Question re Aquinas' Origin of Evil

[ErikaA]

I am new to St. Thomas and have just begun reading a book that surmises his writings and thoughts (by Francis Selman if that matters). My question is about his “source of evil”. According to the book I’m reading, St. Thomas attributes the existence of evil to two things: one is free will which I get. The second “cause” (for lack of a better term) is due to the fact that nothing created is perfect because it only shares in God’s perfection and thus can never be as perfect as God.

My question is regarding this second source of evil. If creation is less than perfect by virtue of it being from God and not God itself, then didn’t the creative act itself produce evil? Better put, doesn’t that mean that God produced an imperfect creation and doesn’t that go against the Genesis point that creation is good? I’m just trying to understand his philosophy better. Thank you for the (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[Joyousguard]

I am new to St. Thomas and have just begun reading a book that surmises his writings and thoughts (by Francis Selman if that matters). My question is about his “source of evil”. According to the book I’m reading, St. Thomas attributes the existence of evil to two things: one is free will which I get. The second “cause” (for lack of a better term) is due to the fact that nothing created is perfect because it only shares in God’s perfection and thus can never be as perfect as God.

My question is regarding this second source of evil. If creation is less than perfect by virtue of it being from God and not God itself, then didn’t the creative act itself produce evil? Better put, doesn’t that mean that God produced an imperfect creation and doesn’t that go against the Genesis point that creation is good? I’m just trying to understand his philosophy better. Thank you for the (name removed by moderator)ut.

Just because something is not perfect does not make it evil. Evil is created by the fact that we ourselves are imperfect and thus see things that we percieve as good but in fact are actually a false good. We seek the good but because of our fallen nature (original sin) our nature faculties that originally gave us a much better understanding of what is a true good are blinded.

Man can create evil as a result of their imperfect actions. This evil is man made but that does not mean that man did not have the best intentions.

Here is a thread where we discussed a similiar topic and should better help you answer your question, but keep posting here with any further questions you have:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=197238

 

[ErikaA]

Thank you for the link, but I think I was unclear in my question.

Does Aquinas state that evil is a “defect in the good”? We can use the term bad instead of evil if you prefer. I’m just curious if you can attribute all defects in the good to free will. A child born blind is born with “bad eyes”, correct? So far as bad is defined as the thing not performing its intended function or ultimate goal. I thought Aquinas also stated that by virtue of creation being “less perfect than God” it is of course not wholly good. But I may misunderstand the great theologian.

 

[Joyousguard]

Thank you for the link, but I think I was unclear in my question.

Does Aquinas state that evil is a “defect in the good”? We can use the term bad instead of evil if you prefer. I’m just curious if you can attribute all defects in the good to free will. A child born blind is born with “bad eyes”, correct? So far as bad is defined as the thing not performing its intended function or ultimate goal. I thought Aquinas also stated that by virtue of creation being “less perfect than God” it is of course not wholly good. But I may misunderstand the great theologian.

Well human beings do “evil” things as a result of ignorance. Check vincible and invincible ignorance and I believe ther may be a third one as well. Look through the link I gave above and go to the last few pages of thread and read my responses to their questions. Its not all there but if you have further questions Ill answer them per your request.

While living in the Garden of Eden, mankind enjoyed no death, suffering or hardships. Life was essentially perfect. The grace from God that mankind was born with ensured this. When mankind chose to disobey and reject God they lost this supernatural garce which granted them so many perks as it could be called. Living without fear of being killed or harmed is pretty nice. As a result of disobeying they were cast out of the garden and forced to live in a more harsh world.

The natural evil that befalls us is a consequence of being thrown out of paradise. We rejected God and thus we lost our place to stay. Natural evil befalls us as a result of our own choice to reject God, its just one part of the continual effects of that decision.

If you throw a brick off the empire state building, you must be prepared to accept all consequences that result from that action. Adam and Eve chose to throw the brick and thus accept all the consequences there after. Natural evil could not affect humanity when they were in the garden. Only when they broke God’s law did it begin to affect them . Natural evil is a result of human freedom of choice as well.

 

[Joyousguard]

My posts in a previous thread:

"All men seek the good. A christian seeks to help others, a chef seeks his own restaurant etc. etc…you get the point. Now some seek the false good; money, sex, power the list becomes obvious, but the question is “why”. People seek wealth because they see it as a false good and perhaps a satiation of their desired happiness. People seek sex because it is pleasureable and offers them an escape. People seek power because they want control etc. etc. Murderers even seek the good when they murder. This is a false good but none the less they seek the good but are uable to distinguish between what is a false good and what is an actual good.

