The idea of free will seems contradictory to the idea that all evil and sin is corrupt goodness

[N0X3x]

A common thread among many theological perspectives is that evil cannot be pursued directly; rather, it is the result of pursuing a good thing in the wrong way. Socrates, if I remember correctly, held the view that a perfectly wise man could not be evil, and Thomas Aquinas, along with many others, hold the view that evil is only corrupt goodness. My own understanding of the beatific vision (which I believe is the view that is generally held) is that those in heaven are not in danger of sinning because the beatific vision “overwhelms” and perfectly satisfies their wills. This view (which I call “corruptism” in this post for lack of a better word) basically states that our wills are ultimately always oriented toward the good, but other things (primarily ignorance) get in the way.

This view raises a host of problems, most of them stemming from a conflict between the views of corruptism and free will. Most importantly, it seems that free will can’t be reconciled with corruptism. A central tenet of corruptism is that evil can’t be pursued for its own sake, and that seems to directly contradict the idea that we have a genuine choice between good and evil.

As a consequence, sin seems impossible to commit under corruptism. Our evil actions are not the result of our wills, but rather simply a result of some unfortunate ignorance about what is really in our best interests, which we are not responsible for. How can any person justly be blamed for a lack of knowledge?

A further consequence is that humans behave deterministicly, always toward what they see as the best state of affairs.

The alternative is that corruptism is false, but that seems to undermine the theology behind the beatific vision, and might even pose a problem for some arguments that attempt to logically tie God’s goodness to his existence.

ultimately, either our wills are free to choose between evil for its own sake and goodness, they are only able to seek goodness, or else there is some way to reconcile these views that I’m not seeing.

Does anyone know of a solution to this problem? Or if only one perspective is true, which is it, and how does one avoid the consequences of the loss of the other?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

A common thread among many theological perspectives is that evil cannot be pursued directly; rather, it is the result of pursuing a good thing in the wrong way. Socrates, if I remember correctly, held the view that a perfectly wise man could not be evil, and Thomas Aquinas, along with many others, hold the view that evil is only corrupt goodness.

Let’s just get to what the Church teaches. The Church teaches, after Thomas Aquinas, that evil is the absence of or defomity of the good.

My own understanding of the beatific vision (which I believe is the view that is generally held) is that those in heaven are not in danger of sinning because the beatific vision “overwhelms” and perfectly satisfies their wills.

Yes.

This view (which I call “corruptism” in this post for lack of a better word) basically states that our wills are ultimately always oriented toward the good, but other things (primarily ignorance) get in the way.

" Corruptism " is the wrong word for obvious reasons. And this does not follow from the previous sentence. You are confusing the heavenly state with the earthly state. In the heavenly state our wills are incorruptible. In the earthly state are wills are corruptible.

" 1 Corinthians 15:54
Viewing the King James Version. Click to switch to 1611 King James Version of 1 Corinthians 15:54.

So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory "

So, to describe our present, earthly state a better word would be " corruptibility. "

This view raises a host of problems, most of them stemming from a conflict between the views of -]corruptism/-] ( corruptibility ) and free will. Most importantly, it seems that free will can’t be reconciled with -]corruptism./-] ( our corruptibility in this life.). A central tenet of -]corruptism/-] ( corruptiblity ) is that evil can’t be pursued for its own sake, and that seems to directly contradict the idea that we have a genuine choice between good and evil.

This is a frequent topic of conversation here. Our freedom lies in the fact that we can choose between the genuine good, the apparent good, or not to act at all. When we choose the apparent good, this is always a corruption of the genuine good and is termed evil. It is termed evil because it is something that does not exist. It is a corruption of what is good. It is good to have enough wealth to provide for our families, which is part of our calling. By doing so we obey God’s command and lay up treasure in heaven. But to steal in order to do that is a corruption of the genuine good, to provide for our family. We have done what is an apparent good only, so have done no good at all. The same with sexuality.

As a consequence, sin seems impossible to commit under -]corruptism/-] ( our condition of corruptibility )… Our evil actions are not the result of our wills, but rather simply a result of some unfortunate ignorance about what is really in our best interests, which we are not responsible for. How can any person justly be blamed for a lack of knowledge?

I think I have explained this. Of course ignorance can diminish or remove guilt, but it must be invincible ignorance. If one is truly invincibly ignorant ( if one were a pagan and knew nothing abougt Jesus Christ and/or the Catholic faith ), one would not incure guilt for eating meat on Friday or for not attending Church on Sundays and Holy Days. But they could be guilty of breaking the natural moral low in many ways, to some degree which can be known only by God and the individual.

