Summa contra Gentiles3.5 Chapter V and VI. Arguments that would seem to prove that evil is not beside the intention

There are, however, some objections that would seem to run counter to this conclusion.

For that which occurs beside the intention of the agent is said to happen fortuitously, casually and seldom.? But evil is not said to happen fortuitously and casually, nor does it occur seldom but always or frequently. For in the physical order generation is ever accompanied by corruption. Andin voluntary agents sin is of frequent occurrence, since 7 7s as difficult to behave virtuously, as to find the centre of a circle, as Aristotle states (2 Ethic. ix.). Therefore it would seem that evil is not an unintentional occurrence.

Again. Aristotle says (3 Ethic. v.) expressly that vice is voluntary; and he proves this from the fact that a man does an injustice voluntarily, and it is absurd to suppose that the man who does unjust actions voluntarily does not wish to be unjust, and that he who rapes voluntarily does not wish to be incontinent; and again from the fact that legislators punish evil-doers as doing evil voluntarily. Therefore evil would seem not to be unintentional or involuntary. Further. Every natural movement has an end intended by nature. Now corruption is a natural movement, even 7 Ch. ii. Ch. iii. Again. That which results..., p. 8.

as generation. Therefore its end, which is privation having the aspect of evil, is intended by nature; even as the form and the good, which are the end of generation.

1TIn order that the solution of the arguments here given may be made clear we must observe that evil may be considered either as in a substance, or as in its action. Ina substance that is evil through its lacking something natural and due to it, for that a man have not wings, is not an evil to him, because it is not natural for him to have them; and again if a man have not fair hair, this is no evil, for although he may have it naturally, it is not due to him. But it is an evil if he have no hands, which are natural and due to him, if he be perfect; and yet it is not an evil to a bird. Now every privation, if we take it properly and strictly, is the lack of something natural and due; and consequently the aspect of evil is always in a privation thus understood, Matter, since it is in potentiality to all forms, is adapted by nature to all of them, yet no one is due to it; since it can be actually perfect without any particular one. Nevertheless, some one of them is due to one of those things that are made of matter: for there can be no water without the form of water, nor can there be fire without the form of fire, Accordingly the privation of such a form, in relation to matter, is not an evil to matter: but in relation to that thing of which it is the form, it is an evil thereof; thus the privation of the form of fire is an evil of fire. And since privations as well as habitsand forms are not said to exist except forasmuch as they are in a subject, if privation be an evil in relation to the subject wherein it is, it will be an evil simply: otherwise it will be the evil of something but not simply. Hence that a man be deprived of a hand is an evil simply; but that matter be deprived of the form of air is not an evil simply, but an evil of the air. On the other hand, privation of order or due proportion in an action, is an evil of the action. And since to every action order and proportion are due, such a privation in an action must needs’be an evil simply.

Accordingly, taking these remarks into account, we must note that what is unintentional is not always fortuitous or casual, as the first argument stated. For if that which is unintentional be always or frequently the result of that which was intended, it will not happen fortuitously or casually: thus if a man intends to enjoy the sweetness of wine, and becomes drunk through drinking, this will be neither fortuitous nor casual: but it would be casual if such a result were to occur seldom.

Therefore the evil of natural corruption, although it ensue beside the intention of the generator, follows nevertheless always, since the presence of one form is ever accompanied by the privation of another. Wherefore corruption does not ensue casually, nor even seldom: although sometimes privation is not an evil simply, but the evil of some particular thing, as stated above. If, however, the privation be such as to deprive the thing generated of that which is due to it, it will be casual and an evil simply, as in the birth of monstrosities: for this does not follow of necessity from that which was intended, but is opposed thereto; since the agent intends the perfection of the thing generated.

Evil of action occurs in natural agents through a defect in the active force. Henceif the agent’s force be defective, this evil ensues beside the intention; yet it will not be casual, because it follows of necessity from such an agent: provided always that the agent in question always or frequently suffer this defect. But it will be casual if this defect seldom accompanies this agent. In voluntary agents the irtention is directed to some particular good, if the action is to follow: for movement is not caused by universals but by particulars about which actions are. Accordingly, if the good that is intended is accompanied always or frequently by the privation of a rational good, moral evil ensues not casually, but either always or frequently: as in the case of a man who desires intercourse with a woman for the sake of pleasure, to which pleasure is connected the inordination of adultery: wherefore the evil of adultery is not a casual sequel. It would, however, be a casual evil, if sin were to ensue seldom from what he intends: as in one who while firing at a bird, kills a man.

That anyone should intend suchlike goods which frequently result in privation of a rational good, is due to the fact that many live a sensuous life; because sensible things are the more manifest to us, and move more efficaciously in a world of individual things among which operation takes place: and privation of the rational good ensues from many goods of that kind. Hence it follows that, although evil is beside the intention, it is nevertheless voluntary, as the second argument states, accidentally however and not fer se. For intention is directed to the last end, which we will for its own sake: while the will is directed also to that which we will for the sake of something else, even though we would not will it simply: for instance the man who throws his cargo overboard for the sake of safety, intends not the throwing of his cargo, but safety, and he wills the throwing of the cargo, not simply but for the sake of safety. In like manner for the sake of obtaining a sensible good a man wills to perform an inordinate action, neither intending the inordinateness nor willing it simply, but for the sake of something in particular. In the same way, therefore, sin and vice are said to be voluntary, as the throwing of a ship’s cargo into the sea.

The third objection is solved on the same lines. For the change of corruption is never found without the change of generation: and consequently neither is the end of corruption found without the end of generation. Hence nature does not intend the end of corruption apart from the end of generation, but both at the same time. For it is not the absolute intention of nature that there be no water, but that there be air, the existence of which precludes the existence of air. Accordingly nature intends directly that there should be air; but it does not intend that there should not be water except in so far as this is involved by the existence of air. Wherefore privations are not intended by nature directly, but accidentally: whereas forms are intended directly.

From the foregoing it is clear that what is evil simply, for example the birth of monstrosities: but what is evil