|
State of the question. This article is in direct
opposition to the Manichaeans, Albigenses, and other
heretics who taught a system of dualism. The title
inquires directly about the efficient cause of evil. It
was in the thirteenth century that the Albigenses were
spreading their doctrines in southern France. In the
beginning of his article St. Thomas collected the
arguments that might be proposed in support of dualism.
First objection. In things we almost everywhere find
contrariety; for example, life and death, good and
evil, true and false, noble and base. Therefore two
contrary principles must be postulated. The reply will be
that contraries agree in being.
Second objection. If one of the contraries is in the
nature of things, so also is the opposite. But the
supreme good exists. Therefore supreme evil also exists.
Reply: evil opposes that good which it negates, not that
good in which it is.
Third objection. Grades of perfection are judged
according as they approach the best or that which is good
by essence. So also it should be with grades of evil with
regard to the supreme evil. The reply will be that bad
and worse are judged according as they recede from good,
not as they approach the supreme evil.
Fourth objection. Evil by participation must eventually
lead to evil by essence. Reply: there is no evil by
participation, but beings that are deprived of some due
good.
Fifth objection. Everything that is "per
accidens" is ultimately reduced to that which is
"per se", and since evil exists in many
instances, it must have a cause "per se",
namely, the supreme evil. The reply will be that,
although evil occurs in many instances in the human race,
it is not intended "per se".
Sixth objection. The evil of an effect is traced to the
evil in the cause, namely, a deficient cause. But there
cannot be an infinite process, and we must eventually come
to the first evil cause. The reply will be that evil is
traced to some good cause from which the evil ensues
"per accidens".
Conclusion: there is not nor can there be a first
principle of evil.
This proposition is of faith. (cf. Denz., nos.
234 ff.) St. Thomas' argument "sed
contra" refers to the dogma of the creation,
according to which God is the cause of all being.
The body of the article contains two parts: the first is
strictly theological and proves the conclusion; the second
is historical, explaining why the Manichaeans postulated
two principles.
The conclusion is proved in three ways:
|
1. from the notion of good;
2. from the notion of evil;
3. from the notion of the first principle.
|
|
1. From the notion of good. Good and being are
convertible. But the first evil principle would be evil
in essence and in no way good. Therefore this first
principle of evil would not be being and would not exist.
The proof of the major was given above.[1141]
Every being as being in act is a certain perfection and a
good desirable to itself, and thus every being strives to
preserve its being. As matter is being in potency, so it
is good in potency. Hence no being is said to be being
inasmuch as it is evil but inasmuch as it lacks some
being. And therefore evil exists only in the good as in a
subject.[1142]
2. From the notion of good. If evil were integral
being, or if it completely corrupted the good in which it
is, it would destroy itself, as Aristotle pointed out,
for evil cannot be except in a subject.[1143] But
the supreme evil would be integral being.
3. From the notion of first principle. A first
principle cannot be caused "per accidens" by
another, nor can it be a mere accidental cause. But evil
is caused "per accidens" by good, that is, by a
defective agent or by a contrary agent, and evil can be a
cause only "per accidens", that is, by reason
of an annexed good. Therefore the notion of evil is
repugnant to the notion of a first principle. And
therefore the dualistic position of Manichaeism involves
contradictions on all sides.
In the second, historical part of the article St.
Thomas explains how the Manichaeans arrived at this
solution of this problem of evil. These heretics failed
to consider the most universal cause of being as being,
that is, the creative cause, and only considered
particular efficient and final causes. They did not
understand that what is harmful with regard to some
particular being, as a viper with regard to man, may be
useful with regard to the universal good of the entire
universe. Nor were they able to rise above mutually
contrary causes to the most universal cause.
In his reply to the fifth difficulty St. Thomas says
that the corruptible beings in which there is an evil of
nature are a small part of the universe. He reasoned in
this way because he thought that the heavenly bodies were
incorruptible, but today spectral analysis has shown the
opposite to be true. At any rate, after the resurrection
of the dead there will be no more corruption.[1144]
In this reply he affirms that only in men does evil seem
to be in the majority of instances, because there are more
who follow the senses than follow reason.
This concludes the questions on evil: what evil is, its
kinds, and its cause.
|
|