Notes on Aquinas' definition of evil

(Originally written April 19, 2007 in Book 25)

Whether evil is found in Things

Objections

A. Whatever is found in things is either something or a privation of something (non-being). Dionysius states, "evil is distant from existence and even more distant from non existence. Therefore, evil is not at all found in things.

B. Being and thing are convertible. If evil is a being in things it follows that evil is a thing which is contrary to what article 1 states.

C. Good unmixed with evil is greater good then good mixed with evil. God only makes what is best. Therefore, in things made by God there is no evil.

Evil consists in the fact that a thing fails in goodness.

Replies to objections

A. Evil is distant from simple being and from simple not-being. It is neither a habit nor a pure negation. It is a privation.

B. In a sense evil (such as blindness) can be called a thing, but it is only ignorance that leads men to conclude that. Therefore, evil has a positive existence.

C. God makes what is best in whole, but parts can fail in goodness. Many good things would not exist if God had not chosen to make good out of evil and evil had not existence.

Whether evil is in god as in its subject?

Objections

A. Good is something that exists. Therefore, Evil is not in good as its subject.

B. Evil is not a being. Good is a being. Non-being does not require being as its subject. Therefore, evil does not require good as its subject.

C. One contrary is not the subject of another. Good and evil are contraries. Therefore, Evil is not in good as in its subject.

D. The subject of evil is evil. If evil is in good as its subject then good is evil.

Augustine states evil exists only in good.

Not every absence of good is evil. A negative absence of good is not evil, otherwise what does not exist would be evil. Only the absence of good in a privative sense is evil.

Replies to the objections

A. Evil does to exist in things as a part or as a natural property of any existing thing.

B. Not-being does not require a subject. Privation is a negation in a subject. only the privation is evil.

C. Good enters into every genus. Thus, one good can coexist with the privation of another good.

D. The prophet is not claiming that good and evil cannot coexist only that woe to those who call a good evil and an evil good.

Whether evil corrupts the whole good?

Objections

A. One contrary is wholly corrupted by another. Good and evil are contraries. Therefore, evil corrupts the whole good.

B. Augustine: evil hurts in as much as it takes away good. Good is uniform. Therefore, good is wholly taken away by evil.

C. Evil takes away good. Evil continually takes away from good. Evil can only not fully consume good if that good is infinite. No created good things are infinite. Therefore, evil wholly consume good.

Augustine: evil cannot wholly consume the good.

Good is threefold:
1. One kind of good can be wholly destroyed by evil (i.e. sight is wholly destroyed by blindness)
2. One kind of good is neither wholly destroyed nor diminished by evil
3. One kind of good is diminished by evil, but is not wholly taken away

Replies to objections

A. The good which is opposed to evil is wholly taken away, but other goods are not wholly removed. (Blindness may steal sight but the blind man can still hear)

B. Good, by its relation to different things, is not wholly diminished by evil

C. If evil diminishes quantitatively it can never diminish fully (half of a half of a half... is never equal to zero)

Whether evil is adequately divided into pain and fault (pain means penalty)

Objections:

A. Every defect is a kind of evil. All creatures possess the defect of not being able to preserve their own existence, which is neither pain nor a fault. Therefore, evil is not adequately divisible into pain and fault.

B. In irrational creatures there is neither pain nor fault, but are nonetheless corrupted and defective. Therefore, not all evil is pain or fault.

C. Temptation is an evil, but not a fault or pain. Therefore, evil is not sufficiently divided into pain and fault.

D. Augustine: a thing is evil because it hurts. Whatever hurts is penal. Therefore, every evil is pain.

Evil is the privation of good, consisting in perfection and act.

Act is twofold:
1. The form and integrity of a thing
2. The operation of a thing

Evil is twofold:

Blindness - subtraction of the form
Sin - withdrawal of the due operation

Evil like blindness is pain. Evil like sin is fault. Pain evil is in all creatures. Sin evil is only in those creatures of a rational nature (those with a will).

