Prima Secundae
Lecture 57: Species of Moral Acts: Object, End, and Their Hierarchical Relation

Transcript
================================================================================

the sixth article, right? To the sixth one proceeds thus. It seems that good and bad that is from the end do not diversify the species and acts. Why? Well, first of all, because acts have their species from the object, right? We've seen that, right? But the end is something apart from the, what, notion of the object, huh? Therefore, good and bad that is from the end do not diversify the species of the, what, act. Moreover, that which is procidance, huh, does not constitute a species. But it happens to some act that is ordered to, what, some end. Just as someone gives alms, yeah, an account of empty glory, yeah, okay. Therefore, according to the good and bad, which is from the end, the acts are not diversified according to, what, species, right? So I'm teaching for name glory, right? Is that a different act than if I'm teaching for tonight in the students? Moreover, diverse acts, according to species, are able to be ordered to one end, huh? Just as to the end of empty glory are able to be ordered the acts of diverse, what, virtues, and even diverse, what, vices. Therefore, not good and bad, which is taken according to the end, would diversify the species of the, what, act, huh? It seems like the end is something kind of extrinsic, as you said before, right? So how can it, something outside, depending on the species of the act, right, huh? But against this is what has been shown above, that human acts have their species from the end. Therefore, good and bad, that is taken according to the end, diversify the species of the acts, huh? Thomas says, I answer, it should be said that some acts are called human insofar as they are, what? Voluntary, right? But in the voluntary act, there is found the two-fold act, to wit, the interior act of the will and the, what, exterior act. And both of these acts have their, what? So an object. Now, the end is properly the object of the interior act of the, what? Will. Will. Saints talk about purity of intention, right? It's very much tied up with the interior act of the will, right, huh? That's hard to have, right? Purity of intention, huh? Saints said that even though a man has two eyes and his head is related to this intention. Even though a man has two eyes and his head, he can't look up and down at the same time. So, we should have one goal, if you're intent. For the end is properly the object of the interior act of the will, right, huh? But that about which is the exterior action is its object, right, huh? So just, therefore, as the exterior act gets its species from the object about which it is, right? So the interior act of the will gets its species from the end as from its own, what, object, huh? That's a part of the distinction. It's important, right, to get into this royalty, right, huh? Now, that which is on the side of the will itself has itself as, what, formal to that which is on the side of the, what, exterior act, huh? Why? Because the will uses the members, right, the body, to acting, right, huh? As instruments, right? Nor do these exterior acts have the notion of royalty except insofar as they are, what, voluntary, right, huh? So if someone knocks my arm and it hits you, I mean, it's that voluntary, right, huh? And therefore, human acts, huh? The species of, what, human acts are formally considered according to the end, materially according to the object of the exterior act. Form is more like the species, right? Whence the philosopher himself says in the fifth book of the Nicolabian Ethics that the man who steals in order that he might commit adultery. Perse loquendo is more an adulterer than a, what, thief, huh? That's more formal, right? Now, to the first, therefore, it should be said that also the end has the notion of an object, especially of the, what, exterior act of the will, right? And to the second, which is the objection from the, what, there's this, procedence, right, huh? The second should be said that to be ordered to such an end, although it happens to the exterior act, right? That's where it's kind of project ends, right? It does not, however, happen to the interior act of the will. Hence that interior act of the will that is compared to the exterior one as the formal to the, what, material, right, huh? So, if I keep swimming to eat, you know, in order to be admired, and am I being kind to you? Interior. Now, what happens when you have many acts differing in species ordered to one end? Well, then there's a diversity of species on the side of the exterior acts, right? But a unity of species on the side of the, what, interior act, right? So, if all these acts, exterior acts are done out of charity, right? Then there's a unity there, right? But, on the part of the interior act, right? Yeah, yeah. Article 7 here, huh? Seventh, one proceeds thus. I don't know if Thomas has that, you know, the part they say. Whether the species which is from the end is contained under the species which is from the object is under a genus or the reverse. Did Thomas actually write that? They stick that in, you know? It seemed like I read some kind of gentile. It's got a little heading at the chapter. But I don't know if that's me, Thomas. I don't think it is. But sometimes it's not exactly right. You know? But, what? Yeah, sometimes you find that they don't correspond very well. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I think it's an editorial license, you know? So sometimes I almost skip it and go right to the Seventh, one proceeds thus, right? And it's the same idea, you know, they print the answer to the question in bold there. So it would have to read the whole thing, you know? Oh, that's, they have that in your edition? Yeah, yeah, in my edition. We had that one, we had that one in English. Conclusion? Oh, conclusion, well that's, well that's, yeah, that's the Marietta, yeah. We had that one in English translation, somebody wrote yes or no in the margin. Oh, yes, no, yes, no. Just give me the answer, just give me the answer. Don't be around the point, you know. The Seventh one proceeds thus, it seems that the species of goodness, which is from the end, is contained under the species of goodness, which is from the object, as a species is under a, what? Genius. Genius. Genius, huh? As when someone wishes to steal, that he might give, what? Oh. Bombs. Robin Hood. Robin Hood, yeah. The corrupted grandchild, the Robin Hood series that they made in the early days, yeah, it's kind of a lot of fun, though. But they're always waylaying somebody, you know, coming through the forest, you know, some rich, merchant or, you know, some sort, and they take so much, you know, they give them a meal, you know, so they're okay, you know. And it's something about the, you have to allow the poets and the royalty, right, huh? I know the ones where the guy wants to marry the girl, the English comedies, and, you know, they kind of, they're, where they feel, they're going, it's like that. And he says it to another girl, right? He ends up marrying the ugly girl rather than a beautiful girl. But is he really married? You know, he's getting married. But for the sake of the play, you've got to accept it, right? Yeah. And the way the other actor says about the guy who's now inducted this homely girl rather than the one, you know, he's trying to get, he's trying to get between the between me and heaven, he says, huh? And, you know, the divine problem is what it was, you know, seem to put a purgatory thing. Well, you've got to accept that, you know, that he really is married to this homely girl. You know, that's to be speaking. Impossible, you know, huh? Some people get very upset about, you know, Hamlet's reason for not killing the king, right? When he has an opportunity to do right, he not knows. He's kind of, you know, trying to repent, in a sense. You know, get him out of time, he's drinking and living it up and so on. And then, you know, they'll kick his heels in heaven, you know, go down to what a monster homer, I mean, Hamlet is. But you have to kind of, you know, take that a little bit. Bring us all. Yeah, yeah. If you want to have Hamlet be a monster, you know. He wants to damn somebody, but that's good. To the seventh one precedes us. It seems that the species of goodness, which is from the end, is contained under the species of good, which is from the object. It's a species under genius. Okay, that's right, right there, right there. As in, someone wants to, what, steal, that he could care of, what? Oh, so. For the axe has their species from the object, as has been said. But it's impossible that something be contained in some other species, right? Which is not contained under its, what? Proper species. Because the same thing cannot be in diverse species. None subalternism. So I can be in the species, what, man, and the species of living body called animal, the species of body called living body, and the species of substance called body, right? But they're, what, one is under the other, right? Same to students from Maja last night there, you know. Whereas I was speaking of the definition as having, what, a genus and differences, right? So why is genus singular and differences plural, right? Like in the definition of square is an equilateral and right-angled quadrilateral. You have one genus, quadrilateral, and two differences, they're equilateral and right-angled. Why can you have many differences, but not many genera in the definition, huh? Yeah, I mean, it would be superfluous if you had one genus above the other, right? To say that a dog is a quadruped and he's an animal and he's a, you know. So if they're not one and the other, then you really have, what, two things, right? Okay. Well, the differences don't make it to be two things, right? But they make distinct, right, what's left indetermined in the genus, huh? So it seems like something like that, huh? It's impossible that something be contained in another species which is not contained under its own species, because the same thing is not able to be in diverse species that, one which is not under the other, right? Therefore, the species which is from the end must be contained under