St. Thomas Aquinas

The Summa Theologica

(Benziger Bros. edition, 1947)
Translated by
Fathers of the English Dominican Province


Index  [<< | >>]
First Part of the Second Part  [<< | >>]
Question: 60  [<< | >>]


Deinde considerandum est de distinctione virtutum moralium ad invicem. Et circa hoc quaeruntur quinque.    We must now consider how the moral virtues differ from one another: under which head there are five points of inquiry:
Primo, utrum sit tantum una virtus moralis.     (1) Whether there is only one moral virtue?
Secundo, utrum distinguantur virtutes morales quae sunt circa operationes, ab his quae sunt circa passiones.     (2) Whether those moral virtues which are about operations, are distinct from those which are about passions?
Tertio, utrum circa operationes sit una tantum moralis virtus.     (3) Whether there is but one moral virtue about operations?
Quarto, utrum circa diversas passiones sint diversae morales virtutes.     (4) Whether there are different moral virtues about different passions?
Quinto, utrum virtutes morales distinguantur secundum diversa obiecta passionum.     (5) Whether the moral virtues differ in point of the various objects of the passions?


Index  [<< | >>]
First Part of the Second Part  [<< | >>]
Question: 60  [<< | >>]
Article: 1  [<< | >>]

Whether there is only one moral virtue?

Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod sit una tantum moralis virtus. Sicut enim in actibus moralibus directio pertinet ad rationem, quae est subiectum intellectualium virtutum; ita inclinatio pertinet ad vim appetitivam, quae est subiectum moralium virtutum. Sed una est intellectualis virtus dirigens in omnibus moralibus actibus, scilicet prudentia. Ergo etiam una tantum est moralis virtus inclinans in omnibus moralibus actibus.   Objection 1: It would seem that there is only one moral virtue. Because just as the direction of moral actions belongs to reason which is the subject of the intellectual virtues; so does their inclination belong to the appetite which is the subject of moral virtues. But there is only one intellectual virtue to direct all moral acts, viz. prudence. Therefore there is also but one moral virtue to give all moral acts their respective inclinations.
Praeterea, habitus non distinguuntur secundum materialia obiecta, sed secundum formales rationes obiectorum. Formalis autem ratio boni ad quod ordinatur virtus moralis, est unum, scilicet modus rationis. Ergo videtur quod sit una tantum moralis virtus.   Objection 2: Further, habits differ, not in respect of their material objects, but according to the formal aspect of their objects. Now the formal aspect of the good to which moral virtue is directed, is one thing, viz. the mean defined by reason. Therefore, seemingly, there is but one moral virtue.
Praeterea, moralia recipiunt speciem a fine, ut supra dictum est. Sed finis omnium virtutum moralium communis est unus, scilicet felicitas; proprii autem et propinqui sunt infiniti. Non sunt autem infinitae virtutes morales. Ergo videtur quod sit una tantum.   Objection 3: Further, things pertaining to morals are specified by their end, as stated above (Question [1], Article [3]). Now there is but one common end of all moral virtues, viz. happiness, while the proper and proximate ends are infinite in number. But the moral virtues themselves are not infinite in number. Therefore it seems that there is but one.
Sed contra est quod unus habitus non potest esse in diversis potentiis, ut supra dictum est. Sed subiectum virtutum moralium est pars appetitiva animae, quae per diversas potentias distinguitur, ut in primo dictum est. Ergo non potest esse una tantum virtus moralis.   On the contrary, One habit cannot be in several powers, as stated above (Question [56], Article [2]). But the subject of the moral virtues is the appetitive part of the soul, which is divided into several powers, as stated in the FP, Question [80], Article [2]; FP, Question [81], Article [2]. Therefore there cannot be only one moral virtue.
Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, virtutes morales sunt habitus quidam appetitivae partis. Habitus autem specie differunt secundum speciales differentias obiectorum, ut supra dictum est. Species autem obiecti appetibilis, sicut et cuiuslibet rei, attenditur secundum formam specificam, quae est ab agente. Est autem considerandum quod materia patientis se habet ad agens dupliciter. Quandoque enim recipit formam agentis secundum eandem rationem, prout est in agente, sicut est in omnibus agentibus univocis. Et sic necesse est quod, si agens est unum specie, quod materia recipiat formam unius speciei, sicut ab igne non generatur univoce nisi aliquid existens in specie ignis. Aliquando vero materia recipit formam ab agente non secundum eandem rationem, prout est in agente, sicut patet in generantibus non univocis, ut animal generatur a sole. Et tunc formae receptae in materia ab eodem agente, non sunt unius speciei sed diversificantur secundum diversam proportionem materiae ad recipiendum influxum agentis, sicut videmus quod ab una actione solis generantur per putrefactionem animalia diversarum specierum secundum diversam proportionem materiae.   I answer that, As stated above (Question [58], Articles [1],2,3), the moral virtues are habits of the appetitive faculty. Now habits differ specifically according to the specific differences of their objects, as stated above (Question [54], Article [2]). Again, the species of the object of appetite, as of any thing, depends on its specific form which it receives from the agent. But we must observe that the matter of the passive subject bears a twofold relation to the agent. For sometimes it receives the form of the agent, in the same kind specifically as the agent has that form, as happens with all univocal agents, so that if the agent be one specifically, the matter must of necessity receive a form specifically one: thus the univocal effect of fire is of necessity something in the species of fire. Sometimes, however, the matter receives the form from the agent, but not in the same kind specifically as the agent, as is the case with non-univocal causes of generation: thus an animal is generated by the sun. In this case the forms received into matter are not of one species, but vary according to the adaptability of the matter to receive the influx of the agent: for instance, we see that owing to the one action of the sun, animals of various species are produced by putrefaction according to the various adaptability of matter.
Manifestum est autem quod in moralibus ratio est sicut imperans et movens; vis autem appetitiva est sicut imperata et mota. Non autem appetitus recipit impressionem rationis quasi univoce, quia non fit rationale per essentiam, sed per participationem, ut dicitur in I Ethic. Unde appetibilia secundum motionem rationis constituuntur in diversis speciebus, secundum quod diversimode se habent ad rationem. Et ita sequitur quod virtutes morales sint diversae secundum speciem, et non una tantum.    Now it is evident that in moral matters the reason holds the place of commander and mover, while the appetitive power is commanded and moved. But the appetite does not receive the direction of reason univocally so to say; because it is rational, not essentially, but by participation (Ethic. i, 13). Consequently objects made appetible by the direction of reason belong to various species, according to their various relations to reason: so that it follows that moral virtues are of various species and are not one only.
Ad primum ergo dicendum quod obiectum rationis est verum. Est autem eadem ratio veri in omnibus moralibus, quae sunt contingentia agibilia. Unde est una sola virtus in eis dirigens, scilicet prudentia. Obiectum autem appetitivae virtutis est bonum appetibile. Cuius est diversa ratio, secundum diversam habitudinem ad rationem dirigentem.   Reply to Objection 1: The object of the reason is truth. Now in all moral matters, which are contingent matters of action, there is but one kind of truth. Consequently, there is but one virtue to direct all such matters, viz. prudence. On the other hand, the object of the appetitive power is the appetible good, which varies in kind according to its various relations to reason, the directing power.
Ad secundum dicendum quod illud formale est unum genere, propter unitatem agentis. Sed diversificatur specie, propter diversas habitudines recipientium, ut supra dictum est.   Reply to Objection 2: This formal element is one generically, on account of the unity of the agent: but it varies in species, on account of the various relations of the receiving matter, as explained above.
Ad tertium dicendum quod moralia non habent speciem a fine ultimo sed a finibus proximis, qui quidem, etsi infiniti sint numero, non tamen infiniti sunt specie.   Reply to Objection 3: Moral matters do not receive their species from the last end, but from their proximate ends: and these, although they be infinite in number, are not infinite in species.