A further consequence is that humans behave deterministicly, always toward what they see as the best state of affairs.

The Catholic Church disagrees that our actions are determined. They are free as I have pointed out. We choose to act or not act, and if we act, we may act inappropriately.

The alternative is that -]corruptism/-] ( corruptibility ) is false, but that seems to undermine the theology behind the beatific vision, and might even pose a problem for some arguments that attempt to logically tie God’s goodness to his existence.

Corruptibility in this life is not false, as I have been pointing out. And our condition in this life has nothing to do with the state of incorruptibility in heaven due to the Beatific Vision.

ultimately, either our wills are free to choose between evil for its own sake and goodness, they are only able to seek goodness, or else there is some way to reconcile these views that I’m not seeing.

I don’t think we can choose evil for its own sake because we do not truly know what evil, the total lack of goodness, is. In this life we always choose at least the apparent good. I don’t think any man has ever committed an act which was totally lacking in any good. So there is no conflict between our state of corruptibility in this life and free will. And our free will consists in doing good, at least the apparent good, or not acting at all.

You could answer many of your own questions simply by reading the Catechism, linked below.

Pax

Linus2nd

 

[ChainBreaker]

You could answer many of your own questions simply by reading the Catechism, linked below.

Pax

Linus2nd

The Catechism contains the theology of the Catholic Church.

 

[N0X3x]

" Corruptism " is the wrong word for obvious reasons. And this does not follow from the previous sentence. You are confusing the heavenly state with the earthly state. In the heavenly state our wills are incorruptible. In the earthly state are wills are corruptible.

" 1 Corinthians 15:54
Viewing the King James Version. Click to switch to 1611 King James Version of 1 Corinthians 15:54.

So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory "

So, to describe our present, earthly state a better word would be " corruptibility. "

I simply intended corruptism to mean “the belief that evil is the corruption or absence of goodness.” corruptism refers to this belief, or philosophical perspective; corruptibility, to the state of being able to be corrupted. Though they’ve been pretty much interchangable so far, for future reference I want to be clear that I am speaking about the belief, not the state, when I spoke about corruptism, I’d also like to mention that the truth value of corruptism is independent of whether corruptibility exists here or in heaven, in both, or neither. Corruptism is merely the claim that evil, where it exists is the deprivation or corruption of goodness. If you believe that, you are a corruptist, regardless of where evil actually occurs.

I was unaware that corruptism was an official part of Catholicism, and that the church teaches that our wills fundamentally change at our death, so I appreciate the clarification. Now the question is, are our wills fixed because of the “closeness” of the genuine good, or does God “manually” fix them? The distinction is important. In the former case, our wills are always seeking the genuine good and are finally satisfied when we die, and in the latter case, we would seem to have free will before our death but not afterword.

This is a frequent topic of conversation here. Our freedom lies in the fact that we can choose between the genuine good, the apparent good, or not to act at all. When we choose the apparent good, this is always a corruption of the genuine good and is termed evil. It is termed evil because it is something that does not exist. It is a corruption of what is good. It is good to have enough wealth to provide for our families, which is part of our calling. By doing so we obey God’s command and lay up treasure in heaven. But to steal in order to do that is a corruption of the genuine good, to provide for our family. We have done what is an apparent good only, so have done no good at all. The same with sexuality.

Under corruptism, it seems that man must seek and act upon the greatest good apparent to him, since the object of the will is the good. to choose a lesser good over a greater good, or an apparent good over a genuine one, is to choose evil for its own sake. why else would a person choose an lesser good over a greater good?

I think I have explained this. Of course ignorance can diminish or remove guilt, but it must be invincible ignorance. If one is truly invincibly ignorant ( if one were a pagan and knew nothing abougt Jesus Christ and/or the Catholic faith ), one would not incure guilt for eating meat on Friday or for not attending Church on Sundays and Holy Days. But they could be guilty of breaking the natural moral low in many ways, to some degree which can be known only by God and the individual.

Suppose a man is faced with a choice where the apparent good seems greater to him than the genuine good, because he is ignorant of some aspect of the genuine good that would make it more attractive to him. If the man chooses the apparent good (where he would not if he were not ignorant of the extra appeal of the genuine good) would you say he sins? or would you say this is an example of invincible ignorance?

The Catholic Church disagrees that our actions are determined. They are free as I have pointed out. We choose to act or not act, and if we act, we may act inappropriately.

If we are truly free to act appropriately or inappropriately, it means that we must be free to choose evil for its own sake. If we had perfect knowledge, and still chose the apparent good over the genuine good, we would be choosing evil for its own sake. it seems to me that the corruptist would say that the reason we do not always choose the genuine good is that we are ignorant as to what the genuine good is.

