Positive Appetites

At the same time, however, Aquinas understands human laws to be somewhat limited in their effectiveness. Several passages in the Summa Theologiae explain this, including Aquinas' comparison between human law and divine law. The very reason why divine law is necessary deals directly to areas of human law which fall short. The most obvious example of this is the fact that human laws may be wrong. Whether or not they are intended to be absolute conclusions of the natural law, human laws are made by fallible human beings and may often tend to hinder the common good rather than promote it. Second, Aquinas argues that, given certain circumstances, some human laws may simply fail to apply. This does not necessarily mean that such laws are unjust or even erroneously enacted. Aquinas suggests, rather, that there sometimes arise situations in which securing the common good requires actions that violate the letter but not the spirit of the law. For example, a law that requires the minors to be inside after a certain time might need be broken in order for someone to receive medical attention. Third, Aquinas explains that human law is unable to change the heart or inward soul of a man. As a result, human law has a problem with guiding people toward the path of virtue, since virtue is dependent not only on external manifestations but upon the interior drive of those manifestations. However, the power of human law still plays some role in leading people to virtue, and virtue should be an objective of human law. This qualification means that the power of human law is limited by the fallible intellects of the human beings who enforce it and who only see a person's deeds. Finally, human law is unable to "punish or forbid all evil deeds." (ST Q 91. A4) Aquinas means by this that human laws must concentrate upon hindering those sorts of behaviors that are most hurtful to society.

Aquinas identifies the virtuous man as “the one who really lives out his ‘function’ and acts in accord with reason, but even desires in accord with reason.” Both the Stoics and Aquinas would agree that the virtuous man has the virtues; temperance, fortitude, courage, and justice which are all properly ordered with his reason. When reason is removed or blurred the virtuosity of the person is called into question. Virtue cannot be fulfilled without reason, and vice versa, however the one factor that can alter or affect reason, is passion. The Stoics characterized passion as “any emotions in disaccord with or exceed reason” and Aquinas defined passions as “any movement from the sense appetite.” Aquinas believes that if all passions belong to the sense appetite, then passions can be moderated and perfected by reason. These two varying definitions of passion show the rigidity of the Stoic view by portraying the virtuous man as the passionless man, which by default means the virtuous man lacks antecedent passions.

In evaluating the philosopher’s goal of determining how to live a good life, Epicurean philosophers argue that pleasure is the greatest good and pain is the greatest bad. Foremost, for the purpose of this analysis, I must define the pleasure and pain described. Pleasure is seen as the state of being pleased or gratified. This term is defined more specifically by the subject to which the pleasure applies, depending on what he likes. Pain is the opposite of pleasure, which is a type of emotional or physical un-pleasure that results in something that the person dislikes. “Everything in which we rejoice is pleasure, just as everything that distresses us is pain,” (Cicero 1). Through this hedonistic assessment of pleasure and pain, epicurean philosophers come to the conclusion that, “the greatest pleasure [is that] which is perceived once all pain has been removed,” (Epicurus 1).

Well unfortunately some believe their (omnipotent) God has all the answers and knows of every person’s next moves and what’s yet to come. I can somewhat agree with that but I don’t believe it is my duty to judge or prove the existence, and the all mighty power God has. I certainly am a believer of faith and that the existence of good and evil lies in all of us, regardless of the control God has over us. My opinion relates to how Aquinas believes that everyone’s consequences and endings they choose are because of the free choice God gives us all. As mentioned in the book, a great example that I find makes a perfect analogy is when he states, “He can create in a multitude of ways, No

To support Aquinas’ claim that money, honor, fame, power, goods of the body, or pleasure is not required for human happiness, one may cite they share ends for the sake of human beings. That is, their ends are meant only to fulfill human capacities

He believed that serious crimes, such as capital punishment and self-defense, were inexcusable and there were no circumstances in which they were justified. Aquinas talks about the just war theory in another aspect by saying that “Evil must not be done for the sake of good.” He talks about evil in the sense of the option to damage, impede or destroy a human good. Every choice that you make must rational feelings behind it. When part of a person’s reality is damaged, impeded, or destroyed, it gives itself a reason not to make a particular choice based on a person’s personal fulfillment. The reasoning behind a person’s choice could be put to the side, and the choice could be made if the person would, beforehand, explain the reason they decided to choose that action and this would mean that in choosing this action, some greater good would come out of this choice or that the basic human good would not be damaged, impeded, or destroyed. Finnis says, however, that it is impossible for the human goods to be proportionate to each other (Finnis

It is imperative to understand Aquinas’ definition of just and unjust laws. Through defining these terms, we will be able to understand Aquinas’ claim. A law that is just has the power of “binding in conscience” (Aquinas in Dimock, ed., 2002, p.20). It is derived from eternal law and therefore inherently morally correct. An unjust law lacks this integral quality. Aquinas is willing to say that an unjust law is a so-called law, but a just law is a law proper in its entirety.

