, that the reason issues its commands as regards things ordained to the end. But in order that the volition of what is commanded may have the nature of law, it needs to be in accord with some rule of reason. And in this sense is to be understood the saying that the will of the sovereign has the force of law; otherwise the sovereign’s will would savor of lawlessness rather than of law.

This entire section is talking about law, and whether that proceeds from reason or the will. St. Thomas is pointing out that it comes from reason. Reason directs the will to its end (the resulting action).

 

[Dranu]

Now, the question is, what does the next part mean:

it belongs to the reason to direct to the end, which is the first principle in all matters of action

In the Reply to Objection 3 it says:

Reason has its power of moving from the will, as stated above (Question 17, Article 1): for it is due to the fact that one wills the end, that the reason issues its commands as regards things ordained to the end. But in order that the volition of

This entire section is talking about law, and whether that proceeds from reason or the will. St. Thomas is pointing out that it comes from reason. Reason directs the will to its end (the resulting action).

I certainly find the basis of your opinion valid, which is why in the OP I said it is possible he is just referring to human actions as he cites this in his section on law. However, I find the contrary more likely. As you quote, he says it (reason directing to an end) is the first principle in all matters of actions and then he cites Aristotle’s Physics, Bk ii, which seems to be referring to actions in general. The objection reply you quote is more to answer whether will or reason is the first principle, not to delegate what he earlier said to human acts alone.