Index  [<< | >>]
First Part of the Second Part  [<< | >>]
Question: 60  [<< | >>]
Article: 2  [<< | >>]

Whether moral virtues about operations are different from those that are about passions?

Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod virtutes morales non distinguantur ab invicem per hoc quod quaedam sunt circa operationes, quaedam circa passiones. Dicit enim philosophus, in II Ethic., quod virtus moralis est circa delectationes et tristitias optimorum operativa. Sed voluptates et tristitiae sunt passiones quaedam, ut supra dictum est. Ergo eadem virtus quae est circa passiones, est etiam circa operationes, utpote operativa existens.   Objection 1: It would seem that moral virtues are not divided into those which are about operations and those which are about passions. For the Philosopher says (Ethic. ii, 3) that moral virtue is "an operative habit whereby we do what is best in matters of pleasure or sorrow." Now pleasure and sorrow are passions, as stated above (Question [31], Article [1]; Question [35], Article [1]). Therefore the same virtue which is about passions is also about operations, since it is an operative habit.
Praeterea, passiones sunt principia exteriorum operationum. Si ergo aliquae virtutes rectificant passiones, oportet quod etiam per consequens rectificent operationes. Eaedem ergo virtutes morales sunt circa passiones et operationes.   Objection 2: Further, the passions are principles of external action. If therefore some virtues regulate the passions, they must, as a consequence, regulate operations also. Therefore the same moral virtues are about both passions and operations.
Praeterea, ad omnem operationem exteriorem movetur appetitus sensitivus bene vel male. Sed motus appetitus sensitivi sunt passiones. Ergo eaedem virtutes quae sunt circa operationes, sunt circa passiones.   Objection 3: Further, the sensitive appetite is moved well or ill towards every external operation. Now movements of the sensitive appetite are passions. Therefore the same virtues that are about operations are also about passions.
Sed contra est quod philosophus ponit iustitiam circa operationes; temperantiam autem et fortitudinem et mansuetudinem, circa passiones quasdam.   On the contrary, The Philosopher reckons justice to be about operations; and temperance, fortitude and gentleness, about passions (Ethic. ii, 3,7; v, 1, seqq.).
Respondeo dicendum quod operatio et passio dupliciter potest comparari ad virtutem. Uno modo, sicut effectus. Et hoc modo, omnis moralis virtus habet aliquas operationes bonas, quarum est productiva; et delectationem aliquam vel tristitiam, quae sunt passiones, ut supra dictum est.   I answer that, Operation and passion stand in a twofold relation to virtue. First, as its effects; and in this way every moral virtue has some good operations as its product; and a certain pleasure or sorrow which are passions, as stated above (Question [59], Article [4], ad 1).
Alio modo potest comparari operatio ad virtutem moralem, sicut materia circa quam est. Et secundum hoc, oportet alias esse virtutes morales circa operationes, et alias circa passiones. Cuius ratio est, quia bonum et malum in quibusdam operationibus attenditur secundum seipsas, qualitercumque homo afficiatur ad eas, inquantum scilicet bonum in eis et malum accipitur secundum rationem commensurationis ad alterum. Et in talibus oportet quod sit aliqua virtus directiva operationum secundum seipsas, sicut sunt emptio et venditio, et omnes huiusmodi operationes in quibus attenditur ratio debiti vel indebiti ad alterum. Et propter hoc, iustitia et partes eius proprie sunt circa operationes sicut circa propriam materiam. In quibusdam vero operationibus bonum et malum attenditur solum secundum commensurationem ad operantem. Et ideo oportet in his bonum et malum considerari, secundum quod homo bene vel male afficitur circa huiusmodi. Et propter hoc, oportet quod virtutes in talibus sint principaliter circa interiores affectiones, quae dicuntur animae passiones, sicut patet de temperantia, fortitudine et aliis huiusmodi.    Secondly, operation may be compared to moral virtue as the matter about which virtue is concerned: and in this sense those moral virtues which are about operations must needs differ from those which are about passions. The reason for this is that good and evil, in certain operations, are taken from the very nature of those operations, no matter how man may be affected towards them: viz. in so far as good and evil in them depend on their being commensurate with someone else. In operations of this kind there needs to be some power to regulate the operations in themselves: such are buying and selling, and all such operations in which there is an element of something due or undue to another. For this reason justice and its parts are properly about operations as their proper matter. On the other hand, in some operations, good and evil depend only on commensuration with the agent. Consequently good and evil in these operations depend on the way in which man is affected to them. And for this reason in such like operations virtue must needs be chiefly about internal emotions which are called the passions of the soul, as is evidently the case with temperance, fortitude and the like.
Contingit autem quod in operationibus quae sunt ad alterum, praetermittatur bonum virtutis propter inordinatam animi passionem. Et tunc, inquantum corrumpitur commensuratio exterioris operationis, est corruptio iustitiae, inquantum autem corrumpitur commensuratio interiorum passionum, est corruptio alicuius alterius virtutis. Sicut cum propter iram aliquis alium percutit, in ipsa percussione indebita corrumpitur iustitia, in immoderantia vero irae corrumpitur mansuetudo. Et idem patet in aliis.    It happens, however, in operations which are directed to another, that the good of virtue is overlooked by reason of some inordinate passion of the soul. In such cases justice is destroyed in so far as the due measure of the external act is destroyed: while some other virtue is destroyed in so far as the internal passions exceed their due measure. Thus when through anger, one man strikes another, justice is destroyed in the undue blow; while gentleness is destroyed by the immoderate anger. The same may be clearly applied to other virtues.
Et per hoc patet responsio ad obiecta. Nam prima ratio procedit de operatione, secundum quod est effectus virtutis. Aliae vero duae rationes procedunt ex hoc, quod ad idem concurrunt operatio et passio. Sed in quibusdam virtus est principaliter circa operationem, in quibusdam circa passionem, ratione praedicta.    This suffices for the Replies to the Objections. For the first considers operations as the effect of virtue, while the other two consider operation and passion as concurring in the same effect. But in some cases virtue is chiefly about operations, in others, about passions, for the reason given above.


Index  [<< | >>]
First Part of the Second Part  [<< | >>]
Question: 60  [<< | >>]
Article: 3  [<< | >>]

Whether there is only one moral virtue about operations?

Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod sit una tantum virtus moralis circa operationes. Rectitudo enim omnium operationum exteriorum videtur ad iustitiam pertinere. Sed iustitia est una virtus. Ergo una sola virtus est circa operationes.   Objection 1: It would seem that there is but one moral virtue about operations. Because the rectitude of all external operations seems to belong to justice. Now justice is but one virtue. Therefore there is but one virtue about operations.
Praeterea, operationes maxime differentes esse videntur quae ordinantur ad bonum unius, et quae ordinantur ad bonum multitudinis. Sed ista diversitas non diversificat virtutes morales, dicit enim philosophus, in V Ethic., quod iustitia legalis, quae ordinat actus hominum ad commune bonum, non est aliud a virtute quae ordinat actus hominis ad unum tantum, nisi secundum rationem. Ergo diversitas operationum non causat diversitatem virtutum moralium.   Objection 2: Further, those operations seem to differ most, which are directed on the one side to the good of the individual, and on the other to the good of the many. But this diversity does not cause diversity among the moral virtues: for the Philosopher says (Ethic. v, 1) that legal justice, which directs human acts to the common good, does not differ, save logically, from the virtue which directs a man's actions to one man only. Therefore diversity of operations does not cause a diversity of moral virtues.
Praeterea, si sunt diversae virtutes morales circa diversas operationes, oporteret quod secundum diversitatem operationum, esset diversitas virtutum moralium. Sed hoc patet esse falsum, nam ad iustitiam pertinet in diversis generibus commutationum rectitudinem statuere, et etiam in distributionibus, ut patet in V Ethic. Non ergo diversae virtutes sunt diversarum operationum.   Objection 3: Further, if there are various moral virtues about various operations, diversity of moral virtues would needs follow diversity of operations. But this is clearly untrue: for it is the function of justice to establish rectitude in various kinds of commutations, and again in distributions, as is set down in Ethic. v, 2. Therefore there are not different virtues about different operations.
Sed contra est quod religio est alia virtus a pietate, quarum tamen utraque est circa operationes quasdam.   On the contrary, Religion is a moral virtue distinct from piety, both of which are about operations.
Respondeo dicendum quod omnes virtutes morales quae sunt circa operationes, conveniunt in quadam generali ratione iustitiae, quae attenditur secundum debitum ad alterum, distinguuntur autem secundum diversas speciales rationes. Cuius ratio est quia in operationibus exterioribus ordo rationis instituitur sicut dictum est, non secundum proportionem ad affectionem hominis, sed secundum ipsam convenientiam rei in seipsa; secundum quam convenientiam accipitur ratio debiti, ex quo constituitur ratio iustitiae, ad iustitiam enim pertinere videtur ut quis debitum reddat. Unde omnes huiusmodi virtutes quae sunt circa operationes, habent aliquo modo rationem iustitiae. Sed debitum non est unius rationis in omnibus, aliter enim debetur aliquid aequali, aliter superiori, aliter minori; et aliter ex pacto, vel ex promisso, vel ex beneficio suscepto. Et secundum has diversas rationes debiti, sumuntur diversae virtutes, puta religio est per quam redditur debitum Deo; pietas est per quam redditur debitum parentibus vel patriae; gratia est per quam redditur debitum benefactoribus; et sic de aliis.   I answer that, All the moral virtues that are about operations agree in one general notion of justice, which is in respect of something due to another: but they differ in respect of various special notions. The reason for this is that in external operations, the order of reason is established, as we have stated (Article [2]), not according as how man is affected towards such operations, but according to the becomingness of the thing itself; from which becomingness we derive the notion of something due which is the formal aspect of justice: for, seemingly, it pertains to justice that a man give another his due. Wherefore all such virtues as are about operations, bear, in some way, the character of justice. But the thing due is not of the same kind in all these virtues: for something is due to an equal in one way, to a superior, in another way, to an inferior, in yet another; and the nature of a debt differs according as it arises from a contract, a promise, or a favor already conferred. And corresponding to these various kinds of debt there are various virtues: e.g. "Religion" whereby we pay our debt to God; "Piety," whereby we pay our debt to our parents or to our country; "Gratitude," whereby we pay our debt to our benefactors, and so forth.
Ad primum ergo dicendum quod iustitia proprie dicta est una specialis virtus, quae attendit perfectam rationem debiti, quod secundum aequivalentiam potest restitui. Dicitur tamen et ampliato nomine iustitia, secundum quamcumque debiti redditionem. Et sic non est una specialis virtus.   Reply to Objection 1: Justice properly so called is one special virtue, whose object is the perfect due, which can be paid in the equivalent. But the name of justice is extended also to all cases in which something due is rendered: in this sense it is not as a special virtue.
Ad secundum dicendum quod iustitia quae intendit bonum commune, est alia virtus a iustitia quae ordinatur ad bonum privatum alicuius, unde et ius commune distinguitur a iure privato; et Tullius ponit unam specialem virtutem, pietatem, quae ordinat ad bonum patriae. Sed iustitia ordinans hominem ad bonum commune, est generalis per imperium, quia omnes actus virtutum ordinat ad finem suum, scilicet ad bonum commune. Virtus autem secundum quod a tali iustitia imperatur, etiam iustitiae nomen accipit. Et sic virtus a iustitia legali non differt nisi ratione, sicut sola ratione differt virtus operans secundum seipsam, et virtus operans ad imperium alterius.   Reply to Objection 2: That justice which seeks the common good is another virtue from that which is directed to the private good of an individual: wherefore common right differs from private right; and Tully (De Inv. ii) reckons as a special virtue, piety which directs man to the good of his country. But that justice which directs man to the common good is a general virtue through its act of command: since it directs all the acts of the virtues to its own end, viz. the common good. And the virtues, in so far as they are commanded by that justice, receive the name of justice: so that virtue does not differ, save logically, from legal justice; just as there is only a logical difference between a virtue that is active of itself, and a virtue that is active through the command of another virtue.
Ad tertium dicendum quod in omnibus operationibus ad iustitiam specialem pertinentibus, est eadem ratio debiti. Et ideo est eadem virtus iustitiae, praecipue quantum ad commutationes. Forte enim distributiva est alterius speciei a commutativa, sed de hoc infra quaeretur.   Reply to Objection 3: There is the same kind of due in all the operations belonging to special justice. Consequently, there is the same virtue of justice, especially in regard to commutations. For it may be that distributive justice is of another species from commutative justice; but about this we shall inquire later on (SS, Question [61], Article [1]).


Index  [<< | >>]
First Part of the Second Part  [<< | >>]
Question: 60  [<< | >>]
Article: 4  [<< | >>]

Whether there are different moral virtues about different passions?

Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod circa diversas passiones non sint diversae virtutes morales. Eorum enim quae conveniunt in principio et fine, unus est habitus, sicut patet maxime in scientiis. Sed omnium passionum unum est principium, scilicet amor; et omnes ad eundem finem terminantur, scilicet ad delectationem vel tristitiam; ut supra habitum est. Ergo circa omnes passiones est una tantum moralis virtus.   Objection 1: It would seem that there are not different moral virtues about different passions. For there is but one habit about things that concur in their source and end: as is evident especially in the case of sciences. But the passions all concur in one source, viz. love; and they all terminate in the same end, viz. joy or sorrow, as we stated above (Question [25], Articles [1],2,4; Question [27], Article [4]). Therefore there is but one moral virtue about all the passions.
Praeterea, si circa diversas passiones essent diversae virtutes morales, sequeretur quod tot essent virtutes morales quot passiones. Sed hoc patet esse falsum, quia circa oppositas passiones est una et eadem virtus moralis, sicut fortitudo circa timores et audacias, temperantia circa delectationes et tristitias. Non ergo oportet quod circa diversas passiones sint diversae virtutes morales.   Objection 2: Further, if there were different moral virtues about different passions, it would follow that there are as many moral virtues as passions. But this clearly is not the case: since there is one moral virtue about contrary passions; namely, fortitude, about fear and daring; temperance, about pleasure and sorrow. Therefore there is no need for different moral virtues about different passions.
Praeterea, amor, concupiscentia et delectatio sunt passiones specie differentes, ut supra habitum est. Sed circa omnes has est una virtus, scilicet temperantia. Ergo virtutes morales non sunt diversae circa diversas passiones.   Objection 3: Further, love, desire, and pleasure are passions of different species, as stated above (Question [23], Article [4]). Now there is but one virtue about all these three, viz. temperance. Therefore there are not different moral virtues about different passions.
Sed contra est quod fortitudo est circa timores et audacias; temperantia circa concupiscentias; mansuetudo circa iras; ut dicitur in III et IV Ethic.   On the contrary, Fortitude is about fear and daring; temperance about desire; meekness about anger; as stated in Ethic. iii, 6,10; iv, 5.
Respondeo dicendum quod non potest dici quod circa omnes passiones sit una sola virtus moralis, sunt enim quaedam passiones ad diversas potentias pertinentes; aliae namque pertinent ad irascibilem, aliae ad concupiscibilem, ut supra dictum est.   I answer that, It cannot be said that there is only one moral virtue about all the passions: since some passions are not in the same power as other passions; for some belong to the irascible, others to the concupiscible faculty, as stated above (Question [23], Article [1]).
Nec tamen oportet quod omnis diversitas passionum sufficiat ad virtutes morales diversificandas. Primo quidem, quia quaedam passiones sunt quae sibi opponuntur secundum contrarietatem, sicut gaudium et tristitia, timor et audacia, et alia huiusmodi. Et circa huiusmodi passiones sic oppositas, oportet esse unam et eandem virtutem. Cum enim virtus moralis in quadam medietate consistat, medium in contrariis passionibus secundum eandem rationem instituitur, sicut et in naturalibus idem est medium inter contraria, ut inter album et nigrum. Secundo, quia diversae passiones inveniuntur secundum eundem modum rationi repugnantes, puta secundum impulsum ad id quod est contra rationem; vel secundum retractionem ab eo quod est secundum rationem. Et ideo diversae passiones concupiscibilis non pertinent ad diversas virtutes morales, quia earum motus secundum quendam ordinem se invicem consequuntur, utpote ad idem ordinati, scilicet ad consequendum bonum, vel ad fugiendum malum; sicut ex amore procedit concupiscentia, et ex concupiscentia pervenitur ad delectationem. Et eadem ratio est de oppositis, quia ex odio sequitur fuga vel abominatio, quae perducit ad tristitiam. Sed passiones irascibilis non sunt unius ordinis, sed ad diversa ordinantur, nam audacia et timor ordinantur ad aliquod magnum periculum; spes et desperatio ad aliquod bonum arduum; ira autem ad superandum aliquod contrarium quod nocumentum intulit. Et ideo circa has passiones diversae virtutes ordinantur, utpote temperantia circa passiones concupiscibilis; fortitudo circa timores et audacias; magnanimitas circa spem et desperationem; mansuetudo circa iras.    On the other hand, neither does every diversity of passions necessarily suffice for a diversity of moral virtues. First, because some passions are in contrary opposition to one another, such as joy and sorrow, fear and daring, and so on. About such passions as are thus in opposition to one another there must needs be one same virtue. Because, since moral virtue consists in a kind of mean, the mean in contrary passions stands in the same ratio to both, even as in the natural order there is but one mean between contraries, e.g. between black and white. Secondly, because there are different passions contradicting reason in the same manner, e.g. by impelling to that which is contrary to reason, or by withdrawing from that which is in accord with reason. Wherefore the different passions of the concupiscible faculty do not require different moral virtues, because their movements follow one another in a certain order, as being directed to the one same thing, viz. the attainment of some good or the avoidance of some evil: thus from love proceeds desire, and from desire we arrive at pleasure; and it is the same with the opposite passions, for hatred leads to avoidance or dislike, and this leads to sorrow. On the other hand, the irascible passions are not all of one order, but are directed to different things: for daring and fear are about some great danger; hope and despair are about some difficult good; while anger seeks to overcome something contrary which has wrought harm. Consequently there are different virtues about such like passions: e.g. temperance, about the concupiscible passions; fortitude, about fear and daring; magnanimity, about hope and despair; meekness, about anger.
Ad primum ergo dicendum quod omnes passiones conveniunt in uno principio et fine communi, non autem in uno proprio principio seu fine. Unde hoc non sufficit ad unitatem virtutis moralis.   Reply to Objection 1: All the passions concur in one common principle and end; but not in one proper principle or end: and so this does not suffice for the unity of moral virtue.
Ad secundum dicendum quod, sicut in naturalibus idem est principium quo receditur ab uno principio, et acceditur ad aliud; et in rationalibus est eadem ratio contrariorum, ita etiam virtus moralis, quae in modum naturae rationi consentit, est eadem contrariarum passionum.   Reply to Objection 2: Just as in the natural order the same principle causes movement from one extreme and movement towards the other; and as in the intellectual order contraries have one common ratio; so too between contrary passions there is but one moral virtue, which, like a second nature, consents to reason's dictates.
Ad tertium dicendum quod illae tres passiones ad idem obiectum ordinantur secundum quendam ordinem, ut dictum est. Et ideo ad eandem virtutem moralem pertinent.   Reply to Objection 3: Those three passions are directed to the same object in a certain order, as stated above: and so they belong to the same virtue.


