Thomas’ discourse on freewill and choice as contained in the question VI of Thomas’ disputed questions on evil.
Introduction
The
question six of the De malo is a very long and unique disputation of Thomas on
free will and choice which was motivated by the doctrinal conflict Saint Thomas
found himself during the years 1270-1271.[1] Applauding Saint Thomas’
arrangement of the De malo with particular reference to the placement of the article
VI, Fr. Bataillon remarked thus; “there is nothing illogical with this (Thomas’
arrangement); it is even entirely comprehensible that after having spoken about
original sin, Thomas decides to bring the subject of freewill up to date before
passing to the examination of actual sin.”[2] The statement of Bataillon
presupposes that Thomas’ arrangement methodology especially the placement of
the work on freewill and choice is most appropriate.
The
aim of this paper shall be to provide an exposition of Thomas’ discourse on
freewill and choice as contained in the question VI of Thomas’ disputed
questions on evil. A clarification of vital terms in relation to the subject
matter of the paper will be presented. Afterwards,
an exposition of the major concern of this paper shall follow suit.
Accordingly, the question that preoccupied Thomas’ mind in the question VI will
be stated and then an exposition of Thomas’ position regarding the subject
matter will be presented. Cognizant of the fact that some contrary opinion as
opposed to Thomas’ position were held, this paper shall also contain a
presentation of the implication of holding such views in line with the thought
of St.Thomas.
1.1.Clarification
of Concepts
Having affirmed that Thomas’ question VI of
disputed question on evil is concerned with freewill and choice, the concepts
freewill and choice shall also be elaborated.
Choice
Choice
is an art of making selection. It is the ability voluntarily to decide to
perform one of several possible acts or to avoid action entirely.[3] it can be posited that
Thomas discourse on choice as well as freewill is in relation to moral act
because an ethical choice involves ascribing qualities such as right or wrongs,
good or bad, better or worse to alternatives, following that fact that Thomas
tried to answer the question whether humans make choices freely or whether they
are propelled to make choice.
Freewill
First of all, the concept ‘will’ is an appetite that
is the power of the soul by which we are inclined towards something. For
Thomas, the will is “an innate positive inclination towards
the good. It is that aspect of a rational agent which disposes her to pursue
what she considers good.”[4] Freewill is a philosophical term of art for a particular sort of
capacity of rational agents to choose a course of action from among various
alternatives.[5]
Most philosophers suppose that the concept of free will is very closely
connected to the concept of moral responsibility. Acting with free will,
accordingly entails responsibility for one's action. Thomas’ treaties on the
freewill were perhaps influence by this notion.
2.0.
Do
Human Beings Have Free Choice in Their Acts, or Do They Choose Necessarily?
In
answering the above question, Thomas posited that “Man has free-will; otherwise
counsels, exhortations, commands, prohibitions, rewards, and punishments would
be in vain.” In short, St. Thomas says, without free will there is no point of morality
culpability or reward.
For Thomas, to appropriately answer the
above question, two factors have to be put into consideration. We need firstly
to consider that human beings like other things have a source of their proper
acts.[6] Accordingly, he posited in
relation the first consideration that the intellect and the will are active or
causal source of human beings, just like things of nature have forms which are
the source of their action and inclinations so also human beings have an
intellectual form and inclination of the will resulting from what Thomas called
“understood form” and “external acts from inclination.” However, Thomas made a
distinction between the forms of natural things and the understood form
associated to human beings. The former according to him is a form individuated
by matter which has inclination determined to one thing, but the latter which
is the understood form is universal and include many individual things.[7]
The second consideration is that we need
to retain that powers are moved in two ways. On the one hand, power moved
regarding the subject and on the other hand power moved regarding the object.[8] The first according to
Thomas is a kind of alteration that belongs to the very performance of the acts
and the second is a kind of alteration that belongs to the specification of the
act since objects specify acts. The specification of act comes from the thing’s
form and the performance of the act comes from the cause that causes that very
movement. Thus the mover of the soul concerning the performance of an act is
the will.[9] The will is the cause that
causes the very movement of the performance of an act. Furthermore, Thomas
posits the will does not just move itself but moves other powers, for the power
to which the chief end belong always moves the power to which the means to the
end belongs, just like the art of war causes the bridle maker to make bridles.
Turning to the subject of freewill, Thomas
made a threefold categorization of nature so as to affirm the fact that man has
freewill. Accordingly he posited that some things act without judgement. This
is with particular reference to inanimate thing like stone, for these things
lack knowledge. And some others act from judgement, but not from free judgement
because they judgement not form reason but from instinct. This kind of
judgement is accorded to brute animals. But man, as against these other two
categories, act from judgement because by his apprehensive power he judges that
something should be avoided or sought. This judgement is not from natural
instinct but from some act of comparison in the reason, therefore he acts out
of freewill and retains the power of being inclined to various things. Hence,
man has freewill by virtue of his rationality.[10] It is with regards to
this that Thomas defines habit as “what a person uses at will.[11]
However, Thomas further argued that there
is a first mover of the will at whose instigation the will would begin to will.