Corruptibility in this life is not false, as I have been pointing out. And our condition in this life has nothing to do with the state of incorruptibility in heaven due to the Beatific Vision.

Fair enough. As I said, I was unaware of the distinction between the two.

I don’t think we can choose evil for its own sake because we do not truly know what evil, the total lack of goodness, is. In this life we always choose at least the apparent good. I don’t think any man has ever committed an act which was totally lacking in any good. So there is no conflict between our state of corruptibility in this life and free will. And our free will consists in doing good, at least the apparent good, or not acting at all.

You wouldn’t need to know the total lack of goodness in order to choose evil for its own sake. Any time you deliberately choose a lesser good to a greater good, you would be choosing evil for its own sake.

You could answer many of your own questions simply by reading the Catechism, linked below.

Pax

Linus2nd

In the process of reading it now.

 

[oldcelt]

Free will cannot exist under an omniscient creator.

John

 

[N0X3x]

Free will cannot exist under an omniscient creator.

John

Why not? Could you explain yourself further?

 

[lmelahn]

A common thread among many theological perspectives is that evil cannot be pursued directly; rather, it is the result of pursuing a good thing in the wrong way. Socrates, if I remember correctly, held the view that a perfectly wise man could not be evil, and Thomas Aquinas, along with many others, hold the view that evil is only corrupt goodness. My own understanding of the beatific vision (which I believe is the view that is generally held) is that those in heaven are not in danger of sinning because the beatific vision “overwhelms” and perfectly satisfies their wills. This view (which I call “corruptism” in this post for lack of a better word) basically states that our wills are ultimately always oriented toward the good, but other things (primarily ignorance) get in the way.

This view raises a host of problems, most of them stemming from a conflict between the views of corruptism and free will. Most importantly, it seems that free will can’t be reconciled with corruptism. A central tenet of corruptism is that evil can’t be pursued for its own sake, and that seems to directly contradict the idea that we have a genuine choice between good and evil.

As a consequence, sin seems impossible to commit under corruptism. Our evil actions are not the result of our wills, but rather simply a result of some unfortunate ignorance about what is really in our best interests, which we are not responsible for. How can any person justly be blamed for a lack of knowledge?

A further consequence is that humans behave deterministicly, always toward what they see as the best state of affairs.

The alternative is that corruptism is false, but that seems to undermine the theology behind the beatific vision, and might even pose a problem for some arguments that attempt to logically tie God’s goodness to his existence.

ultimately, either our wills are free to choose between evil for its own sake and goodness, they are only able to seek goodness, or else there is some way to reconcile these views that I’m not seeing.

Does anyone know of a solution to this problem? Or if only one perspective is true, which is it, and how does one avoid the consequences of the loss of the other?

Regarding free will itself, we need to understand how it works.

The will is a capability (or “power” or “faculty” or whatever you wish to call it) that emanates directly from the soul. Through this faculty, we are able to make acts of love. That is what it is for.

What is sometimes rather misleadingly called “free will” is what the Medievals called liberum arbitrium, which is simply that characteristic of man that makes him able to choose between good and evil. It is not a faculty, but simply a property of man. We don’t produce acts of love through it; that is the job of the will (tout court, without the adjective “free”).

So, how is it that man comes to have this characteristic, this liberum arbitrium?

Let’s look at how our intellects (the faculty or “power” through which we know things) and wills work. Our intellects come to know many things (not just objects, but also possible courses of action to take), and it immediately recognizes that some of them are good for us, and that there are some we need to stay away from. Recognizing which actions are good and which ones are evil can sometimes require a bit work, but the point is, it is our intellect’s function (among others) to do this discernment.

Then, when that discernment is done, the intellect, so to speak, presents the results to the will for execution. “OK, will, this is what needs to be done, or what needs to be avoided.”

It is the function of the will to execute that order or not. And this freedom, to execute or not, is at the root of our liberum arbitrium.

So let’s look at an example of an action that is clearly evil: adultery, say. What makes that particular sin attractive? Clearly, it is some good aspect, or at least something perceived as good (in this case, either a sensual pleasure, or the good feelings that go with falling in love, or what have you). No one commits adultery in order to feel terrible afterwards, or in order to break up his marriage, or in order to lose the state of grace. So it is never the evil aspects of adultery that attract, only the good ones (even though those good aspects are superficial).

So, how come we are capable of choosing something as evil as adultery? In a word, because we are capable of refusing to obey our intellect’s orders.

