65. Interior and Exterior Acts, Events, and Moral Culpability

Subscribe in Podcast App | Download Transcript

Lecture Notes

Main Topics #

The Relationship Between Interior and Exterior Acts #

• Core Question: Does the exterior act add anything to the goodness or badness of the will (interior act)?
• Objection: Works are merely testimonies to the will; God judges the will, not works
• Thomas’s Response: The exterior act can add moral significance in two ways:
  1. When it has goodness only from the willing of the end: It adds nothing new to what is already in the interior act
  2. When it has goodness from suitable matter and circumstances: It adds to the moral quality of the will

Three Ways the Exterior Act Intensifies the Interior Act #

1. By number (repetition): Willing and doing something multiple times creates multiple acts of will and thus multiple goods/evils
2. By extension: When someone persists in the will longer (encounters impediment but continues), the will is longer in good or bad
3. By intensification: Pleasant or painful acts can intensify or diminish the will’s tendency toward good or bad

Events and Consequences #

• Distinction: Events affect moral character only if they are per se (naturally flowing from the act), not per accidens (accidental/by chance)
• Per se consequences: Examples include preaching leading to conversions (good effects naturally follow good teaching) or reckless driving in an area with children (harm naturally can follow)
• Per accidens consequences: A ricocheting bullet, being shot in a drugstore while buying medicine—these are not foreseen and do not affect the moral character of the act
• Foreknowledge: If an agent foresees a bad consequence per se and does not stop, this shows even more disorder in the will

The Same Act as Both Good and Bad #

• Key Distinction: An act can be one in the genus of nature but multiple in the genus of morals
• Moral unity depends on: The unity of the will’s intention, not merely physical continuity
• Example: Walking to church is one continuous physical motion, but if the will’s intention changes (from vainglory to serving God), it becomes two moral acts—one bad, one good
• Implications: For an act to be one morally, the will must maintain the same intention throughout; if the will changes intention, a new moral act begins

Moral Terminology: Malum, Peccatum, and Culpa #

• Malum (badness/evil): Most general term—any privation or lack of order or due measure
  • Includes natural defects (a crooked thigh), artistic mistakes, and moral wrongs
  • Not all malum is culpable
• Peccatum (sin): More particular than malum—a disordered act that deviates from its proper end
  • Can occur in nature, art, or morals
  • In nature: missing the end intended by nature (a natural defect)
  • In art: missing the end intended by art (artistic mistake)
  • In morals: deviating from the order of reason to the common end of human life
• Culpa (guilt/culpability): Most particular—moral culpability for a voluntary act
  • Requires both: (1) the act be voluntary, and (2) it deviates from the order of reason to the human good
  • Only voluntary acts can bear culpa
  • Natural defects cannot be culpable because nature is determined to one thing

Rectum (Right/Straight) #

• An act is rectum when it proceeds from the agent according to natural inclination toward its proper end
• Metaphor: The middle of a straight line does not deviate from its extremes
• Conformity to reason and eternal law makes an act rectum
• The opposite is peccatum—deviation from the proper order

Key Arguments #

On Whether Exterior Acts Add to Goodness/Badness #

Objection: Chrysostom says God judges the will, not works; works are merely testimonies. Therefore exterior acts add nothing new.

Thomas’s Distinction:

• If we speak of the goodness the exterior act has from the willing of the end, it adds nothing unless the will itself becomes better or worse in three ways (by number, extension, or intensification)
• If we speak of the goodness the exterior act has from its matter and suitable circumstances, it adds to the goodness of the will because the will is perfected only when it reaches and acts upon its proper object

On Whether Events Add to Goodness/Badness #

Objection: Effects exist in the power of their cause; events follow acts as effects; therefore events add to moral character.

Thomas’s Response: Only per se consequences add; per accidens consequences do not.

• Per se: Consequences that naturally and for the most part flow from the act
• Per accidens: Consequences that occur by chance; judgment is given only according to what is per se, not per accidens

Foreknowledge: If an agent foresees a bad consequence per se and continues anyway, this manifests greater disorder in the will.

On the Same Act Being Good and Bad #

Objection: One continuous motion can be both good and bad if the will’s intention changes within it.