Replies to the objections

A. Evil is the privation of a good, not merely the negation of a good. Thus, not every defect of good is an evil.

B. Pain and fault divide evil that is found in voluntary things, not all evil.

C. Temptation is evil of fault in the tempter, not the tempted.

D. Pain involves injury of self. Fault involves injury to another.

Whether pain has the nature of evil more than fault has?

Objections

A. Fault is to pain what meet is to reward. Reward has more good than merit. Therefore, pain has more evil than fault.

B. The greater evil is opposed to the greater good. Pain is opposed to the good of the agent. Fault is opposed to the good of action. An agent is a greater good than an action. Therefore, pain is worse than fault.

C. Pain consists of the forfeiting of the vision of God. Fault does not. Therefore, pain is a greater evil than fault.

Divine wisdom inflicts pain to prevent fault.

One becomes evil by the evil of fault, not by the evil of pain.

God is the author of the evil of pain, but not the author of the evil of fault.

Replies to the objections

A. Pain is brought about to avoid fault. Thus, fault is worse than pain.

B. What is destroyed by fault is the more perfect good of the agent.

C. One may be deprived resulting in pain and fault in some way.

Summa Continued

The Case of Evil (Question 49)

1. Whether good can be the cause of evil?
2. Whether the supreme good, God, is the cause of evil?
3. Whether there be any supreme evil, which is the first cause of all evils?

Whether good can be the cause of evil?

Objections:

A. Matthew 7:18 "a good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit"

B. One contrary cannot be the cause of another. Evil is the contrary to good.

C. A deficient effet can only proceed from a deficient cause.

D. Dionysius claims evil has no cause.

Augustine states "there is no possible source of evil except good"

Evil in some way has a cause.

Evil has a material cause, but no formal cause. It is a privation of a form.

Evil has no final cause.

Evil has a cause by way of an agent, not directly, but accidentally.

Evil only has an accidental cause, thus good is the cause of evil.

Replies to the objections:

A. A good will does not produce a morally bad act. The movement of an evil will is caused by a rational creature, which is good. Thus, good is the cause of evil.

B. Good does not cause that evil which is contrary to itself.

C. Fault follows from the will acts on the defect

D. Evil has no direct cause

Whether the supreme good, God is the cause of evil?

Objections:

A. Amos 3:6 "Shall there be evil in a city, which the Lord hat not done?"

B. Good is the cause of evil. God is the cause of good. Therefore, Evil is from God.

C. The cause of danger and safety is the same thing. God is the cause of safety. Therefore, God is the cause of all evil

Augustine: God is not the author of evil because He is not the cause of lending to not-being.

God has no defect. Thus any evil resulting from defect cannot be reduced to God as its cause.

The evil which consists in the corruption of some things is reducible to God as the cause. In creating somethings God must destroy others. But God does not will destruction for destructions sake.

God is the author of evil which is penalty (pain), but not the author of evil which is fault.

Replies to the Objections

A. Amos 3:6 refers to evil of pain not evil of fault.

B. Whatever possesses of being has a cause reducible to God, but evil the privation of being cannot be reduced to anything that has Being (God).

C. God does not fail in doing what is necessary for the safety of all.

Whether there be one supreme evil which is the cause of every evil?

Objections

A. Contrary effects have contrary causes

B. If one contrary is in nature the other is. The supreme good is in nature. Therefore, there is a supreme evil opposed to it as the cause of every evil.

C. Good and better are considered to what is best. Thus, for evil and worse to exist they must be considered against some supreme evil.

D. If some supreme evil did not exist, evil would only exist in some, but not the many.

E. The evil of the effect is reduced to the evil of the cause. We cannot proceed to an infinite regress of evil causes. There must be one first evil as the cause of every evil.

The supreme good is the cause of every being. As such there cannot be any principle opposed to it as the cause of evils.

Nothing can be essentially bad.

Evil only lessens a good. It cannot fully consume it.

Replies to the objections

A. All contraries must come to one first common cause.

B. Evil is opposed to that good which has some potentiality, but not to the supreme good, who is pure act.

C. Privation removes a perfection. Evil and worse are not judged against a supreme evil, but in their relation to the supreme good.