A person with a properly formed conscience will know immediately that adultery is wrong (either because he knows its evil consequences, or because he knows that the one of the Commandments forbids it, or because he knows that the Church teaches against it, or any combination of these).

He may, at the same time, experience a physical attraction to a person he is not married to. His intellect will tell him plainly, “the feelings you are experiencing will lead to adultery; you must not allow them to grow in you.” If he obeys, well and good. If he refuses, then he has taken the first step towards committing adultery. If he continues down that road, he will eventually silence his intellect’s protestations against his course of action.

So you see, even when we sin, we adhere to something good (or at least apparently good). We cannot desire evil for evil’s sake.

 

[Bahman]

A common thread among many theological perspectives is that evil cannot be pursued directly; rather, it is the result of pursuing a good thing in the wrong way. Socrates, if I remember correctly, held the view that a perfectly wise man could not be evil, and Thomas Aquinas, along with many others, hold the view that evil is only corrupt goodness.

They didn’t know the definition of good and evil, but right and wrong. Right is a quality of thought that takes you to an end, opposite to wrong which is purposeless.

My own understanding of the beatific vision (which I believe is the view that is generally held) is that those in heaven are not in danger of sinning because the beatific vision “overwhelms” and perfectly satisfies their wills. This view (which I call “corruptism” in this post for lack of a better word) basically states that our wills are ultimately always oriented toward the good, but other things (primarily ignorance) get in the way.

You are right. Beatific vision is such a non-sense idea for several reasons. One of them you mention.

This view raises a host of problems, most of them stemming from a conflict between the views of corruptism and free will. Most importantly, it seems that free will can’t be reconciled with corruptism. A central tenet of corruptism is that evil can’t be pursued for its own sake, and that seems to directly contradict the idea that we have a genuine choice between good and evil.

That is correct.

As a consequence, sin seems impossible to commit under corruptism. Our evil actions are not the result of our wills, but rather simply a result of some unfortunate ignorance about what is really in our best interests, which we are not responsible for. How can any person justly be blamed for a lack of knowledge?

That is correct.

A further consequence is that humans behave deterministicly, always toward what they see as the best state of affairs.

That is not quite correct. You can choose between two right things. The problem is one of the right thing is always better than another depending on the type of fruit it grants in short-term but we are not aware of long-term benefit because of ignorance, hence beatific vision does not resolve any problem since we will be ignorant anyway.

The alternative is that corruptism is false, but that seems to undermine the theology behind the beatific vision, and might even pose a problem for some arguments that attempt to logically tie God’s goodness to his existence.

What is the problem? God in your definition is omniscient so he can always do the best, but we cannot. I however don’t understand how beatific vision could bring permanent happiness to us.

ultimately, either our wills are free to choose between evil for its own sake and goodness, they are only able to seek goodness, or else there is some way to reconcile these views that I’m not seeing.

Well…

Does anyone know of a solution to this problem? Or if only one perspective is true, which is it, and how does one avoid the consequences of the loss of the other?

How could you be free if you are ultimately wise and are always determined to do things right!?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I simply intended corruptism to mean “the belief that evil is the corruption or absence of goodness.” corruptism refers to this belief, or philosophical perspective; corruptibility, to the state of being able to be corrupted. Though they’ve been pretty much interchangable so far, for future reference I want to be clear that I am speaking about the belief, not the state, when I spoke about corruptism, I’d also like to mention that the truth value of corruptism is independent of whether corruptibility exists here or in heaven, in both, or neither. Corruptism is merely the claim that evil, where it exists is the deprivation or corruption of goodness. If you believe that, you are a corruptist, regardless of where evil actually occurs.

I’m not comfortable putting a label on this.

I was unaware that corruptism was an official part of Catholicism, and that the church teaches that our wills fundamentally change at our death, so I appreciate the clarification. Now the question is, are our wills fixed because of the “closeness” of the genuine good, or does God “manually” fix them? The distinction is important. In the former case, our wills are always seeking the genuine good and are finally satisfied when we die, and in the latter case, we would seem to have free will before our death but not afterword.

God does not " fix " our wills either in this life or the next. In heaven our wills are still free but since we have attained perfect happiness we have no reason to choose otherwise. Imelahn can probably express it better. But the bottom line is that the Church teaches that we are perfectly free in heaven too.

Under corruptism, it seems that man must seek and act upon the greatest good apparent to him, since the object of the will is the good. to choose a lesser good over a greater good, or an apparent good over a genuine one, is to choose evil for its own sake. why else would a person choose an lesser good over a greater good?