Index  [<< | >>]
First Part of the Second Part  [<< | >>]
Question: 60  [<< | >>]
Article: 5  [<< | >>]

Whether the moral virtues differ in point of the various objects of the passions?

Ad quintum sic proceditur. Videtur quod virtutes morales non distinguantur secundum obiecta passionum. Sicut enim sunt obiecta passionum, ita sunt obiecta operationum. Sed virtutes morales quae sunt circa operationes, non distinguuntur secundum obiecta operationum, ad eandem enim virtutem iustitiae pertinet emere vel vendere domum, et equum. Ergo etiam nec virtutes morales quae sunt circa passiones, diversificantur per obiecta passionum.   Objection 1: It would seem that the moral virtues do not differ according to the objects of the passions. For just as there are objects of passions, so are there objects of operations. Now those moral virtues that are about operations, do not differ according to the objects of those operations: for the buying and selling either of a house or of a horse belong to the one same virtue of justice. Therefore neither do those moral virtues that are about passions differ according to the objects of those passions.
Praeterea, passiones sunt quidam actus vel motus appetitus sensitivi. Sed maior diversitas requiritur ad diversitatem habituum, quam ad diversitatem actuum. Diversa igitur obiecta quae non diversificant speciem passionis, non diversificabunt speciem virtutis moralis. Ita scilicet quod de omnibus delectabilibus erit una virtus moralis, et similiter est de aliis.   Objection 2: Further, the passions are acts or movements of the sensitive appetite. Now it needs a greater difference to differentiate habits than acts. Hence diverse objects which do not diversify the species of passions, do not diversify the species of moral virtue: so that there is but one moral virtue about all objects of pleasure, and the same applies to the other passions.
Praeterea, magis et minus non diversificant speciem. Sed diversa delectabilia non differunt nisi secundum magis et minus. Ergo omnia delectabilia pertinent ad unam speciem virtutis. Et eadem ratione, omnia terribilia, et similiter de aliis. Non ergo virtus moralis distinguitur secundum obiecta passionum.   Objection 3: Further, more or less do not change a species. Now various objects of pleasure differ only by reason of being more or less pleasurable. Therefore all objects of pleasure belong to one species of virtue: and for the same reason so do all fearful objects, and the same applies to others. Therefore moral virtue is not diversified according to the objects of the passions.
Praeterea, sicut virtus est operativa boni, ita est impeditiva mali. Sed circa concupiscentias bonorum sunt diversae virtutes, sicut temperantia circa concupiscentias delectationum tactus, et eutrapelia circa delectationes ludi. Ergo etiam circa timores malorum debent esse diversae virtutes.   Objection 4: Further, virtue hinders evil, even as it produces good. But there are various virtues about the desires for good things: thus temperance is about desires for the pleasure of touch, and "eutrapelia" [*{eutrapelia}] about pleasures in games. Therefore there should be different virtues about fears of evils.
Sed contra est quod castitas est circa delectabilia venereorum; abstinentia vero est circa delectabilia ciborum; et eutrapelia circa delectabilia ludorum.   On the contrary, Chastity is about sexual pleasures, abstinence about pleasures of the table, and "eutrapelia" about pleasures in games.
Respondeo dicendum quod perfectio virtutis ex ratione dependet, perfectio autem passionis, ex ipso appetitu sensitivo. Unde oportet quod virtutes diversificentur secundum ordinem ad rationem, passiones autem, secundum ordinem ad appetitum. Obiecta igitur passionum, secundum quod diversimode comparantur ad appetitum sensitivum, causant diversas passionum species, secundum vero quod comparantur ad rationem, causant diversas species virtutum. Non est autem idem motus rationis, et appetitus sensitivi. Unde nihil prohibet aliquam differentiam obiectorum causare diversitatem passionum, quae non causat diversitatem virtutum, sicut quando una virtus est circa multas passiones, ut dictum est, et aliquam etiam differentiam obiectorum causare diversitatem virtutum, quae non causat diversitatem passionum, cum circa unam passionem, puta delectationem, diversae virtutes ordinentur.   I answer that, The perfection of a virtue depends on the reason; whereas the perfection of a passion depends on the sensitive appetite. Consequently virtues must needs be differentiated according to their relation to reason, but the passions according to their relation to the appetite. Hence the objects of the passions, according as they are variously related to the sensitive appetite, cause the different species of passions: while, according as they are related to reason, they cause the different species of virtues. Now the movement of reason is not the same as that of the sensitive appetite. Wherefore nothing hinders a difference of objects from causing diversity of passions, without causing diversity of virtues, as when one virtue is about several passions, as stated above (Article [4]); and again, a difference of objects from causing different virtues, without causing a difference of passions, since several virtues are directed about one passion, e.g. pleasure.