D. No being is evil by participation, but in the privation of participation. Thus, it is not reducible to any essential evil.

E. Evil can only have an accidental cause

F. There is no infinite regress. All evils are reduced to some good which causes evil accidentally.

The Coming of Christianity

(Originally written November 12, 2006 in Book 11)

The Mystery Cults all began to reflect the shift from human emphasis to superhuman. The acceptance and adherence to them paved the way for Christianity.

The cults brought hope to the masses who were in despair due to the collapsing of the Empire. "But the masses had doubtless been ignorant and superstitious, ready to put their trust in occult powers" (Jones, 19).

Neoplatonism was the first instance where, not only the uneducated lower class gravitated toward the supernatural, but the educated, middle and upper classes abandoned the natural, human mind set.

The emphasis on discovering the natural reality shifted to an emphasis on discerning why a transcendent Absolute Being created a natural world.

Another major shift was to view this world as evil and thus not capable of producing the good life.

Christianity first appealed to the uneducated, but when it became socially acceptable Neoplatonism proved to be a philosophical model and rival.

The survival of Christianity over the mystery cults has nothing to do with its possession of an objective truth or moral superiority, but its energy, ingenuity, polemical ability, administrative skill and the good luck of early Christian Fathers.

Linehan: really? luck? wow, that is quite ad hoc.

Jesus: The Jewish Heritage

Pagan View of the Christians.

Christ was born circa 4 BC during the reign of Augustus.

He was crucified in 29 AD during the reign of Tiberius.

The first three centuries after Christ's death, Christianity spread slowly.

The persecution was not as great as the Church fathers reported and was due mainly to their traitor status. They pledged allegiance to a divine God, not the divine Emperor.

The Christians refused to conform to the outward state religion so the officials viewed the tiny sect as ignorant and dangerous.

They were regarded as atheists and hopelessly immersed in the blackest superstition.

Jesus was a Jew and sought to reform Judaism, not destroy it.

Yahweh

Yahweh seems to be originally a war god, associated with meteorological phenomena.

Moses fused the tribes of Judaism together and made Yahweh a state god.

Yahweh chose the Jews as his people, but was the supreme creator of all. Why should a supreme god trouble himself with such a small group of people? The Jews never asked this question.

Linehan: Not true! "What is man that you are mindful of him?"

Israel developed a supreme national egoism.

Despite Yahweh's love for them, the Israelites had an unfortunate career. They lost their independence again and again.

Their intense nationalism deeply marked their religious thinking.

Their loss of independence led them to develop the notion of a jealous god who demanded strict, sole, individual worship.

The Israelites aimed to get back into the good graces of YHWH. This changed over the centuries from primitive outward signs to an inner righteousness. This gradual transformation took place through the Hebrew prophets.

Elijah was one of the earliest prophets. He sought to defend the worship of YHWH (Moses' god of wrath) from the new polytheism of King Ahab's foreign wife Jezebel.

Amos, who lived 100 years or so after Elijah saw YHWH no longer a vain monarch. Amos' YHWH could be won over by flattery and was angered by luxury and vice, not so much disobedience.

People seeking to formulate a single YHWH face a problem of harmonizing primitive beliefs with a more sophisticated version of God.

Deuteronomy, written in the 7th century BC attempted to harmonize the two conceptions of YHWH. It stated that the rituals are important (primitive) because they were outward expressions of an inner righteousness (motive).

Motive for worship was key in Judaism's mature form.

The Deuteronomy harmonizing resulted in a codifying law. This law became unalterable and strict. The adherence to this law caused men to return to the primitive ritualism of Judaism.

Jesus' attitude toward the Law

Jesus was anti-legalistic. He wished for Judaism to return to being concerned with the spirit or motives, not the rigid ritualism of the law.

Jesus' main position was what matters is the thoughts of our hearts, not what we actually do.

Jesus did not however reject the Law totally. He simply believed that Jews were using the Law to justify unjustifiable conduct.

He wished to complete the Law, not destroy it.

He attempted to simplify the ever multiplying law into a few simple precepts.

