|
Objection 1: It would seem that consent is directed to the end.
Because that on account of which a thing is such is still more such.
But it is on account of the end that we consent to the means.
Therefore, still more do we consent to the end.
Objection 2: Further, the act of the intemperate man is his end,
just as the act of the virtuous man is his end. But the intemperate
man consents to his own act. Therefore consent can be directed to the
end.
Objection 3: Further, desire of the means is choice, as stated
above (Question 13, Article 1). If therefore consent were only
directed to the means it would nowise differ from choice. And this is
proved to be false by the authority of Damascene who says (De Fide
Orth. ii, 22) that "after the approval" which he calls "the
sentence," "comes the choice." Therefore consent is not only
directed to the means.
On the contrary, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii, 22) that
the "sentence," i.e. the consent, takes place "when a man
approves and embraces the judgment of his counsel." But counsel is
only about the means. Therefore the same applies to consent.
I answer that, Consent is the application of the appetitive movement
to something that is already in the power of him who causes the
application. Now the order of action is this: First there is the
apprehension of the end; then the desire of the end; then the counsel
about the means; then the desire of the means. Now the appetite tends
to the last end naturally: wherefore the application of the appetitive
movement to the apprehended end has not the nature of consent, but of
simple volition. But as to those things which come under consideration
after the last end, in so far as they are directed to the end, they
come under counsel: and so counsel can be applied to them, in so far
as the appetitive movement is applied to the judgment resulting from
counsel. But the appetitive movement to the end is not applied to
counsel: rather is counsel applied to it, because counsel presupposes
the desire of the end. On the other hand, the desire of the means
presupposes the decision of counsel. And therefore the application of
the appetitive movement to counsel's decision is consent, properly
speaking. Consequently, since counsel is only about the means,
consent, properly speaking, is of nothing else but the means.
Reply to Objection 1: Just as the knowledge of conclusions through
the principles is science, whereas the knowledge of the principles is
not science, but something higher, namely, understanding; so do we
consent to the means on account of the end, in respect of which our act
is not consent but something greater, namely, volition.
Reply to Objection 2: Delight in his act, rather than the act
itself, is the end of the intemperate man, and for sake of this
delight he consents to that act.
Reply to Objection 3: Choice includes something that consent has
not, namely, a certain relation to something to which something else
is preferred: and therefore after consent there still remains a
choice. For it may happen that by aid of counsel several means have
been found conducive to the end, and through each of these meeting with
approval, consent has been given to each: but after approving of
many, we have given our preference to one by choosing it. But if only
one meets with approval, then consent and choice do not differ in
reality, but only in our way of looking at them; so that we call it
consent, according as we approve of doing that thing; but choice
according as we prefer it to those that do not meet with our approval.
|
|