Et quia diversae passiones ad diversas potentias pertinentes, semper pertinent ad diversas virtutes, ut dictum est; ideo diversitas obiectorum quae respicit diversitatem potentiarum, semper diversificat species virtutum; puta quod aliquid sit bonum absolute, et aliquid bonum cum aliqua arduitate. Et quia ordine quodam ratio inferiores hominis partes regit, et etiam se ad exteriora extendit; ideo etiam secundum quod unum obiectum passionis apprehenditur sensu vel imaginatione, aut etiam ratione; et secundum etiam quod pertinet ad animam, corpus, vel exteriores res; diversam habitudinem habet ad rationem; et per consequens natum est diversificare virtutes. Bonum igitur hominis, quod est obiectum amoris, concupiscentiae et delectationis, potest accipi vel ad sensum corporis pertinens; vel ad interiorem animae apprehensionem. Et hoc, sive ordinetur ad bonum hominis in seipso, vel quantum ad corpus vel quantum ad animam; sive ordinetur ad bonum hominis in ordine ad alios. Et omnis talis diversitas, propter diversum ordinem ad rationem, diversificat virtutem.    And because diverse passions belonging to diverse powers, always belong to diverse virtues, as stated above (Article [4]); therefore a difference of objects that corresponds to a difference of powers always causes a specific difference of virtues—for instance the difference between that which is good absolutely speaking, and that which is good and difficult to obtain. Moreover since the reason rules man's lower powers in a certain order, and even extends to outward things; hence, one single object of the passions, according as it is apprehended by sense, imagination, or reason, and again, according as it belongs to the soul, body, or external things, has various relations to reason, and consequently is of a nature to cause a difference of virtues. Consequently man's good which is the object of love, desire and pleasure, may be taken as referred either to a bodily sense, or to the inner apprehension of the mind: and this same good may be directed to man's good in himself, either in his body or in his soul, or to man's good in relation to other men. And every such difference, being differently related to reason, differentiates virtues.
Sic igitur si consideretur aliquod bonum, si quidem sit per sensum tactus apprehensum, et ad consistentiam humanae vitae pertinens in individuo vel in specie, sicut sunt delectabilia ciborum et venereorum; erit pertinens ad virtutem temperantiae. Delectationes autem aliorum sensuum, cum non sint vehementes, non praestant aliquam difficultatem rationi, et ideo circa eas non ponitur aliqua virtus, quae est circa difficile, sicut et ars, ut dicitur in II Ethic.    Accordingly, if we take a good, and it be something discerned by the sense of touch, and something pertaining to the upkeep of human life either in the individual or in the species, such as the pleasures of the table or of sexual intercourse, it will belong to the virtue of "temperance." As regards the pleasures of the other senses, they are not intense, and so do not present much difficulty to the reason: hence there is no virtue corresponding to them; for virtue, "like art, is about difficult things" (Ethic. ii, 3).
Bonum autem non sensu, sed interiori virtute apprehensum, ad ipsum hominem pertinens secundum seipsum, est sicut pecunia et honor; quorum pecunia ordinabilis est de se ad bonum corporis; honor autem consistit in apprehensione animae. Et haec quidem bona considerari possunt vel absolute, secundum quod pertinent ad concupiscibilem; vel cum arduitate quadam, secundum quod pertinent ad irascibilem. Quae quidem distinctio non habet locum in bonis quae delectant tactum, quia huiusmodi sunt quaedam infima, et competunt homini secundum quod convenit cum brutis. Circa bonum igitur pecuniae absolute sumptum, secundum quod est obiectum concupiscentiae vel delectationis aut amoris, est liberalitas. Circa bonum autem huiusmodi cum arduitate sumptum, secundum quod est obiectum spei, est magnificentia. Circa bonum vero quod est honor, si quidem sit absolute sumptum, secundum quod est obiectum amoris, sic est quaedam virtus quae vocatur philotimia, idest amor honoris. Si vero cum arduitate consideretur, secundum quod est obiectum spei, sic est magnanimitas. Unde liberalitas et philotimia videntur esse in concupiscibili, magnificentia vero et magnanimitas in irascibili.    On the other hand, good discerned not by the senses, but by an inner power, and belonging to man in himself, is like money and honor; the former, by its very nature, being employable for the good of the body, while the latter is based on the apprehension of the mind. These goods again may be considered either absolutely, in which way they concern the concupiscible faculty, or as being difficult to obtain, in which way they belong to the irascible part: which distinction, however, has no place in pleasurable objects of touch; since such are of base condition, and are becoming to man in so far as he has something in common with irrational animals. Accordingly in reference to money considered as a good absolutely, as an object of desire, pleasure, or love, there is "liberality": but if we consider this good as difficult to get, and as being the object of our hope, there is "magnificence" [*{megaloprepeia}]. With regard to that good which we call honor, taken absolutely, as the object of love, we have a virtue called "philotimia" [*{philotimia}], i.e. "love of honor": while if we consider it as hard to attain, and as an object of hope, then we have "magnanimity." Wherefore liberality and "philotimia" seem to be in the concupiscible part, while magnificence and magnanimity are in the irascible.
