|
Objection 1: It would seem that vices and sins differ in respect of
different circumstances. For, as Dionysius says (Div. Nom.
iv), "evil results from each single defect." Now individual
defects are corruptions of individual circumstances. Therefore from
the corruption of each circumstance there results a corresponding
species of sin.
Objection 2: Further, sins are human acts. But human acts
sometimes take their species from circumstances, as stated above
(Question 18, Article 10). Therefore sins differ specifically
according as different circumstances are corrupted.
Objection 3: Further, diverse species are assigned to gluttony,
according to the words contained in the following verse:
'Hastily, sumptuously, too much, greedily, daintily.' Now these
pertain to various circumstances, for "hastily" means sooner than is
right; "too much," more than is right, and so on with the others.
Therefore the species of sin is diversified according to the various
circumstances.
On the contrary, The Philosopher says (Ethic. iii, 7; iv,
1) that "every vice sins by doing more than one ought, and when one
ought not"; and in like manner as to the other circumstances.
Therefore the species of sins are not diversified in this respect.
I answer that, As stated above (Article 8), wherever there is a
special motive for sinning, there is a different species of sin,
because the motive for sinning is the end and object of sin. Now it
happens sometimes that although different circumstances are corrupted,
there is but one motive: thus the illiberal man, for the same motive,
takes when he ought not, where he ought not, and more than he ought,
and so on with the circumstances, since he does this through an
inordinate desire of hoarding money: and in such cases the corruption
of different circumstances does not diversify the species of sins, but
belongs to one and the same species.
Sometimes, however, the corruption of different circumstances arises
from different motives: for instance that a man eat hastily, may be
due to the fact that he cannot brook the delay in taking food, on
account of a rapid exhaustion of the digestive humors; and that he
desire too much food, may be due to a naturally strong digestion; that
he desire choice meats, is due to his desire for pleasure in taking
food. Hence in such matters, the corruption of different
circumstances entails different species of sins.
Reply to Objection 1: Evil, as such, is a privation, and so it
has different species in respect of the thing which the subject is
deprived, even as other privations. But sin does not take its species
from the privation or aversion, as stated above (Article 1), but
from turning to the object of the act.
Reply to Objection 2: A circumstance never transfers an act from
one species to another, save when there is another motive.
Reply to Objection 3: In the various species of gluttony there are
various motives, as stated.
|
|