What is good?

[FireFromHeaven]

I’m preparing for a debate over the existence of God. I was researching what good is in expectancy of the argument from evil. I checked new advent but I found their reasoning difficult to follow. It stated that the scholastic thought that good was the same as being. What does this mean? How would I refute any objections my interlocutor my bring up?

 

[JackS79943]

Check out Ravi Zacharias (YouTube) he’s not Catholic but I believe had some good points.

 

[ClearWater]

I’m preparing for a debate over the existence of God. I was researching what good is in expectancy of the argument from evil. I checked new advent but I found their reasoning difficult to follow. It stated that the scholastic thought that good was the same as being. What does this mean? How would I refute any objections my interlocutor my bring up?

wordreference.com/definition/good

Look to books on “apologetics”…for example… Peter Kreeft´s Handbook of Christian Apologetics is one example…for the existence of God and other things.

Not sure of the rest.

There are sometimes debates online that you could watch, possibly on this topic.

 

[Ad_Orientem]

When you say “New Advent” do you mean the Catholic Encyclopedia? They also host the Summa Theologica, in which St. Thomas Aquinas states (S.T. I, Q. 5, Art. 1):

Goodness and being are really the same, and differ only in idea; which is clear from the following argument. The essence of goodness consists in this, that it is in some way desirable. Hence the Philosopher says (Ethic. i): “Goodness is what all desire.” Now it is clear that a thing is desirable only in so far as it is perfect; for all desire their own perfection. But everything is perfect so far as it is actual. Therefore it is clear that a thing is perfect so far as it exists; for it is existence that makes all things actual, as is clear from the foregoing (3, 4; 4, 1). Hence it is clear that goodness and being are the same really. But goodness presents the aspect of desirableness, which being does not present.

 

[Nixbits]

I must be very dense, or else St. Thomas Aquinas is using words in a way that is very dfferent to normal modern useage. Perhaps someone more learned can help me out?

He said that these two things (goodness and being) are the same. But they don’t share all of the same characteristics. Which means that they’re not the same. Which gets us where exactly?

it is clear that a thing is desirable only in so far as it is perfect;

I don’t agree with this. I desired to find a husband. But I wasn’t expecting to find a perfect one! Now that I have a husband, it isn’t his perfection that makes him desirable. (Trust me, he’s not perfect.)

for all desire their own perfection.

I’m not even sure I agree with this. The striving for perfection is desirable. But once you achieve perfection I think existence would be dull. It’s the striving that makes us who we are.

But everything is perfect so far as it is actual.

I don’t pretend to understand this bit at all. I don’t see any correlation between actual existence and perfection, unless you change the meanings of some of the terms.

 

[John_Martin]

I’m preparing for a debate over the existence of God. I was researching what good is in expectancy of the argument from evil. I checked new advent but I found their reasoning difficult to follow. It stated that the scholastic thought that good was the same as being. What does this mean? How would I refute any objections my interlocutor my bring up?

Read what Aquinas says here: ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.FP_Q5_A1.html
"Whether goodness differs really from being? "
Basically, the term “good” refers to our desire to be one with something - if there is no desire for something, then we do not use the term “good” in reference to it. While “good” is understood in the intellect it is actually a verdict presented to the will.
Anyway, read what Thomas says for yourself; never be satisfied when someone else says, “Thomas Aquinas believed this or that”.

 

[John_Martin]

I must be very dense, or else St. Thomas Aquinas is using words in a way that is very dfferent to normal modern useage. Perhaps someone more learned can help me out?

He said that these two things (goodness and being) are the same. But they don’t share all of the same characteristics. Which means that they’re not the same. Which gets us where exactly?

it is clear that a thing is desirable only in so far as it is perfect;

Your Husband’s “perfection” actually means your husband being a real object united to you, rather than just an imaginary husband in your thoughts that you desired. “Perfection” means actually existing rather than just an understanding of something that could exist as a real object.

Again, perfection means all strive for their own real self to be fully real and not just understanding of what they could be as real objects. Much like a child might want to be a fireman when he grows up. He is at that point an “imperfect” fireman - understanding that as what he is in his mind but will one day “perfectly” be (fully be in existence a fireman climbing ladders and putting out fires). Then one day his desire is perfected, he is a perfect (an actual) fireman, what he understands or knows is now “Actual”.

It is, as you say, in the meaning of the terms - where “perfect” means the desire is actualized into the real thing. You thought it was good, and now you are in the actual presence of what you desired.

 

[lmelahn]

He said that these two things (goodness and being) are the same. But they don’t share all of the same characteristics. Which means that they’re not the same. Which gets us where exactly?

It is not that goodness and being have different characteristics, but that the notion of goodness highlights different aspects of the same reality than the notion of being does. Specifically, it highlights the aspect of desirability (and, on further investigation, intrinsic perfection—see below).

it is clear that a thing is desirable only in so far as it is perfect;

I don’t agree with this. I desired to find a husband. But I wasn’t expecting to find a perfect one! Now that I have a husband, it isn’t his perfection that makes him desirable. (Trust me, he’s not perfect.)

Aquinas is using the term “perfect” in a technical sense, not in the modern sense of “absence of all defect.” A thing is “perfect” if it has a some good characteristic;" a “perfection” is the good characteristic in question. “Perfection” can also mean “fulfillment” or “satisfaction” in general, depending on the context.

What Aquinas is getting at is that a thing is desirable inasmuch as it has some characteristic that attracts the one who is desiring. For example, take a fireplace on a cold day. It has a perfection (namely, warmth) that the cold person desires.