That would not be choosing " evil for its own sake. " You have discounted the effect of concupiscence, the attractions of the world, and the devil. These cloud our intellects and weaken our wills. But that simply means we have to exercise more effort to make the will conform to what it knows is the true good.

Suppose a man is faced with a choice where the apparent good seems greater to him than the genuine good, because he is ignorant of some aspect of the genuine good that would make it more attractive to him. If the man chooses the apparent good (where he would not if he were not ignorant of the extra appeal of the genuine good) would you say he sins? or would you say this is an example of invincible ignorance?

It would depend on the circumstances and the individual conscience. I could not judge individual cases. That would be up to one’s confessor, if one has one. If one is, through no fault of his own, unaware that he has chosen an apparent good which will not make him happy, then I would say he would not be culpable, that he has acted in invincible ignorance. But here I defer to Imelahn.

If we are truly free to act appropriately or inappropriately, it means that we must be free to choose evil for its own sake. If we had perfect knowledge, and still chose the apparent good over the genuine good, we would be choosing evil for its own sake. it seems to me that the corruptist would say that the reason we do not always choose the genuine good is that we are ignorant as to what the genuine good is.

We cannot have perfect knowledge in this life. Therefore we cannot choose evil for its own sake. But the question here is whether the ignorance is vincible or invincible. But culpability does not depend on perfect knowledge. It depends only on a reasonable effort to learn what is right and what is wrong.

Fair enough. As I said, I was unaware of the distinction between the two.

O.K.

You wouldn’t need to know the total lack of goodness in order to choose evil for its own sake. Any time you deliberately choose a lesser good to a greater good, you would be choosing evil for its own sake.

I disagree. We are culpable if we act against a well formed conscience. But that is not choosing evil for its own sake.

---

For now I defer to Imelahn’s accounting given in post # 7. Between my post and his I think all bases are covered. I will not agree that the Church teaches " corruptism " since that is a manufactured term. And whether or not it fits or describes the teaching of the Church is beyond my pay grade. But I would not wager my salvation on my private analysis of the Church’s teaching. Such analysis is the Church’s prerogative only. I think Imelahn answers your question about " choosing evil for its own sake. " He explained, better than I, how that is not possible. We always seek the highest good, perfect happiness ( which can be had in heaven only ), whether or not we realize it.

Read my post again. We can be invincibly ignorant. In that case there is no culpability.

Again, since we cannot have perfect knowledge in this life, we cannot choose evil itself. No one intentionally damns himself - except that we die unrepentant. All our choices are made with the understanding that we are seeking happiness. The error, which is a sin, is that we mistake what will give us happiness. Imelahn spoke to that…

Pax
Linus2nd

 

[fhansen]

A further consequence is that humans behave deterministicly, always toward what they see as the best state of affairs.

“Corruptism” is not the same as determinism. Two people enter a place of business and observe a $100 bill laying on the counter. Both are certain they could take it without being caught. Both value the money as a good. Both also value moral integrity; neither would want to be known as a thief, and both share an innate sense, to one degree or another, that taking that which is not their own is intrinsically wrong, while also possessing a potentially conflicting value on doing things which benefit one’s material welfare. For each, a split-second but very real inner struggle ensues, and they act, one taking the money and the other leaving it. We recognize the one who took the money as having less moral integrity than the other, who placed a higher value on the greater good of not taking that which is not theirs by right. Neither was compelled like a brute animal to act in the way they did.

 

[fhansen]

“Corruptism” is not the same as determinism. Two people enter a place of business and observe a $100 bill laying on the counter. Both are certain they could take it without being caught. Both value the money as a good. Both also value moral integrity; neither would want to be known as a thief, and both share an innate sense, to one degree or another, that taking that which is not their own is intrinsically wrong, while also possessing a potentially conflicting value on doing things which benefit one’s material welfare. For each, a split-second, barely discernible but very real and very important inner struggle ensues, and they act, one taking the money and the other leaving it. We recognize the one who took the money as having less moral integrity than the other, who placed a higher value on the greater good of not taking that which is not theirs by right. Neither was compelled like a brute animal to act in the way they did.

 

[Aloysium]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

. . . So you see, even when we sin, we adhere to something good (or at least apparently good). We cannot desire evil for evil’s sake.

Out of jealousy, envy, pride and greed people can seek to destroy the good of others.
This seems to reflect a desire of evil for evil’s sake.
It bothers me to see that couple so happy; I will seduce his wife.
What is the nature of the good in such a case?

 

[N0X3x]

Regarding free will itself, we need to understand how it works.

The will is a capability (or “power” or “faculty” or whatever you wish to call it) that emanates directly from the soul. Through this faculty, we are able to make acts of love. That is what it is for.