this species which is from the object. This guy was a logician, among other things, this Thomas, huh? My favorite book there, there's some kind of gentiles. You know, Thomas taught me something about the predigables, right, huh? Because he argues that no name is said univocally of God and creatures. One of the arguments he gives there is that no name is said of God and creatures as a genus or as a species or as a difference, or perhaps you're an accident, right? And what he's pointing out there is that that distinction of those five by Porphyry, right, it's really a distinction of names said univocally of many things, huh? And it has to be exhaustive if they are going to be good, right, huh? So he's teaching me something that Porphyry neglected to point out. So I said to Matsi and Diana, he should have said that, Porphyry. He says, yes. But in Thomas, you know, oftentimes, you know, even in those books, we don't have a commentary for Thomas and logic. All I commented on was a posture analytics, right, and incomplete there in the peri-human is, right? But you see things illuminate, you know, logic, huh? You have to kind of, you know, go through Thomas' works and find things. So, moreover, always, the last difference, huh, ultima difference, constitutes the, what, most special species, huh? It can't be divided anymore. But the difference, which is from the end, seems to be after the difference which is from the object, because the end has the notion of what is last, right? Therefore, the species which is from the end is contained under the species which is from the, what, object, huh? Just as a species specialisima, right? So it seems to be making it more particular, right? I am giving alms, right? Well, what are you giving alms for? Then you specify it more further. I am giving alms to praise God or something, right, huh? Okay? I am giving alms to believe my neighbor, right, huh? Okay? I am giving my conscience. Well, I was reading in the Katina Aurea there in Matthew there. where Christ is saying, you know, don't, you know, give some alms, right? You know, don't tell them to think. But he gives a thing about alms before he gives a thing about prayer, right? And then he prays, let's go into your room and so on. And one of the fathers says that that's because you have to be good in your deeds, right, by getting alms before you can be good in your prayers, right? So it's kind of interesting that he gives kind of a reason for that in order, you know? Okay. Moreover, the more some difference is, what, more formal, the more it is special or particular, right? Why? Because the difference is compared to the genus that's formed to matter, as Porphyry says, right? That's a gold game, but it's as Tao said beforehand, right? And therefore, the difference in the genus forms something one, just like form and matter do. But the species which is from the end is more formal than that which is from the, what? Object, right? We saw that because it tied up with more of the act of the willed self, the interior act. Therefore, the species which is from the end is contained under the species which is from the object, just as the species most special or particular, right, is under the subalternate genus, huh? But against all this, of any genus there are determined differences, huh? But acts of the same species on the side of the, what, object are able to be ordered to, what, infinity of different ends, huh? Yes, theft to infinity of goods or evils, right? Therefore, the species which is from the end is not contained under the species which is from the object, as under a, what, genus, huh? Because of the infinity of those things, huh? Well, let's see what Thomas makes sense out of all this stuff, you know. Because we certainly can't, huh? And when I figure out this theory by myself, I wonder how I, if you're unwilling to learn from those who already know something, right, you know, it's better to discover something by yourself than to learn from another, right? It's a little more worthy of honor and praise, right? But if I tried to discover all these theories by myself, how far would I get in my life? You know, I wouldn't get through a book one. I wouldn't get very far. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So if you, you know, everywhere, you know, this, you know, in high school, you know, if you get interested in philosophy, you know, my friend here, Rodney there, I want him to do his own philosophy, you know. He's not going to get very far through his own philosophy, you know. I mean, that's fine, you know, you've got to go read what Aristotle or Thomas or somebody says, you know, but, you know, it's, that's, uh, this is kind of, you know, the attitude people have, you know. You read, I read the description of people in their social introduction to philosophy, of course, you know, and you get these things in the mail all the time, you know. So the introduction of philosophy, and, uh, it's, you know, the business professor in the introduction of philosophy is to get everybody started on their own philosophy, right? So not to communicate some body of doctrine, you know, that it's going to be