Thomas’s Resolution:

• Distinction between genera: An act can be one in the genus of nature (continuous motion) but multiple in the genus of morals (if the will’s intention changes)
• Moral unity depends on the unity of the will’s intention, not physical continuity
• An act is morally one act only if taken under the unity of the will’s intention

On Badness and Culpability #

Objection: Badness (defect) occurs in nature and art without being culpable; therefore moral badness need not entail culpability.

Thomas’s Response:

• Culpability requires voluntary deviation from the order of reason to the common end of human life
• Natural defects are malum but not peccatum or culpa (nature is determined to one thing; no choice is involved)
• Artistic defects can be peccatum artis without culpa (missing the particular artistic end)
• Only when deviation is from the order of reason to the human good is there culpa

Important Definitions #

• Malum (κακόν in Greek thinking, but Latin malum): Privation or lack of due order or measure; any deficiency or badness. The most general category.

• Peccatum (Greek ἁμαρτία): A disordered act that misses its proper end. More particular than malum. Can occur in nature (natural defect), art (artistic mistake), or morals (violation of reason’s order to the human good).

• Culpa: Moral culpability; voluntary deviation from reason and the human good. The most particular category. Only voluntary acts bear culpa.

• Rectum: Right, straight, proper order. An act proceeding from natural inclination toward its proper end, conforming to reason and eternal law.

• Per se: By itself, naturally, essentially. Consequences that flow from the nature of the act itself and occur for the most part.

• Per accidens: By accident, incidentally, not essentially. Consequences that occur by chance and are not naturally connected to the act.

Examples & Illustrations #

Walking to Church with Changing Intention #

One continuous physical motion (walking) remains one in the genus of nature, but if the will’s intention changes during the walk—first intending vainglory, then intending to serve God—it becomes two moral acts morally speaking: one bad, one good. Moral unity depends on the unity of the will’s intention.

Reckless Driving #

Driving recklessly is worse when done in an area where children play than on an empty highway, because hitting a child is a per se (natural and likely) consequence of reckless driving in that context. The consequence adds to the moral badness of the act because it was foreseeable.

Preaching and Conversion #

When a preacher intends to preach for God’s glory and souls are converted as a result, the good effects redound to the preacher’s merit. The converted souls are per se effects of good preaching. But if someone is shot in a drugstore during a robbery while the preacher is buying medicine, this per accidens consequence does not affect the preacher’s moral act.

The Ox That Gores (Exodus 21) #

An ox known to gore is killed if it gores a person. The death is a per se consequence of the ox’s dangerous nature. The owner is punished only if he knew the danger and failed to restrain it—the harm is foreseeable and per se, making it his responsibility.

Acting and Undergoing #

Aristotle’s observation that acting upon and undergoing are one act (physically): My kicking you is one physical act. But morally, my act of kicking can be bad (from my malicious will) while your act of being kicked can be good (if you accept it as deserved punishment for past sins). The same physical event has opposite moral characters because the moral quality depends on the will of each agent.

Questions Addressed #

Article 4: Does the exterior act add to the goodness or badness over the interior act?

• Answer: Conditionally. If the exterior act has goodness only from the willing of the end, it adds nothing unless the will itself becomes better/worse (by repetition, extension, or intensification). If it has goodness from suitable matter and circumstances, it adds to moral quality because the will is perfected only when it reaches its object.

Article 5: Do events following an act add to goodness or badness?

• Answer: Only per se consequences add; per accidens consequences do not. A consequence is per se if it naturally flows from the act; it is per accidens if it occurs by chance. Foreknowledge of a consequence per se that is nonetheless pursued shows greater disorder in the will.

Article 6: Can the same act be both good and bad?

• Answer: Yes, in different genera. One physical act can be one in the genus of nature but multiple in the genus of morals if the will’s intention changes. Morally, an act cannot be both good and bad if it is one in moral intention.

Question 21, Article 1: Does a human act have the aspect of rightness (rectum) or sin (peccatum)?

• Answer: Yes. The badness of an act (malum) that deviates from eternal law constitutes it as sin (peccatum). But not all badness is sin or culpable—natural defects are malum but not peccatum or culpa.