What is sometimes rather misleadingly called “free will” is what the Medievals called liberum arbitrium, which is simply that characteristic of man that makes him able to choose between good and evil. It is not a faculty, but simply a property of man. We don’t produce acts of love through it; that is the job of the will (tout court, without the adjective “free”).

So, how is it that man comes to have this characteristic, this liberum arbitrium?

Let’s look at how our intellects (the faculty or “power” through which we know things) and wills work. Our intellects come to know many things (not just objects, but also possible courses of action to take), and it immediately recognizes that some of them are good for us, and that there are some we need to stay away from. Recognizing which actions are good and which ones are evil can sometimes require a bit work, but the point is, it is our intellect’s function (among others) to do this discernment.

Then, when that discernment is done, the intellect, so to speak, presents the results to the will for execution. “OK, will, this is what needs to be done, or what needs to be avoided.”

It is the function of the will to execute that order or not. And this freedom, to execute or not, is at the root of our liberum arbitrium.

So let’s look at an example of an action that is clearly evil: adultery, say. What makes that particular sin attractive? Clearly, it is some good aspect, or at least something perceived as good (in this case, either a sensual pleasure, or the good feelings that go with falling in love, or what have you). No one commits adultery in order to feel terrible afterwards, or in order to break up his marriage, or in order to lose the state of grace. So it is never the evil aspects of adultery that attract, only the good ones (even though those good aspects are superficial).

So, how come we are capable of choosing something as evil as adultery? In a word, because we are capable of refusing to obey our intellect’s orders.

A person with a properly formed conscience will know immediately that adultery is wrong (either because he knows its evil consequences, or because he knows that the one of the Commandments forbids it, or because he knows that the Church teaches against it, or any combination of these).

He may, at the same time, experience a physical attraction to a person he is not married to. His intellect will tell him plainly, “the feelings you are experiencing will lead to adultery; you must not allow them to grow in you.” If he obeys, well and good. If he refuses, then he has taken the first step towards committing adultery. If he continues down that road, he will eventually silence his intellect’s protestations against his course of action.

So you see, even when we sin, we adhere to something good (or at least apparently good). We cannot desire evil for evil’s sake.

thank you for the very informative post!

I think it’s safe to say that no one is attracted to evil for evil’s sake. but I don’t think we can say that no one can act on evil for evil’s sake, not if we truly have liberum arbitrium.

Take your case of the adulterous man. For convienience, let’s suppose that the man is intellectually aware of the all the reasons adultury is bad for both himself and others, and yet, with these reasons in mind, chooses adultury anyway.

If the man ignores his intellect and chooses to commit adultery, he chooses, but does not desire, evil for its own sake, because, though he knows what the genuine good is, both for himself and others, he chooses a diminished good anyway. As the definition of evil is lack of goodness, he chooses evil for its own sake because the distinguishing feature of adultery is its lack of goodness!

 

[N0X3x]

I’m not comfortable putting a label on this.

I chose the label in order to speak more concisely, but if you don’t like it, I won’t use it when speaking to you.

That would not be choosing " evil for its own sake. " You have discounted the effect of concupiscence, the attractions of the world, and the devil. These cloud our intellects and weaken our wills. But that simply means we have to exercise more effort to make the will conform to what it knows is the true good.

You seem to be implying that when we choose the lesser good or the apparent good, it is because of concupiscience, the devil, or a perversion of natural and wholesome desires. this would seem to imply that without these inhibitors, we would always choose the good.

first of all, we know that is not the case. Lucifer sinned, and was not affected by any of these things.

more importantly, though, is that this view seems incompatible with liberum arbitrium.

Look at it this way. If person X commits an immoral action, which he would not commit if he had the proper knowledge, and a lack of concupiscence, demonic temptation and so on, then is that person really culpable for his action? I would claim he is not. If those things were actually capable of influencing our choices in any real way, then we are nothing more than slaves to forces outside ourselves.

When determining the range of our liberum arbitrium, we must discount all factors that could influence our decision, and must focus solely on what remains. we must ask how that part of person x that is able to choose between good and evil is oriented. I assert that if a person truly has the capability to choose between good and evil, then his choice must be the same regardless of other influences. and if that is true, if we have the ability to choose evil even without hindrances. then we are able to choose evil for its own sake.

We cannot have perfect knowledge in this life. Therefore we cannot choose evil for its own sake. But the question here is whether the ignorance is vincible or invincible. But culpability does not depend on perfect knowledge. It depends only on a reasonable effort to learn what is right and what is wrong.