Now all humans seek the good and the ultimate satiation of the good is God (see beatific vision) and since all humanity is created in God’s image then God must seek the good as well since God is perfect and the source of ultimate truth, and thus He seeks the good perfectly. If evil or evil actions are not found in seeking the true good and God ultimately is the source of all truth, He himself must be the good and can not be a source of or even be present in the action of seeking a false good (in reality an evil) because evil is a creation of humans succumbing to temptation with God tolerating their freedom to choose and to reject His presence in their actions rather than evil being allowed by God."

 

[Joyousguard]

Mine from another thread

The Catechism states " [Original Sin] is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". (CCC 405) Original sin was man’s first conscience rejection of God’s will, however, as the CCC clearly states, human nature was inhibited in its natural powers but these natural powers were not destroyed. Further still, humanity came under an inclination to evil not a choice to do evil.

What does an “inclination to evil” mean? After original sin, and to a lesser extent after Baptism, mankind suffers from this “inclination to evil”. Why the word “inclination” and not a term caring more weight such as “need or “intense desire” or “lust”? Inclination is a very broad term and can cover a very large spectrum from an almost unquenchable thirst to an almost passing whim. Why would such a broad term be used if it was assured that man is evil? Why not use a more definite term to carry the full impact of this truth that man is evil and longs for that which is evil as well?

First and foremost mankind desires the good. Whether this is the “real good” such as desiring to help others and see people happy or the “perceived good” such as wealth, power or fame. All of humanity desires the good but this good can differ greatly and in many instances this “desired good” is a pseudo good and in fact what could be called “evil”. Even murderers do not seek evil but rather seek a false good which for them might be the pleasure they gain from killing. Pleasure is not a bad thing in moderation and with restraint but pleasure from taking the life of another is clearly evil. Man does not intentionally seek evil but rather seeks and desires the pleasures of the “false good”. This “false good”, seen by men as a true good, is a result of ignorance and intellectual blindness from original sin. However, those who can see reality as it is, would often times classify this “false good” as an evil even though evil is the result or the means of a desire but not the actual desire itself.

Why is mankind at times not able to see reality as it is or what is truly good? According to the CCC, mankind was “wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance”. The intellect and reason are the natural powers of mankind that have been blinded by original sin. The intellect and reason help man determine what is truly good and then the will goes out and pursues the good. If these powers of reason and the intellect are blinded by original sin this leaves mankind in a state of ignorance to the true reality of what is actually the good. Mankind is left in a diminished state almost incapable of discerning right from wrong and good from evil. Our natural powers to discern morality which were imbued within us at creation have been blinded with our rejection of God’s will.

 

[Joyousguard]

still mine

continued…

Mankind does not intentionally seek evil, but rather seeks the good that can in actuality be an evil, but we can not see through our own ignorance. We come to know things more easily as evil through the grace of God from Baptism and with it the partial restoration of our natural powers of reason and the intellect to discern what is actually good from what is actually evil. Mankind does not actively seek evil but through ignorance seeks a false good which may in itself may be an actual evil.

The culpability of an individual perusing a false good may differ greatly depending on the individuals moral understanding and the development of their reason and intellectual faculties. A person of greater reason and intellectual understanding bears a greater responsibility for their actions and pursuit of a false good then a person of lesser capacity. However, even if a person of great moral understanding does pursue a false good, while understanding to some extent or another that it is in fact a false good, they are not always completely responsible for their actions but are more or less responsible for their own weak will and the succumbing to temptation that inevitably follows, as well as their lack of desire to shed the veil of ignorance.

In order for an action to be completely evil it must meet three criteria. (Theology of Thomas Aquinas) First, the intent must be an evil intent. That is to say you must desire something for evil purposes. Second, the means or method in which you go about trying to accomplish your desire goal must be evil themselves. Third, the desired ends or goal must be evil. In addition an action cannot be right if the ends come before the intent rather then the intent leading to the ends. Now, since humans desire the good, that is to say the ends that they seek appear to them to be good rather than evil and their intent is one of seeking the good, can anything humanity does ever really be considered truly evil?

Humanity or those taking the moral high ground may often times erroneously classify something as an evil action rather then separating the three parts of intent, means and ends and then analyzing them accordingly. This is an inevitable human fault and one more of ease and expediency than mischief or mal intent.