Accordingly, he posited that since the will moves itself by
deliberation, and deliberation is an inquiry that does not yield only one
conclusion but leads to contrary conclusions, the will does not move itself
necessarily. And since the will has not always willed to deliberate, something
else needs to move the will to will to deliberate. And if the will indeed moves
itself to deliberate, it is also necessary that deliberation precede the
movement of the will, and that an act of the will precede the deliberation. And
since there cannot be an infinite regression, we need to hold that regarding
the first movement of the will, something external, at whose instigation the
will would begin to will.[12] This external being must,
in the opinion of Thomas, be superior to the will and this Being is God, for
since He is the first mover of all things according to their nature then He
also moves the will according to its condition as indeterminately disposed to
many things, not in a necessary way.[13]
2.1.Consequences
of Positing That Human Beings Choose Necessarily.
There will no point in morality if it is
held that man chooses necessarily not freely because “counsels, exhortations,
commands, prohibitions, rewards and punishments would be in vain.”[14] This
would denote that the society cannot hold anybody morally culpable or punish
some acts such as murder because it is not the fault of the murderer insofar as
lack freedom of will. There is also no need to reward actions in as much as the
doer of the action is not responsible for such plausible act that requires
reward. Brian Davies, O.P. stated in accordance to this that “if people lacked
freedom, there would be nothing we could recognise as moral philosophy, and
that there would be no point trying to engage in it.”[15] In close connection to
Thomas’ position, there will no such thing as ethical thinking if freewill is
eliminated in man.
Refuting
the position of those who posit that human beings do not have free will would
presuppose that human beings can be equated to inanimate and irrational beings,
Thomas posited that “man acts from judgement, because by his apprehensive power
he judges that something should be avoided or sought. But because this
judgement, in the case of some particular act, is not from natural instinct,
but from some act of comparison in the reason, therefore he acts from free
judgement and retains the power of being inclined to various things.”[16] Thus forasmuch as man is
rational it is necessary that man has freewill. Therefore, saying that man does
have freewill is same as saying that man lacks rationality and the ability to
render judgement.
Conclusion
To say that human beings lack freewill in
making choice is to hold an erroneous view, following the position of Thomas,
haven provided an elaborate exposition on the question VI, article 1 of the
Thomas’ disputed questions on evil., In this paper consequently, an attempt was
made to provide a lucid presentation on Thomas’ answer to question; whether
human beings choose freely or necessarily. Answering the question, Thomas
stated categorically that human beings freely make choice because of man’s ability
to render rational judgement. Furthermore, contained in this paper is a
presentation on the consequences of holding the opinion that the human will is
necessarily moved as put forward by Thomas. Prior to these, a brief elucidation
of Thomas’ disputed questions on evil and a clarification of the terms;
freewill and choice were also considered in this essay.
[1]
M. D. Chinu, O.P, Towards
Understanding Saint Thomas (Chicago: Henry Regnery Company, 1964), p. 283
[2]
Jean-Pierre Torell, O.P. Saint
Thomas Aquinas (Washington D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press,
1996) Translated by Robert Royal, Vol. I, p. 203.
[3]
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/113978/choice
[4] Eisen-Murphy, Claudia. “Aquinas on
Voluntary Beliefs.” American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly, Fall 2000, 74(4), p 576
[5] Stanford Encyclopaedia of
Philosophy;
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/
[6]
Thomas
Aquinas, Quaestiones Disputatae De
Malo; Translated by Richard Ragan
(Oxford University Press, 2003), Q. VI, a. 1.
[7] Thomas Aquinas, Quaestiones Disputatae De Malo; Q. VI, a.1
[8]
Thomas Aquinas, Quaestiones
Disputatae De Malo; Q. VI, a.1
[9] Cf. Thomas Aquinas, Quaestiones Disputatae De Malo; Q. VI, a.1
[10] St Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae (New York: BEnziger
Bros., 1948), Pt. I, Q. 83, Art. I. Response.
P.418
[11] Thomas Aquinas, Quaestiones Disputatae De Malo; Q. VI, a.1
[12] Thomas Aquinas, Quaestiones Disputatae De Malo; Q. VI, a.1
[13] Thomas Aquinas, Quaestiones Disputatae De Malo; Q. VI, a.1
[14] [14] St Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae (New York: BEnziger
Bros., 1948), Pt. I, Q. 83, Art. I. Response.
p. 555
[15]
http://www.theologicalclowning.org/dan3.html
Comments
Post a Comment