Culpability may not depend on perfect knowledge, but it would seem to depend on sufficient knowledge to make a moral decision, which translates to perfect moral knowledge about the given situation.

I disagree. We are culpable if we act against a well formed conscience. But that is not choosing evil for its own sake.

---

For now I defer to Imelahn’s accounting given in post # 7. Between my post and his I think all bases are covered. I will not agree that the Church teaches " corruptism " since that is a manufactured term.

Ultimately, all terms are manufactured, but I’m not sure if that was what you meant by this statement.

And whether or not it fits or describes the teaching of the Church is beyond my pay grade. But I would not wager my salvation on my private analysis of the Church’s teaching. Such analysis is the Church’s prerogative only. I think Imelahn answers your question about " choosing evil for its own sake. " He explained, better than I, how that is not possible. We always seek the highest good, perfect happiness ( which can be had in heaven only ), whether or not we realize it.

Read my post again. We can be invincibly ignorant. In that case there is no culpability.

Again, since we cannot have perfect knowledge in this life, we cannot choose evil itself. No one intentionally damns himself - except that we die unrepentant. All our choices are made with the understanding that we are seeking happiness. The error, which is a sin, is that we mistake what will give us happiness. Imelahn spoke to that…

Pax
Linus2nd

If sin is simply mistaking what will give us happiness, then isn’t making that mistake a flaw of the intellect, rather than of the will? And if we always seek the highest good, then where does evil come from? Our clouded intellects and weakened wills? That’s not something we are responsible for! To paraphrase what I mentioned before, if person x commits an immoral action, where he would not commit that action if he had an unclouded intellect and a strong will, I argue that he is not morally culpable for that action, because his will was swayed by forces outside his control. In other words, I think invincible ignorance has far greater reach than you seem to think it does.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I chose the label in order to speak more concisely, but if you don’t like it, I won’t use it when speaking to you.

You seem to be implying that when we choose the lesser good or the apparent good, it is because of concupiscience, the devil, or a perversion of natural and wholesome desires. this would seem to imply that without these inhibitors, we would always choose the good.

first of all, we know that is not the case. Lucifer sinned, and was not affected by any of these things.

more importantly, though, is that this view seems incompatible with liberum arbitrium.

Look at it this way. If person X commits an immoral action, which he would not commit if he had the proper knowledge, and a lack of concupiscence, demonic temptation and so on, then is that person really culpable for his action? I would claim he is not. If those things were actually capable of influencing our choices in any real way, then we are nothing more than slaves to forces outside ourselves.

When determining the range of our liberum arbitrium, we must discount all factors that could influence our decision, and must focus solely on what remains. we must ask how that part of person x that is able to choose between good and evil is oriented. I assert that if a person truly has the capability to choose between good and evil, then his choice must be the same regardless of other influences. and if that is true, if we have the ability to choose evil even without hindrances. then we are able to choose evil for its own sake.

Culpability may not depend on perfect knowledge, but it would seem to depend on sufficient knowledge to make a moral decision, which translates to perfect moral knowledge about the given situation.

Ultimately, all terms are manufactured, but I’m not sure if that was what you meant by this statement.

If sin is simply mistaking what will give us happiness, then isn’t making that mistake a flaw of the intellect, rather than of the will? And if we always seek the highest good, then where does evil come from? Our clouded intellects and weakened wills? That’s not something we are responsible for! To paraphrase what I mentioned before, if person x commits an immoral action, where he would not commit that action if he had an unclouded intellect and a strong will, I argue that he is not morally culpable for that action, because his will was swayed by forces outside his control. In other words, I think invincible ignorance has far greater reach than you seem to think it does.

You mentioned the fall of Satan. God created angels and man in a probationary period. They could choose to obey or not obey. But they chose, with full knowledge, to choose a lesser good, thinking that the lesser good would give them happiness. Satan’s sin was greater because he possessed more perfect knowledge and reasoning power. I don’t quite understand Imelahn’s point about liberum arbitrium so I can’t speak to that.

Perhaps if you think over my response and Imelahn’s some more you will understand them better. You can also read the Catechism linked below.

Pax
Linus2nd

 

[lmelahn]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

Out of jealousy, envy, pride and greed people can seek to destroy the good of others.
This seems to reflect a desire of evil for evil’s sake.
It bothers me to see that couple so happy; I will seduce his wife.
What is the nature of the good in such a case?

There is still, it seems to me, a perceived good that is being sought. Suppose the adultery is done out of spite or jealousy. By destroying the other person’s good, the jealous man thinks he can quiet his own lack of satisfaction. The spiteful man acquires a perverse kind of pleasure (perhaps because he asserts his superiority) by ruining the other man’s good.