Jesus' two main precepts were actually derived from the Law.
1) Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart
2) Love thy neighbor as thyself

Fatherhood of God

Jesus emphasized that God was the father of man.

This was not a discovery of Jesus. Many Eastern cults viewed God as a Father and the Jews even had come to the conclusion long before Jesus Christ.

Jesus' emphasis is on this point transferred the notion from the East to the West. The Gentile Christians who are unfamiliar with God as Father notion made it a pivotal part of the emerging religion.

The wrathful God of the Hebrews was also adapted and grafted into the teachings of Jesus,

Jesus' belief in imminent judgment day

Jesus was dominated by a conviction that the end was near. This imminent doom mentality affected all of his teachings.

The teachings of Jesus

There is no formal ethical theory or doctrine of virtues in Jesus' teachings.

Jesus' teachings were not systematic. He used paradoxes and parables.

Jesus' view of pleasure was similar to the Greek Cynic view, but his adoption of this view was for very different reasons.

Jesus was criticized for enjoying the company of low persons too much.

Jesus was not an ascetic, but his focus on the kingdom of Heaven led him to ignore the physical world to a point. Christianity would adopt an ascetic bias because of this aspect of Jesus.

Jesus did not place emphasis on tomorrow because there will be no tomorrow. He held that the more we concern ourselves with property and possessions the less we'll concern ourselves with readying for the judgment day.

Jesus criticized the wealthy for two reasons:
1) They got their riches unjustly
2) Their possessions naturally caused them to think about them.

The poor were at an advantage to focus on the judgment day for Jesus and this mind set caused Christianity to be popular with the poor.

Jesus' ethics compared with Greek ethics

Jesus' ethic is noticeably absent of any social ethic.

Jesus' focus on the Kingdom of God and on inwardness made him uninterested in overt social or political theorizing.

Christianity, when it became a state religion, had to concern itself with politics.

Jesus' ethics also varied from Greeks in that he placed no emphasis on intellectual virtues that Aristotle was so concerned with.

Jesus was vitally concerned with moral, practical virtues, but also differed from Aristotle here.

Jesus denigrated pride as a sin, which was a key virtue for Aristotle.

Jesus' starting point was God, whereas Aristotle's starting point was man. Pride was self-centered and thus it took away from God and sinful.

Jesus' altruism replaced Aristotle's egoism.

Jesus emphasized the equality of man or at least all Jews. Jesus was provincial.

Jesus' view was narrow compared to the Greek but possessed two advantages:
1) its altruism
2) its democratic outlook

The Messiahship of Jesus

Jesus' messiahship is not a philosophical issue and in philosophy it is more important what his followers thought of it, not what he thought of it.

The moral and eschatological meaning Jesus taught was understood in political terms by many of his followers.

The Romans were not worried with Jesus until he came into the urban centers and caused the crowds to riot.

The Jesus Movement

Christianity developed slowly by created a complex theology out of Jesus', Judaism's, Oriental Cults' and late Greek philosophical teachings.

How the movement survived

The crucifixion of Jesus and the scattering of the disciples could have easily killed the movement. Somehow, the disciples' belief in the Messiahship of Jesus was revived after his death.

Jesus miracles and resurrection convinced the disciples of his supernatural status.

The disciples formed a communal life after Jesus' death.

Shift of Emphasis to Jesus

Jesus began to become the focus of a new religion, rather than a reformer of an ancient one.

Jesus had always been considered anointed by his followers. The emphasis shift made him a deity.

The divinity of Jesus created problems. It faced monotheistic problems, conception of God problems and eschatological problems.

The Jews of the Dispersion

Only a small portion of Jews lived in Palestine. The Diaspora (dispersed Jews) lived all over the empire.

The Gentile Mission

The Orthodoxy of Judaism was primarily located in Palestine. The Diaspora and converts were less Orthodox and more open to Christianity.

The Hellenized Jews and Gentiles converting to Christianity continued to change the new religion.

Converts began interpreting Christianity and preaching it around the world. The most important of these converts was St. Paul.