Summa Theologica. In this work he attempted to merge faith with reason, and the works of Aristotle with the scriptures. Historically, he is seen as an alternate approach to St. Augustine's view of the city of man versus the city of God. Augustine and Aquinas shared the belief that the original sin was Adam and Eve's venture through the garden of good and evil. On page 239, "Aquinas held that both faith and reason came from God, they were not in opposition to each other; properly understood, they supported each other.." He did not want people to shun the idea of reason, he wanted the world to see that it was not evil. Combining Christianity with Aristotelian knowledge, he shed light upon the difficulty to distinguish common ground between the natural world and the supernatural world. The excerpt is divided into two different sections, Whether, Besides the Philosophical Sciences, Any Further Doctrine Is Required? and Whether God Exists?. In the second section he proves five ways God exists by using Aristotle's technique in philosophy, they are motion, nature of efficient cause, possibility and necessity, the graduation to be found in things, and the governance of the world. The way he words his logic is extremely confusing. For example, "Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at one in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot

(Aquinas page 1

When contemplating the theories of ethics, one can expand upon the ideas of Utilitarian and Duty ethics using St. Thomas Aquinas’ arguments for the existence of God. The concept of Utilitarian ethics suggests that a moral act is one that brings about the most happiness. With this definition, one must conclude that there must be some optimal happiness or good. If there is a choice between levels of happiness then one must define the optimal happiness or the most good that could exist in order to judge the relative “goodness” of an act. Therefore there must be a maximum goodness or happiness which is the cause of all other means of happiness. This argument is one that corresponds with St. Thomas Aquinas’ proof of the existence of God. In his

Aristotle concludes then that “all the affections of soul involve a body-passion, gentleness, fear, pity, courage, joy, loving, and hating;” these all have an affection in the body. Supporting this statement, Aristotle points out that when bad things happen one does not feel excitement or fear. Aristotle also points out the case in which this

In St. Thomas Aquinas’s document on how greed can create unhappiness can be summed up in one phrase,

Considering the descent of Augustine in mind and soul, communal interaction presents a noticeable reason for the development of the new appetite of the stomach. Communal interaction also presents the opportunity to aid in recovery if the right individuals are involved. Augustine provides evidence to his thievery companionship by stating that “he would not have committed that theft alone” (34). Having peers that can push others to improve their character is a key element in the search for positive fulfillment of the mind and soul. Later in his confessions, Augustine experiences the true nature of companionship through his conversion to Christ with Alypius. Augustine has difficulty in an initial conversion first. He must devote to fulfilling the appetites of his mind and soul before the appetites of his stomach. Realization of his difficult quest to ascend appears when he describes “the lower condition as growing habitually more powerful than the better condition which he had not yet tried” (157). Appetites of the stomach are translated as the lower condition, and the appetites of the mind and soul are translated as the better condition. Henceforth, Augustine has decided to make the effort to try the better condition with the hope of filling the empty hole with a more spiritual

Thomas Hobbes and Francis Hutcheson both represent a move towards a materialist and psychologistic explanations of morality. Stemming from the nominalist views characteristic of the early modern period, both thinkers are influenced by a need for clarity, and apodicticity in philosophy in general, along with moral philosophy specifically. Specifically moral claims can and should be reduced to emotions and sensibility rather than some vague notion of "rational nature". Specifically, moral claims can be reduced to the moral emotions: shame, sympathy, love etc. The main difference between these thinkers is that Hobbes holds that these emotions in turn are ultimately reducible to self-interest. This is most pertinent in the case of sympathy: the most traditionally selfless emotion. Hutcheson notably differs from Hobbes, instead argues that sympathy is part of a more holistic moral sense, that is not reducible to the pleasure or pain of the individual. This paper will argue that while coming from a similar methodological background, Hutcheson manages to successfully respond to Hobbes on the issue of sympathy.

Passions, Descartes says are perceptions, or feelings, or emotions of the soul and that are caused and maintained, and fortified by the movement of minds. Love unlike hatred is an emotion of the soul caused by the movement of the spirits who incite joining of will to objects that appear to be suitable to him; hate is the opposite of love. To love is to rejoice in the happiness of others, is to make the happiness of another his own. Amer is living