Note that for Aquinas “desire” has a much deeper meaning than it does today. It doesn’t mean “whim” or “fancy,” but a real, authentic need.

for all desire their own perfection.

I’m not even sure I agree with this. The striving for perfection is desirable. But once you achieve perfection I think existence would be dull. It’s the striving that makes us who we are.

Again, “perfection” does not mean “absence from all defect,” but fulfillment or satisfaction. All things seek to reach the end for which they were created. For sub-human things, that fulfillment consists in something rather banal (for and acorn, it is to become an oak tree and produce more acorns), but the perfection that man strives for is called happiness.

I think you would agree that all people seek to be happy, which is Aquinas’ point here. (People may seek happiness in all the wrong places, but they seek it all the same.)

Aquinas takes it for granted that complete happiness is impossible in this life, because only the direct vision of God can bring it about.

But everything is perfect so far as it is actual.

I don’t pretend to understand this bit at all. I don’t see any correlation between actual existence and perfection, unless you change the meanings of some of the terms.

Again, a thing is “perfect” inasmuch as it possesses good characteristics (i.e., “perfections”). A straight tree is more perfect than stunted one; a properly functioning faucet is more perfect than a leaky one; a morally righteous man is more perfect than a morally depraved one, and so on.

Things, on the other hand, are “bad” to the degree that they lack something essential (the stunted tree lacks growth or good health; the leaky faucet lacks a functioning washer; the morally depraved man lacks virtue).

Thus, “perfection” always means “having something,” hence it always entails “actual” being. (Here the “being” in question is the being proper to those perfections, which are accidents. Thus, it is not a question of the mere existence of the things, but the existence of those good characteristics.) “Lack of perfection,” on the other hand, is a lack or privation.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

I don’t know if this will be of any help to you, but it’s an essay on “The divine attributes”, which I found on the net.

alevelphilosophy.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Divine-attributes.pdf

It includes the paragraphs …

Intellect and will are properties of mind. If God is a person, he is so in virtue of
being a mind. Being perfect, if God is a mind, then he is a perfect mind. He will
have perfect intellect and perfect will. Perfect intellect involves perfect wisdom,
perfect rationality and perfect knowledge (omniscience). Perfect will involves
perfect goodness and perfect power (omnipotence).

However, if God were a person, he would be very unusual. As the most perfect
possible being, God cannot become more perfect; nor can God become less
perfect, as then he would not be the most perfect being possible, and so not God.
So unlike other persons, it seems that God cannot change. Persons also have
bodies. But the most perfect being can’t have a body, at least literally.

If you’re going to be talking about “goodness”, then somewhere along the line you’re going to have to refer to God, since He is, ultimately, the ground of all being, and therefore the only possible perfectly good being, since all other beings are created, and must be less than completely holy.

Evil is when created beings decide to break away from that groundswell of perfect holiness. The result is inevitably a downhill ride, since to reclaim their holiness, they have to climb all the way back to ultimate perfection by their own efforts.

But since they are not God, they simply cannot. Hence even the best of us fail to be perfectly holy. And the worst of us just have to roll downhill … easy!

 

[Nixbits]

Thank you to John Martin, Imelahn and Bob Crowley for providing some clarification. It’s a bit clearer now.

 

[John_Martin]

Thank you to John Martin, Imelahn and Bob Crowley for providing some clarification. It’s a bit clearer now.

I think we all say you are welcome; now let’s hope FireFromHeaven had a good debate - it is a very exciting subject.

 

[lmelahn]

Intellect and will are properties of mind. If God is a person, he is so in virtue of
being a mind. Being perfect, if God is a mind, then he is a perfect mind. He will
have perfect intellect and perfect will. Perfect intellect involves perfect wisdom,
perfect rationality and perfect knowledge (omniscience). Perfect will involves
perfect goodness and perfect power (omnipotence).

However, if God were a person, he would be very unusual. As the most perfect
possible being, God cannot become more perfect; nor can God become less
perfect, as then he would not be the most perfect being possible, and so not God.
So unlike other persons, it seems that God cannot change. Persons also have
bodies. But the most perfect being can’t have a body, at least literally.

Although I think these paragraphs are substantially correct, I am in disagreement regarding two points.

First of all, I am not sure what the author means by “mind.” If for him “mind” means “spirit” (meaning a being that transcends the material world), then I think we can be in agreement. (However, when I use the word “mind,” I usually mean “intellect;” that is, the capacity to know, the faculty with which a person thinks. In that case, it can’t be true to say that the “intellect and will are properties of the mind.”)

Second, the author seems to be forgetting about angels. They are persons and (since they are spiritual creatures) have an intellect and a will, but they do not have bodies.

In reality, the “unusual” kind of person is man, the spirit that is also a body.

 

[John_Martin]

Although I think these paragraphs are substantially correct, I am in disagreement regarding two points.

‘’’

In reality, the “unusual” kind of person is man, the spirit that is also a body.

I think you find the paragraph somewhat troubling because the author of the article was writing a kind of synthesis of what he perceived as a Christian Philosophical understanding of God that has developed over the centuries from its origins in western philosophy, and not speaking as a philosopher himself with the understanding he has found to be true. The first paragraph of the paper in Bob’s link shows his intent. You and I were focused on Thomas primarily, so we did not bring in the term “mind” which is a more secondary term used by Thomas, where Intellect and will are more primary for definition in relation to “good”.