Clearly, these are twisted “goods,” but they are still attractive under the appearance of good (sub specie boni).

We can’t possibly desire our own misery; we just look for happiness in the wrong places.

 

[lmelahn]

thank you for the very informative post!

I think it’s safe to say that no one is attracted to evil for evil’s sake. but I don’t think we can say that no one can act on evil for evil’s sake, not if we truly have liberum arbitrium.

Take your case of the adulterous man. For convienience, let’s suppose that the man is intellectually aware of the all the reasons adultury is bad for both himself and others, and yet, with these reasons in mind, chooses adultury anyway.

If the man ignores his intellect and chooses to commit adultery, he chooses, but does not desire, evil for its own sake, because, though he knows what the genuine good is, both for himself and others, he chooses a diminished good anyway. As the definition of evil is lack of goodness, he chooses evil for its own sake because the distinguishing feature of adultery is its lack of goodness!

I don’t think it’s safe to distinguish between “desire” and “choice.” A desire (I mean one that is on the level of the will, not a purely sensual attraction) is already a choice.

(In order to commit a sin, by the way, a man need not be aware of all the consequences. It is sufficient his conscience inform him here and now that what he is about to do is wrong. There are many ways to know that kind of thing, and I think that human beings have an almost instinctive understanding that something as grave as adultery is wrong.)

Anyway, it seems to me that in order to choose the adultery, the man has to forget for a moment the evilness of the action. Remember that adulteries occur in a storm of passion, in which the people involved are not thinking properly. The perpetrators are blinded by the apparent good, and fail to see that they their desires are disordered. The initial walk down that road begins when we fail to control our passions, while we were still in control, and allow ourselves to contemplate and imagine the sinful behavior.

However, it is not the misery itself that the adulterer wants. He still seeks happiness, but he is seeking it in the wrong place.

 

[Aloysium]

There is still, it seems to me, a perceived good that is being sought. Suppose the adultery is done out of spite or jealousy. By destroying the other person’s good, the jealous man thinks he can quiet his own lack of satisfaction. The spiteful man acquires a perverse kind of pleasure (perhaps because he asserts his superiority) by ruining the other man’s good.

Clearly, these are twisted “goods,” but they are still attractive under the appearance of good (sub specie boni).

We can’t possibly desire our own misery; we just look for happiness in the wrong places.

The scenario I chose was a restating of the seduction of man in the garden, since it would be seen as the archetypal evil act.

Clearly God transforms that evil into the greatest good, revealed in the death and resurrection of our Lord. Another good is the existence, itself of Satan and all the capacities he was granted.

The way I see it, Satan was not pursuing a good in his act against God, and likewise those who follow him. The seducer who intends to do harm is possibly not commiting a sin of adultery so much as murder. It is about causing humiliation, pain, distrust and disharmony. It is not foreign to human nature to exalt in perverse pleasures. These aren’t actually good things. It is a seduction, a lie.

 

[oldcelt]

The scenario I chose was a restating of the seduction of man in the garden, since it would be seen as the archetypal evil act.

Clearly God transforms that evil into the greatest good, revealed in the death and resurrection of our Lord. Another good is the existence, itself of Satan and all the capacities he was granted.

The way I see it, Satan was not pursuing a good in his act against God, and likewise those who follow him. The seducer who intends to do harm is possibly not commiting a sin of adultery so much as murder. It is about causing humiliation, pain, distrust and disharmony. It is not foreign to human nature to exalt in perverse pleasures. These aren’t actually good things. It is a seduction, a lie.

Remove god from the equation, and it makes a lot more sense. Creation myths are what they are.

John

 

[lmelahn]

The scenario I chose was a restating of the seduction of man in the garden, since it would be seen as the archetypal evil act.

Clearly God transforms that evil into the greatest good, revealed in the death and resurrection of our Lord. Another good is the existence, itself of Satan and all the capacities he was granted.

The way I see it, Satan was not pursuing a good in his act against God, and likewise those who follow him. The seducer who intends to do harm is possibly not commiting a sin of adultery so much as murder. It is about causing humiliation, pain, distrust and disharmony. It is not foreign to human nature to exalt in perverse pleasures. These aren’t actually good things. It is a seduction, a lie.

I am not denying that what Satan (say) tries to do is evil or that he doesn’t know it is evil; rather, I am suggesting that the will (even Satan’s will) couldn’t adhere to it unless it appeared good in some way. I think we can easily that the Devil, who has despaired of his own salvation, would seek to deny it in others. That way, he can gratify his own pride. What he seeks isn’t a real good, but you can be sure that it appears good to him in some way.