Look at one of the most infamous instances in human history; the Holocaust. Was Hitler’s action evil? The first question that must be asked is “What was the desire or intent of Hitler”? This can not be said for certain but after examining elements of “Mein Kompf” it becomes very plausible that Hitler truly believed that riding Europe, and perhaps the world, of the Jews would be good, but for the moment let us assume that this was his true desire. Hitler’s intent was to make the world a better place by riding Europe of the Jews because he felt they were a problem. Now, Hitler although most seriously misguided and ignorant (understatement) on this issue, truly wanted to make the world a better place and believed that getting rid of the Jews was a good thing and the way to accomplish his goal. His intent was for “good” or in this instance a “pseudo good”. It is very important to understand that Hitler desired to do a good thing here not something that was evil.

 

[Joyousguard]

still mine

Now, the method or means that Hitler used to go about fulfilling his desire was to round up the Jews and exterminate them in some of the most brutal means ever devised by man. This does not need to be discussed in any great detail and suffice it to say the methods employed by the Nazis were evil.

Lastly, the ends must be looked at. Approximately 6 million men, women and children where murdered under the “Final Solution”. The list of atrocities goes on and on and again really does not need to be discussed in any detail. The end result was definitely evil.

Was Hitler’s action evil? Does it meet the criteria for an action to be classified one way or the other? Hitler’s intent, although truly unknown to us, was portrayed as a true desire to see the world a better place. His intent was what most of us desire. However the “means” and “ends” where most definitely of an evil nature. But did truly desire evil?

Humans do not seek that which is evil, but rather they seek that which is good. This good can turn out to be a false good that we perceive to be a true good through our own ignorance and blindness of our intellectual faculties. The teachings of the Catholic Church quite accurately state that man is inclined towards evil but that does not mean man’s desire or intent is for evil. Man desires the good or often times a “false good” but he seeks the good none the less. Often times this desire for the false good leads us to an evil means or evil ends but the intent is always a desire for the good. Mankind as a result of original sin is almost incapable of seeing that some ends and means are in fact evil, even though our desires for the good in general blind us to the fact that the desired ends we seek are in fact evil.

Although man often employs evil means or that evil means often lead to evil ends, his intent is always for the good. A man who needs money for his wife’s operation robs a bank to get money. His intent and desire is to save his wife’s life but the means he employs of robbery and the result of a bank being robbed are wrong. Was this man evil? Most of us would say Hitler was evil but what if he only wanted the world to be a better place, regardless of the fact that he employed evil means for an evil ends?

By the reasoning of Aquinas a man’s actions can not be evil, even if the means and ends are evil, if the intent is for the good. Man might be inclined towards evil because of ignorance and the lacking of his intellectual faculties but this is never his intent because mankind only desires the good.

Sin is the conscience, unknowing, or some degree of both, rejection of God’s will. When we reject God’s will our culpability is dependent upon many factors and might absolve a great deal of our responsibility for our actions. We seek the good but sometimes our desires, or more appropriately called our passions, hinder our intellect’s ability to see what is actually good. Even though our intent is for the good we must take responsibility for our actions and the results that occur regardless of the outcome.

 

[Joyousguard]

mine
continued…

Original Sin has blinded our natural powers of the intellect and its ability to discern right from wrong, truth from non truth. As a result, much evil in this world is caused by our actions even though our intent is for the best.

Through the sacrament of Baptism, original sin is washed away. “Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle”. (CCC 405) Our intellectual faculties are returned to us and our natural ability to discern right from wrong is returned at lesser degree then it once was and thus requires a bit more effort on our parts to discern in greater detail the specifics of morality. Baptism confers grace from God upon the soul as well as removing the original stain. This grace furthers mankind’s understanding and deepens the faith that we each naturally have within us as children of God. With our growth in spiritual understanding through frequent reception of the sacraments, prayer and study will we only hope to defend ourselves from temptation

.

Evil is not like a piece of pie where it is segragated from the whole but rather the powder for a Kool Aid mix. The mix goes into the water and changes the color of everything. Even though the vast majority of what is in the cup is water, never the less the water is now red.

God is infinite, man is finite. One could spend an eternity learning about God and still come up in ignorance. Mankind is very slow learners and sometimes it might even take pains of hell to help get it through our thick heads as to what is truly good.