forced out of their throats. That's kind of a common place, you know, in the academic world, huh? When the great Plato said, you know, he thanked, what, gods, gods were three things, that he was born a Greek and not a barbarian, right? That he was born a man and not a woman. And that he had met, what, Socrates, right, yeah? Aristotle, you know, put up a plaque, you know, to the memory of Plato, you know, huh? He said, the first man who showed both by word and deed that the virtuous life is the happy life, right? You know, the man had done one or the other, right? But he had done both by the life he led, right? But also by his, uh, dialogues and so on. That the virtuous life is the happy life, huh? But what a beautiful testimony, huh? To his master there. Aristotle spent almost 20 years in school. Plato there, right? And of course he left because Plato died. You know, he had played in the last part of his life. But, uh... St. Alphonsus often says to Alphonsus's writing, where he says, how grateful we should be for having been born after Christianity. Yeah. It's a big deal. And he actually compares it to the barbarians that lived in, I mean, the Americas in the New World. Yeah. Those poor slobs over there, they were not born with this, with the outside of faith. I answer, he says, it should be said that the object of the exterior act, huh? Can have itself in two ways, huh? To the end of the, what? Will. Will, huh? In one way, as Paraset ordered to it, huh? Just as to fight well is Paraset ordered to, what? Victory, right? In war, there's no substitute for victory, said MacArthur. In another way, Paraset ends, right, huh? Just as to take another's thing, Paraset ends is ordered to giving, what? Alms, yeah. Okay? Now, it's necessary, as the philosopher says in the seventh book of wisdom there, that the differences dividing some genus and constituting a species of that genus, right, it's necessary that they, what, per se, divide that, huh? If, however, Paraset ends, huh, then the division does not proceed, what, rightly, huh? As if one said, huh, of animals, one is rational and another is, what, irrational, right? And then, of irrational animals, one is, has wings, I guess, huh? And the other is unwinged. Winged and not winged are not, per se, determinative of that which is, what, irrational, huh? Okay? Now, remember there, when Aristotle divides up, say, philosophy there, looking at philosophy, in the sixth book of wisdom, partly in the second book of the physics, right? Um, how does he divide this, huh, to make the division be, what, per se, not Paraset ends, right, huh? Well, in some way, Thomas' explanation at the beginning of his commentary on physics is very clear, right, huh? He says, um, uh, what you're dividing here is the knowledge of reason that is certain, right, huh? So, um, something has to be, what, taken out of matter to get into the mind, right, huh? And it's got to be, what, necessary, right, to have certitude, right? And so that's the way you're going to have to divide the sciences, right, by their diverse, what, immateriality, right, huh? And so you're getting a division that is actually, what, per se, and not, what, Paraset ends, you know? It's a very, very subtle thing, though, right, to see that, huh? Okay? But notice in this example here, winged and not winged are not, what, two ways of being irrational, right, huh? But now he takes in another example here, huh, a very simple example where I start using this. It's necessary to divide thus, of animals, some have feet, others do not have feet, right? And then of those having feet, some have two, some four, right? Because that's a division that is, what, per se of, what, having feet, right? By winged is not a way of being irrational, because birds are kind of irrational. Sometimes, you know, birds get kind of, you know, a reputation of being kind of bird-brained, I mean, it's not a, it's not a couple of them, I don't know what you're speaking, huh? But that's, the point is trying to emphasize. size there, huh? For these, per se, right, determine a prior what? Difference, right, huh? So, you know, when you look to define, you know, plane figure and then plane figure, right, and then what they call rectilineal plane figure, right, and then you get, you know, the triangle, which is often called the trilateral, right, and the quadrilateral, and then it's kind of per se, right, of rectilineal, right, because rectilineal means what? Contained by straight lines, and then, well, by three lines, or four lines, or five lines, or, you know, you can see that that's like the one here with feet, you know, okay, so do you see that just what he's saying there, right? Thus, therefore, when the object is not per se ordered to the end, huh, that's an example of the stealing, right, the specific difference, which is from the object, huh, is not per se determinative, determining of that which is from the end, nor reverse, huh, okay, Robert, right, he's an example of this, right, okay, whence one of these species is not under the, what, other, right, huh, but then the moral act is under two species, as they were disparate, huh, once, huh, whence