ARTICLE V

In the Fifth Article We Ask: DOES THE WILL WILL ANYTHING NECESSARILY?

Difficulties:

It seems that it does, for

1. According to Augustine all seek happiness "with a single will." But what is sought by all in common is sought of necessity; for if it were not of necessity, it might chance not to be sought by someone. The will therefore wills something necessarily.

2. Every cause of motion having perfect efficacy moves its object of necessity. But according to the Philosopher good as apprehended is the cause of the motion of the will. Therefore, since something is a perfect good, viz., God and beatitude, as is said in the Ethics, there will be something which will move the will with necessity. And so something is desired by the will necessarily.

3. Immateriality is the reason why a given power cannot be forced; for powers connected with organs are forced, as appears especially in regard to the motive power. But the intellect is a more immaterial power than the will. This is clear from the fact that it has a more immaterial object, the universal, whereas the object of the will is the good existing in particular things. Since, then, the intellect is forced to hold something of necessity, as is said in the Metaphysics, it seems that the will also tends to something of necessity.

4. Necessity is removed from the will only by reason of freedom, to which necessity seems to be opposed. But not every sort of necessity prevents freedom. Hence Augustine says: "If necessity is defined to be that according to which we say: 'It is necessary for something to be or to become thus and so,' I do not know why we should fear that it will take away the freedom of the will." The will therefore of necessity wills something.

5. Necessary means unable not to be. But God is unable not to will good just as He is unable not to be good. He therefore necessarily wills good; and so some will wills something necessarily.

6. According to Gregory "a sin which is not wiped out by repentance, by its own weight soon draws a person to another." But a sin is not committed unless it is done voluntarily, as Augustine teaches. Since drawing is a violent motion, as is made clear in the Physics, one can accordingly be violently forced to will something of necessity.

7. Following Augustine, the Master says: "In the second state (the state of guilt) man cannot avoid sinning even mortally before reparation and at least venially after reparation." But both mortal and venial sin are voluntary. There is therefore a state of man in which he is unable not to will something which constitutes a sin. And so the will of necessity wills something.

8. The more a thing is disposed by nature to cause motion, the more it is disposed to impose necessity. But good can cause motion more than what is true, since good is in things but what is true is only in thought, as is said in the Metaphysics. Therefore, since what is true forces the intellect, with all the more reason does good force the will.

9. Good makes a stronger impression than truth. This is evident from the fact that love, which is the imprint left by the impact of good, is more conducive to unity than knowledge, which is the imprint left by the impact of truth. For according to Augustine, love is a sort of life uniting the lover to the beloved. Good can therefore impose necessity upon the will more than truth can upon the intellect. Thus the conclusion is the same as before.

10. The more power a faculty has over its objects, the less it can be forced by them. But reason has more power over its objects than will; for according to Augustine reason forms within itself the species of things, and the will does not, but is moved by appetible things. The will can therefore be forced by its objects more than reason can by its own. And so the same conclusion is reached as before.

11. What is in something essentially is in it of necessity. But to will something is in the will essentially. Therefore the will wills something of necessity. Proof of the minor: The highest good is willed essentially. Therefore whenever the will is directed to it, it wills essentially. But then it is always directed to it because it is so naturally. Therefore the will always essentially wills the highest good.

12. In scientific knowledge necessity is found. Now just as all men naturally want to know, as the Philosopher says, so too do they naturally will good. In willing good necessity is therefore found.

13. The Gloss says that the will "naturally wills good." But things which are in something by nature are necessary. Therefore the will necessarily wills good.

14. Whatever is increased or diminished can also be taken away entirely. But the freedom of the will is increased or diminished, for before the fall man had freer choice than after the fall, according to Augustine. The freedom of the will can therefore be taken away entirely. And so the will can be forced with necessity.

To the Contrary:

1'. According to Augustine, if anything is voluntary, it is not necessary. But whatever we will is voluntary. The will therefore does not will anything necessarily.

2'. Bernard says that free choice is the most powerful thing under God. But such a thing cannot be forced by anyone. The will therefore cannot be forced to will something of necessity.

3'. Freedom is opposed to necessity. But the will is free. Therefore it does not will anything of necessity.