Look at a bank robber. This man spends five years planning the perfect robbery. When he’s caught, the prosecution would point to the fact that this robbery was premeditated and not a spur of the moment deed. This would no doubt lead to an increased sentence. The question is, “Did the man know and understand what he was doing?” I think most of us would answer “yes” because its clear that the man took five years to plan the robbery and you don’t spend five years without looking at the morality of a situation. I would say that for legal standards he proably knew what he was doing, but in reality, if he really knew what he was doing he would not have done it in the first place. This does not release him of responsibility but does lessen all of humanities culpability.

Does a murderer truly know what they are doing? Does a bank robber or rapist? I would say, that if they truly knew what they were doing, or knew what they were doing was really wrong, they would not do it to begin with. In fact they try to justify, and in their own minds may very well suceed, it as percieved good rather than something that could be considered evil.

Man does not choose to do evil but rather chooses what they percieve to be good. They do this for varying degrees of reasons but mostly because of ignorance.

Humanity isn’t evil. Stupid, naive and ignorant, probably, but not evil.

 

[Joyousguard]

from me

In this world, we can not always guarantee that all our efforts will be successful. However, we do have a large amount of control over the effort itself. Manalways seeks that which is good, but good and “false” good can sometimes be difficult to distinguish. The desire of man is simple, “To seek the good”. This is man’s nature. However, thatwhich is considered “good” may be very subjective in our own ignorance.

I.E. A man seeks wealth (false good in this case, not wealth of family etc. but gold). Man seeks the good he percieves in having money and the stuff that goes with it. Thus he sets about his efforts to gain this wealth. This percieved good is in fact a false good. However, how responsible is this man for seeking this false good? While the culpability/responsibility may vary on the circumstances, his desire was in the right place he merely sought the wrong means to obtain the wrong ends. In his own understanding and reasoning, limited depending upon grcae from God as well as his own person efforts to learn and understand, he saw a good. It’s a lot like a 4 year old who gives his mother flowers for her birthday only for her to find out that her son pulled the from her own prized garden. I have given my mother many a bouquet of dandilions in my day Many people should know better but our guilt and responsibility is almost never without some degree of a 5 year old thinking within us

Simply because the nature of our being is fallen does not mean man cannot be good. It simply means that we do not possess all that we once had to aid our pursuit of the good, of righteousness or of God. A man can still build a house without the knowledge of calcullus. A man can still, even though he is unbaptized or does not know God, perform good deeds and indeed be a good man. However, he would not have the supernatural grace to help him so it would be much more difficult

 

[Joyousguard]

mine

There is something to be said of culpability. This is an Aquinas line of theological thinking. That man or mankind in general is responsible for mistakes, errors and sins on one level or another depending upon circumstances surrounding such actions.

A man who is blind is not as much at fault for knocking someone over as a man who sees perfectly fine. A man who has devoted his entire life to the study and pursuit of God is more culpabe for a theft than a child of 6.

If all sins are equal in the eyes of the Lord then all of us before confession are truly as bad as the worst humanity has to offer. We are imperfect creatures and prone to sin and if the sin of lying is as grave as murder then we a shall all feel the hangman’s noose.

All sins may be equal in the eys of the Lord but that says nothing about their punishments. All sins are equal in the fact that they offend the Lord but that does not mean that he punishes all in the same manner.

I think this should give you a good place to start. I fany thing needs to be mad emore clear feel free to ask. I might not respond till Monday though

pax tecum

 

[WindyHair]

good and evil are human illusions.
yes, they are needed for a society
but in the end, it’s really all about survival.

 

[Benadam]

In a certain way good and evil are internal dispositions. If a person’s response to external experience, no matter how unjust or painfull, was one that was able to make that experience participate in the goals that fulfill the purpose of the person then that person exists in a reality that evil doesn’t exist.

Another experiencial reality that evil doesn’t exist in is innocense. This state of being doesn’t judge experience and is unable to recognize evil when it is within observation. The innocent heart wouldn’t be victimized by evil done to it.

Jesus walked the earth yet what He experienced was heaven.

 

[WindyHair]

good and evil are prejudiced human interpretations.
and i believe the concepts of good and evil are taught,
not instinctive.

 

[Contarini]

I am new to St. Thomas and have just begun reading a book that surmises his writings and thoughts (by Francis Selman if that matters). My question is about his “source of evil”. According to the book I’m reading, St. Thomas attributes the existence of evil to two things: one is free will which I get. The second “cause” (for lack of a better term) is due to the fact that nothing created is perfect because it only shares in God’s perfection and thus can never be as perfect as God.