Bonum vero hominis in ordine ad alium, non videtur arduitatem habere, sed accipitur ut absolute sumptum, prout est obiectum passionum concupiscibilis. Quod quidem bonum potest esse alicui delectabile secundum quod praebet se alteri vel in his quae serio fiunt, idest in actionibus per rationem ordinatis ad debitum finem; vel in his quae fiunt ludo, idest in actionibus ordinatis ad delectationem tantum, quae non eodem modo se habent ad rationem sicut prima. In seriis autem se exhibet aliquis alteri dupliciter. Uno modo, ut delectabilem decentibus verbis et factis, et hoc pertinet ad quandam virtutem quam Aristoteles nominat amicitiam; et potest dici affabilitas. Alio modo praebet se aliquis alteri ut manifestum, per dicta et facta, et hoc pertinet ad aliam virtutem, quam nominat veritatem. Manifestatio enim propinquius accedit ad rationem quam delectatio; et seria quam iocosa. Unde et circa delectationes ludorum est alia virtus, quam philosophus eutrapeliam nominat.    As regards man's good in relation to other men, it does not seem hard to obtain, but is considered absolutely, as the object of the concupiscible passions. This good may be pleasurable to a man in his behavior towards another either in some serious matter, in actions, to wit, that are directed by reason to a due end, or in playful actions, viz. that are done for mere pleasure, and which do not stand in the same relation to reason as the former. Now one man behaves towards another in serious matters, in two ways. First, as being pleasant in his regard, by becoming speech and deeds: and this belongs to a virtue which Aristotle (Ethic. ii, 7) calls "friendship" [*{philia}], and may be rendered "affability." Secondly, one man behaves towards another by being frank with him, in words and deeds: this belongs to another virtue which (Ethic. iv, 7) he calls "truthfulness" [*{aletheia}]. For frankness is more akin to the reason than pleasure, and serious matters than play. Hence there is another virtue about the pleasures of games, which the Philosopher "eutrapelia" [*{eutrapelia}] (Ethic. iv, 8).
Sic igitur patet quod, secundum Aristotelem, sunt decem virtutes morales circa passiones, scilicet fortitudo, temperantia, liberalitas, magnificentia, magnanimitas, philotimia, mansuetudo, amicitia, veritas et eutrapelia. Et distinguuntur secundum diversas materias vel secundum diversas passiones; vel secundum diversa obiecta. Si igitur addatur iustitia, quae est circa operationes, erunt omnes undecim.    It is therefore evident that, according to Aristotle, there are ten moral virtues about the passions, viz. fortitude, temperance, liberality, magnificence, magnanimity, "philotimia," gentleness, friendship, truthfulness, and "eutrapelia," all of which differ in respect of their diverse matter, passions, or objects: so that if we add "justice," which is about operations, there will be eleven in all.
Ad primum ergo dicendum quod omnia obiecta eiusdem operationis secundum speciem, eandem habitudinem habent ad rationem; non autem omnia obiecta eiusdem passionis secundum speciem, quia operationes non repugnant rationi, sicut passiones.   Reply to Objection 1: All objects of the same specific operation have the same relation to reason: not so all the objects of the same specific passion; because operations do not thwart reason as the passions do.
Ad secundum dicendum quod alia ratione diversificantur passiones, et alia virtutes, sicut dictum est.   Reply to Objection 2: Passions are not differentiated by the same rule as virtues are, as stated above.
Ad tertium dicendum quod magis et minus non diversificant speciem, nisi propter diversam habitudinem ad rationem.   Reply to Objection 3: More and less do not cause a difference of species, unless they bear different relations to reason.
Ad quartum dicendum quod bonum fortius est ad movendum quam malum quia malum non agit nisi virtute boni, ut Dionysius dicit, IV cap. de Div. Nom. Unde malum non facit difficultatem rationi quae requirat virtutem, nisi sit excellens, quod videtur esse unum in uno genere passionis. Unde circa iras non ponitur nisi una virtus, scilicet mansuetudo, et similiter circa audacias una sola, scilicet fortitudo. Sed bonum ingerit difficultatem, quae requirit virtutem, etiam si non sit excellens in genere talis passionis. Et ideo circa concupiscentias ponuntur diversae virtutes morales, ut dictum est.   Reply to Objection 4: Good is a more potent mover than evil: because evil does not cause movement save in virtue of good, as Dionysius states (Div. Nom. iv). Hence an evil does not prove an obstacle to reason, so as to require virtues unless that evil be great; there being, seemingly, one such evil corresponding to each kind of passion. Hence there is but one virtue, meekness, for every form of anger; and, again, but one virtue, fortitude, for all forms of daring. On the other hand, good involves difficulty, which requires virtue, even if it be not a great good in that particular kind of passion. Consequently there are various moral virtues about desires, as stated above.

This document converted to HTML on Fri Jan 02 19:10:17 1998.