There have been theologians that do argue that we can seek evil for its own sake: William Of Ockham, for instance.I’ve read multiple theologians and writings by lay Catholics that portray evil as a spoiled or corrupt form of goodness. The theology that I’ve seen on the belief that our wills are set after death is related to this idea. The idea seems to make intuitive sense, but it seems to be diametrically opposed to the concept of free will and all the theology that goes along with it. if Evil can’t be pursued for its own sake, but rather is only the result of pursuing something good in the wrong way, then how can our wills be said to be free at all?
Does anyone know if this problem is resolvable?
But if our wills inherently seek goodness, isn’t the very refusal to investigate itself an action done for the sake of some perceived goodness? Or is that refusal instead not done for the sake of any perceived goodness and instead committed purely for the sake of evil? I see no other options available and if the second is true, then as far as I can see, the common scholastic teaching for the past five hundred years can’t be.But they are always against reason and therefore have evil consequences even if we don’t realise this. To the degree we do realise (or refuse to investigate), and still do them, we are culpable.
We’re still held accountable for locating and living according to the true good. Our state of justice-not to mention our integrity and happiness- depends on it.But if our wills inherently seek goodness, isn’t the very refusal to investigate itself an action done for the sake of some perceived goodness? Or is that refusal instead not done for the sake of any perceived goodness and instead committed purely for the sake of evil? I see no other options available and if the second is true, then as far as I can see, the common scholastic teaching for the past five hundred years can’t be.
According to my understanding of the “corrupt goodness” model, Satan only did what he did because he didn’t understand that the core of whatever it was he wanted could only be satisfied in God, and sin in general is only committed because the sinner, who ultimately seeks only the good, also doesn’t understand that the core of whatever he desires can only be satisfied in God. In other words, Satan, and sinners in general, think that they are actually doing good when they act. According to this model, you don’t need to have some sort of mental deficiency in order for sin to be possible for you; you only need to lack omniscience.You probably need to elaborate the intellectual failure vs will bit. How do you differentiate between the 2? Any one can reason things out wrongly, but they don’t have to act on it. I thought of doing something selfish, but I didn’t do it. I have the free will , I thought about it, but I didn’t do it. Satan may have intellectual failure but he didn’t have to do it i.e. rebel but he did it and with 1/3 of the angels against God. To you that is intellectual failure and not something done out of Satan’s freewill? Please do explain.
Good. I’m relieved to know that this position hasn’t been rejected by all of theology.There have been theologians that do argue that we can seek evil for its own sake: William Of Ockham, for instance.
This ultimately gets back to the same problem, though. If we sin because we do what is advantageous for ourselves rather than what we believe is right, it is only because we lack knowledge about what is truly advantageous to ourselves.A way to bypass this apparent problem is that we, on one hand, have conscience or an inclination to do the right thing and another inclination to do what is advantageous to us -which might clash with our conscience-. This position was defended by Anselm of Canterbury, Duns Scotus and more recently by John E. Hare.
Those who enjoy the Beatific Vison are completely satiated with God, the Supreme good. there is no longer any desire to change the will. It is at Eternal rest. Our souls are restless, until they rest in Thee…St. Augustine We make bad choices because we lack the motivating knowledge of the greater good. Also we are hindered by our fallen nature which is ignorant of the supreme Good, and makes us susceptable to follow our passions, one is sloth, which affects us from pursuing knowledge, so we are culpableynotzap and fhansen, it sounds to me like you reject the “corrupt goodness” model. I do myself, at least at the moment, but rejecting this model raises a few concerns. For example, we no longer have an explanation as to why those in the beatific vision can’t change their wills.
Let me start the discussion with some definitions and traditional truths. Perhaps this may be of some help.I’ve read multiple theologians and writings by lay Catholics that portray evil as a spoiled or corrupt form of goodness. The theology that I’ve seen on the belief that our wills are set after death is related to this idea. The idea seems to make intuitive sense, but it seems to be diametrically opposed to the concept of free will and all the theology that goes along with it. if Evil can’t be pursued for its own sake, but rather is only the result of pursuing something good in the wrong way, then how can our wills be said to be free at all?
Does anyone know if this problem is resolvable?
We have a conscience-God’s law written in our hearts- that may oppose a certain act or behavior that appears good to us, while we’re free to do either. This is the struggle Paul spoke of in Romans 7. We’re free to oppose God’s will; we’re able to learn *which *is the greater good-that’s what we’re here for.This ultimately gets back to the same problem, though. If we sin because we do what is advantageous for ourselves rather than what we believe is right, it is only because we lack knowledge about what is truly advantageous to ourselves.
You’re assuming that full knowledge of the goodness of something serves as a constraint to free-will.This ultimately gets back to the same problem, though. If we sin because we do what is advantageous for ourselves rather than what we believe is right, it is only because we lack knowledge about what is truly advantageous to ourselves.