we say that the one who steals, that he might, what, commit adultery, commits two evils, huh, in one act, huh, okay, so the man who's, uh, I guess, uh, I guess the reason why they're, they're, uh, was it right, suddenly, and Nathanson, yeah, I think it was an interview with Nathanson, right, and they're talking about this, uh, abortion, and I guess, um, he was pretty, uh, um, lucrative, huh, committing these abortions, right, and this is part of the reason my men went into this, huh, he's talking about how, when a man gets out of medical school, how he has all these debts, you know, and the idea is to get established as quickly as possible and start taking some money and paying this back, but he said it's very hard to get your practice, you know, well-established, right, you know, how sometimes, you know, a younger doctor will buy the practice of an older doctor, you know, and kind of move in there and, and get these people, so, um, abortion seemed like a quick way to make money and pay off your, your, your debts, right, yeah, so, um, you might say there's, you know, there's avarice here, and, you know, there's several evil acts, right, there are several kinds of badness in saying, what, act, huh, okay, it's murder, and it's, it's also an act of avarice, right, seeking money, you know, where it's not appropriate to seek it, and so on, but if the object is parasitory to the end, one of the, what, said differences is parasit determinative of the other, whence one of these species is contained under the, what, other, right, huh, now it remains to be considered, which under, what, okay, to the evidence of which, first it ought to be considered that the more some difference is taken from a form, more, what, particular, the more it is, what, specific, right, huh, secondly, that the more an agent is more, what, universal, to that extent, the more from it is the form, more, what, universal, huh, third, that the more some end is, what, posterior, the more it corresponds to a more universal, what, agent, just as victory, which is the last end of the army, is the end intended by the highest leader, right, but the ordering of this, what, yeah, or that is the end intended by one of the lower leaders, right, and from these it follows that the specific difference, which is from the end, is more, what, general, and the difference, which is from the object, per se, ordered to such an end, is more specific with respect to it, right, so the will, whose own object is the end, is the universal mover of respect to all the powers of the soul, whose proper objects are the objects of, what, yeah, so he's saying that the, what, the, the, uh, the end is giving him more of the, what, the genus, right, and the object of the act, he, what, particular, right, okay, so God is the cause of what being is being, we say, right, huh, universal, and the, he's the last end of this, right, so that's going to give you something more universal, right, same way here, now, how about the first objection here, about getting something in two different, what, species, huh, to the first therefore it should be said that by its own substance, huh, something is not able to be in, what, two species, one of which is not ported under the other, right, right, huh, okay, but according to those, what, things that come to a thing, right, something can be contained under diverse, what, species, huh, just as this, what, apple, by its color is contained under this species of white, huh, well, under the flesh of the apple, oh, I see, yeah, and according to its odor, right, smell, under the species of what is, smells well, right, and likewise, the act, which in its substance is in one species of nature, right, huh, like, like the reproductive act they gave as an example for, according to the moral conditions, what, super, coming upon it, right, huh, can refer to, what, two different species, right, huh, so one is adultery, right, and the other is the miracle act, right, now, to the second it should be said, huh, that the end is after in, what, carrying out, but it's first in the intention of reason, huh, by which one takes these species of, what, roax, huh, to the third objection, that the difference is compared to the genus as form to matter, huh, insofar as it makes the genus enact, huh, but also the genus is considered as more formal than the, what, species, according as it is more absolute and less, what, contracted, whence the parts of the definition are reduced to the genus of, what, formal cause, as is said in the book of physics, and according to this, the genus is the formal cause of species, and to that extent, it's more formal as being more, what, commonly, there's a lot to be thought out there, mm-hmm, mm-hmm, mm-hmm, mm-hmm, mm-hmm, mm-hmm, mm-hmm, mm-hmm, mm-hmm, mm-hmm, mm-hmm, mm-hmm, mm-hmm, mm-hmm, mm-hmm, mm-hmm, mm-hmm, mm-hmm, mm-hmm, mm-hmm, mm-hmm, mm-hmm, mm-hmm, mm-hmm, mm-hmm, mm-hmm, mm-hmm, mm-hmm, mm-hmm, mm-hmm, mm-hmm, mm-hmm, mm-hmm, mm-hmm, mm-hmm, mm-hmm, mm-hmm, mm-hmm, mm-hmm, mm-hmm, mm-hmm, mm-hmm, mm-hmm, mm-hmm, mm-hmm, mm-hmm, mm-hmm, mm-hmm, mm-hmm, mm-hmm, mm-hmm, mm-hmm, mm-hmm, mm-hmm, mm-