4'. Bernard says that our choice, which is free because of our innate will, is moved by no necessity. But the dignity of the will cannot be taken away. The will therefore cannot will anything of necessity.

5'. Rational faculties are open to opposites according to the Philosopher. But the will is a rational faculty, for it is in reason, as is said in The Soul. It is therefore open to opposites, and so it is not determined to anything necessarily.

6'. Whatever is determined to something of necessity is naturally determined to it. But the will is distinguished from natural appetite. It therefore does not will anything of necessity.

7'. From the fact that something is voluntary it is said to be in us in such a way that we are masters of it. But we can will or not will anything within us of which we are masters. Therefore, whatever the will wills it can will or not will. Thus it does not will anything necessarily.

REPLY:

As can be gathered from the words of Augustine, necessity is of two kinds: (1) the necessity of force; and this can by no means apply to the will; and (2) the necessity of natural inclination, as we say that God necessarily lives; and with such necessity the will necessarily wills something.

For an understanding of this it should be noted that among things arranged in an order the first must be included in the second, and in the second must be found not only what belongs to it by its own nature but also what belongs to it according to the nature of the first. Thus it is the lot of man not only to make use of reason, as belongs to him in accordance with his specific difference, rational; but also to make use of senses and food, as belongs to him in accordance with his genus, animal or living being. In like manner we see among the senses that the sense of touch is a sort of foundation for the other senses and that in the organ of each sense there is found not only the distinctive characteristic of the sense whose proper organ it is, but also the characteristics of touch. Thus the eye not only senses white and black as the organ of sight, but also as the organ of touch senses heat and cold and is destroyed by an excess in them.

Now nature and the will stand in such an order that the will itself is a nature, because whatever is found in reality is called a nature. There must accordingly be found in the will not only what is proper to the will but also what is proper to nature. It belongs to any created nature, however, to be ordained by God for good, naturally tending to it. Hence even in the will there is a certain natural appetite for the good corresponding to it. And it has, moreover, the tendency to something according to its own determination and not from necessity. This belongs to it inasmuch as it is the will.

Just as there is an ordination of nature to the will, there is, moreover, a parallel ordination of the things which the will naturally wills to those in regard to which it is determined of itself and not by nature. Thus, just as nature is the foundation of will, similarly the object of natural appetite is the principle and foundation of the other objects of appetite. Now among the objects of appetite the end is the foundation and principle of the means to the end, because the latter, being for the sake of the end, are not desired except by reason of the end. Accordingly what the will necessarily wills, determined to it by a natural inclination, is the last end, happiness, and whatever is included in it: to be, knowledge of truth, and the like. But it is determined to other things, not by a natural inclination, but by so disposing itself without any necessity.

Although the will wills the last end by a certain necessary inclination, it is nevertheless in no way to be granted that it is forced to will it. For force is nothing else but the infliction of some violence. According to the Philosopher that is violent "whose principle is outside it with the being which suffers the violence contributing nothing." The throwing of a stone upward would be an example, because the stone of itself is not at all inclined to that motion. But seeing that the will is an inclination by the fact of its being an appetite, it cannot happen that the will should will anything without having an inclination to it. Thus it is impossible for the will to will anything by force or violently even though it does will something by a natural inclination. It is therefore evident that the will does not will anything necessarily with the necessity of force, yet it does will something necessarily with the necessity of natural inclination.

Answers to Difficulties:

1. That common appetite for happiness does not come from any forcing but from a natural inclination.

2. However effectively a good moves the will, it still cannot force it, because as soon as we posit that the will wills something, we posit that it has an inclination to it. But that is the contrary of force. It does happen, however, that because of the excellence of a good the will is determined to it by an inclination of natural necessity.

3. The intellect naturally understands something just as the will naturally wills. But force is not contrary to the intellect in its very notion as it is to the will. For although the intellect has an inclination to something, it nevertheless does not designate a man's inclination itself, whereas the will does designate the very inclination of the man. Hence whatever happens according to the will happens according to the man's inclination and so cannot be violent. But the operation of the intellect can be against a man's inclination, his will. This occurs, for instance, when a certain opinion pleases him but because of the force of the arguments he is brought by his intellect to assent to the contrary.