My question is regarding this second source of evil. If creation is less than perfect by virtue of it being from God and not God itself, then didn’t the creative act itself produce evil? Better put, doesn’t that mean that God produced an imperfect creation and doesn’t that go against the Genesis point that creation is good? I’m just trying to understand his philosophy better. Thank you for the (name removed by moderator)ut.

I tripped up on this on my doctoral prelims and was hammered into the ground by two of my professors. According to Aquinas, God creates degrees of goodness, and this contributes to the perfection of the universe. In other words, it’s better to have angels and humans and rabbits and ducks and rhododendrons and mud rather than just angels.

But degrees of goodness, all of which as you note are infinitely less than God, entail the possibility that some of these created goods may fall short. I messed up on my exams because I said that this meant that evil was necessary–I wasn’t thinking carefully enough at the time, which is my only excuse for such a gaffe! (I had finished my main argument and still had time left, so I added a section on Aquinas’s view of evil.) Evil is this falling short. So God doesn’t create evil, but He does, so to speak, create the possibility of evil by making beings less than Himself. He is therefore, I would argue, indirectly responsible for evil.

I find Aquinas’s view of evil to be the most unsatisfactory aspect of his thought. But I still find it more satisfactory than any of the alternatives I’ve seen. I’m currently giving the “theology of hope” a chance, though.

Ediwn

 

[Joyousguard]

In a certain way good and evil are internal dispositions. If a person’s response to external experience, no matter how unjust or painfull, was one that was able to make that experience participate in the goals that fulfill the purpose of the person then that person exists in a reality that evil doesn’t exist.

Another experiencial reality that evil doesn’t exist in is innocense. This state of being doesn’t judge experience and is unable to recognize evil when it is within observation. The innocent heart wouldn’t be victimized by evil done to it.

Jesus walked the earth yet what He experienced was heaven.

Unfourtunately evil can be created as a result of our actions no matter how inncoent we are. Evil can happen even if we fulfill our desired goal and reaching this desired goal does not ensure that evil will not be able to touch us.

The innocent heart can be victimized by evil. Children are harmed each and every day, even babies.

Christ was FULLY DIVINE AND FULLY HUMAN, he experienced everything we do as humans.

 

[Joyousguard]

good and evil are human illusions.
yes, they are needed for a society
but in the end, it’s really all about survival.

If that were the case then human beings would not naturaly and intrinsicley seek the good. This is the equivalent of saying that gravity is an illusion and only created so we have some sort of man created law that ensure swe don’t float off the surface of the planet. Believe it all you want but don’t look to shocked when you loose your balance and gravity does the rest.

 

[Joyousguard]

good and evil are prejudiced human interpretations.
and i believe the concepts of good and evil are taught,
not instinctive.

Again, all human beings seek the good. This is not taught but rather imbuned in us from birth by the creator. I’ll be happy to walk you through the logic and fill in the missing pieces you seem to have.

 

[Joyousguard]

I tripped up on this on my doctoral prelims and was hammered into the ground by two of my professors. According to Aquinas, God creates degrees of goodness, and this contributes to the perfection of the universe. In other words, it’s better to have angels and humans and rabbits and ducks and rhododendrons and mud rather than just angels.

But degrees of goodness, all of which as you note are infinitely less than God, entail the possibility that some of these created goods may fall short. I messed up on my exams because I said that this meant that evil was necessary–I wasn’t thinking carefully enough at the time, which is my only excuse for such a gaffe! (I had finished my main argument and still had time left, so I added a section on Aquinas’s view of evil.) Evil is this falling short. So God doesn’t create evil, but He does, so to speak, create the possibility of evil by making beings less than Himself. He is therefore, I would argue, indirectly responsible for evil.

I find Aquinas’s view of evil to be the most unsatisfactory aspect of his thought. But I still find it more satisfactory than any of the alternatives I’ve seen. I’m currently giving the “theology of hope” a chance, though.

Ediwn

Evil is a creation of freedom of choice and action. To say that God created eveil indirectly is the equivalent of saying that God created the internet.

 

[WindyHair]

Again, all human beings seek the good. This is not taught but rather imbuned in us from birth by the creator. I’ll be happy to walk you through the logic and fill in the missing pieces you seem to have.

define “good”
we might have different interpretations :-]