4. Augustine is speaking of natural necessity, which we do not exclude from the will in regard to certain things. This necessity is also found in the divine will just as it is found in the divine existence; for God is necessary essentially, as is said in the Metaphysics.

5. From what has just been said the answer is clear.

6. A sin committed does not draw a man by forcing his will but by inclining it, inasmuch as it deprives the man of the grace by which he is strengthened against sin, and also inasmuch as there is left in the soul from the act of sinning a disposition or habit inclining it to subsequent sin.

7. On this point there are two opinions. Some say that however much a man may be in the state of mortal sin, he can avoid mortal sin by the freedom of his will. They explain the statement that man cannot avoid sinning to mean that he cannot avoid having sin, just as to see means to have sight as well as to make use of sight. But in their opinion he is able not to sin, meaning not to make use of sin. And it is accordingly evident that no necessity of consenting to sin is introduced into the will. Others say that, just as a man in the state of this present life cannot avoid venial sin, not in the sense that he is unable to avoid this or that particular venial sin, but in the sense that he cannot avoid all venial sins so as not to commit a single one, the same is also true of mortal sins in a man who does not have grace. And in accordance with this opinion it is clear that the will is not necessitated to will this or that mortal sin, although when without grace it is found to fall short of an unwavering inclination to good.

8. A form received into something does not move the recipient, but the very having of such a form means that it has been moved. It is, however, moved by an external agent. Thus a body which is heated by fire is not moved by the heat received but by the fire. So too the intellect is not moved by the species already received or by the true knowledge which is consequent upon the species, but by some external thing which influences the intellect--the agent intellect or a phantasm or something else of the sort. Moreover, just as truth is proportioned to the understanding, so too is good proportioned to the affection. Hence because truth is in our apprehension, it is not for that reason any less capable of moving our understanding than good our affection. And furthermore, the fact that the will is not forced by a good does not come from the insufficiency of the good for moving but from the very nature of willing, as is apparent from what has been said.*

9. From the above answer the answer here too is evident.

10. A thing which is external to the soul does not imprint its species upon the possible intellect except through the operation of the agent intellect. On this account the soul is said to form within itself the forms of things. In like manner it is not without the operation of the will that the will tends to its object. The argument is accordingly not conclusive. And besides, the same answer can be given as was given to the two preceding difficulties.

11. The first good is essentially willed, and the will essentially and naturally wills it. Nevertheless it does not always actually will it, for it is not necessary that the things which are naturally associated with the soul are always actually in the soul, just as principles which are naturally known are not always actually being considered.

12. The necessity by which we know something necessarily in scientific knowledge and that by which of necessity we desire knowledge do not belong to the same kind of necessity. The former can be the necessity of force, but the latter can be only a necessity of natural inclination. It is in this way that the will necessarily wills good inasmuch as it naturally wills it.

13. From the above answer this answer also is clear.

14. The freedom which is increased and diminished is freedom from sin and from misery, not freedom from force. Hence it does not follow that the will can be brought to such a pass that it is forced.

Answers to Difficulties to the Contrary:

1'. That authoritative statement is to be understood of the necessity of force, which is repugnant to the will, not of the necessity of natural inclination, which, according to Augustine, is not repugnant to the will.

2'. It is not due to the weakness of the will if it is directed to something of necessity by a natural inclination but rather to its strength, just as a heavy body is the stronger, the greater the necessity with which it is borne downward. But it would be due to its weakness if it were forced by another.

3'. Freedom is opposed to the necessity of force, according to Augustine, but not to the necessity of natural inclination.

4'. Natural necessity is not repugnant to the dignity of the will, but only the necessity of force.

5'. Inasmuch as the will is rational it is open to opposites. This is to consider it according to what is distinctive of it. But from the viewpoint of its being a nature nothing prevents it from being naturally determined to one object.

6'. The will is distinguished from natural appetite in a precisive sense, i.e., an appetite which is only natural, just as man is distinguished from what is only animal. It is not distinguished from natural appetite in an absolute sense, but includes it, just as man includes animal.

7'. This argument also is based upon the will taken as will. For it is characteristic of the will as will to be master of its own acts.