Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae

Objection 1: It would seem that not all desire Happiness. For no man can desire what he knows not; since the apprehended good is the object of the appetite (De Anima iii, 10). But many know not what Happiness is. This is evident from the fact that, as Augustine says (De Trin. xiii, 4), "some thought that Happiness consists in pleasures of the body; some, in a virtue of the soul; some in other things." Therefore not all desire Happiness.

Objection 2: Further, the essence of Happiness is the vision of the Divine Essence, as stated above (Question 3, Article 8). But some consider it impossible for man to see the Divine Essence; wherefore they desire it not. Therefore all men do not desire Happiness.

Objection 3: Further, Augustine says (De Trin. xiii, 5) that "happy is he who has all he desires, and desires nothing amiss." But all do not desire this; for some desire certain things amiss, and yet they wish to desire such things. Therefore all do not desire Happiness.

On the contrary, Augustine says (De Trin. xiii, 3): "If that actor had said: 'You all wish to be happy; you do not wish to be unhappy,' he would have said that which none would have failed to acknowledge in his will." Therefore everyone desires to be happy.

I answer that, Happiness can be considered in two ways. First according to the general notion of happiness: and thus, of necessity, every man desires happiness. For the general notion of happiness consists in the perfect good, as stated above (Articles 3,4). But since good is the object of the will, the perfect good of a man is that which entirely satisfies his will. Consequently to desire happiness is nothing else than to desire that one's will be satisfied. And this everyone desires. Secondly we may speak of Happiness according to its specific notion, as to that in which it consists. And thus all do not know Happiness; because they know not in what thing the general notion of happiness is found. And consequently, in this respect, not all desire it. Wherefore the reply to the first Objection is clear.

Reply to Objection 2: Since the will follows the apprehension of the intellect or reason; just as it happens that where there is no real distinction, there may be a distinction according to the consideration of reason; so does it happen that one and the same thing is desired in one way, and not desired in another. So that happiness may be considered as the final and perfect good, which is the general notion of happiness: and thus the will naturally and of necessity tends thereto, as stated above. Again it can be considered under other special aspects, either on the part of the operation itself, or on the part of the operating power, or on the part of the object; and thus the will does not tend thereto of necessity.

Reply to Objection 3: This definition of Happiness given by some---"Happy is the man that has all he desires," or, "whose every wish is fulfilled" is a good and adequate definition; but an inadequate definition if understood in another. For if we understand it simply of all that man desires by his natural appetite, thus it is true that he who has all that he desires, is happy: since nothing satisfies man's natural desire, except the perfect good which is Happiness. But if we understand it of those things that man desires according to the apprehension of the reason, thus it does not belong to Happiness, to have certain things that man desires; rather does it belong to unhappiness, in so far as the possession of such things hinders man from having all that he desires naturally; thus it is that reason sometimes accepts as true things that are a hindrance to the knowledge of truth. And it was through taking this into consideration that Augustine added so as to include perfect Happiness---that he "desires nothing amiss": although the first part suffices if rightly understood, to wit, that "happy is he who has all he desires."

Articulus 8

Argumentum 1

Ad octavum sic proceditur. Videtur quod non omnes appetant beatitudinem. Nullus enim potest appetere quod ignorat, cum bonum apprehensum sit obiectum appetitus, ut dicitur in III de anima.

Sed multi nesciunt quid sit beatitudo, quod, sicut Augustinus dicit in XIII de Trin., patet ex hoc, quod quidam posuerunt beatitudinem in voluptate corporis, quidam in virtute animi, quidam in aliis rebus.

Non ergo omnes beatitudinem appetunt.

Argumentum 2

Praeterea, essentia beatitudinis est visio essentiae divinae, ut dictum est.

Sed aliqui opinantur hoc esse impossibile, quod deus per essentiam ab homine videatur, unde hoc non appetunt.

Ergo non omnes homines appetunt beatitudinem.

Argumentum 3

Praeterea, Augustinus dicit, in XIII de Trin. Quod beatus est qui habet omnia quae vult, et nihil male vult.

Sed non omnes hoc volunt, quidam enim male aliqua volunt, et tamen volunt illa se velle.

Non ergo omnes volunt beatitudinem.

Sed Contra

Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, XIII de Trin., si minus dixisset, omnes beati esse vultis, miseri esse non vultis, dixisset aliquid quod nullus in sua non cognosceret voluntate.

Quilibet ergo vult esse beatus.

Corpus

Respondeo dicendum quod beatitudo dupliciter potest considerari.

Uno modo, secundum communem rationem beatitudinis. Et sic necesse est quod omnis homo beatitudinem velit. Ratio autem beatitudinis communis est ut sit bonum perfectum, sicut dictum est.

Cum autem bonum sit obiectum voluntatis, perfectum bonum est alicuius, quod totaliter eius voluntati satisfacit. Unde appetere beatitudinem nihil aliud est quam appetere ut voluntas satietur. Quod quilibet vult. Alio modo possumus loqui de beatitudine secundum specialem rationem, quantum ad id in quo beatitudo consistit. Et sic non omnes cognoscunt beatitudinem, quia nesciunt cui rei communis ratio beatitudinis conveniat. Et per consequens, quantum ad hoc, non omnes eam volunt.

Ad 1

Unde patet responsio ad primum.

Ad 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod, cum voluntas sequatur apprehensionem intellectus seu rationis, sicut contingit quod aliquid est idem secundum rem, quod tamen est diversum secundum rationis considerationem; ita contingit quod aliquid est idem secundum rem, et tamen uno modo appetitur, alio modo non appetitur. Beatitudo ergo potest considerari sub ratione finalis boni et perfecti, quae est communis ratio beatitudinis, et sic naturaliter et ex necessitate voluntas in illud tendit, ut dictum est.

Potest etiam considerari secundum alias speciales considerationes, vel ex parte ipsius operationis, vel ex parte potentiae operativae, vel ex parte obiecti, et sic non ex necessitate voluntas tendit in ipsam.

Ad 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod ista definitio beatitudinis quam quidam posuerunt, beatus est qui habet omnia quae vult, vel, cui omnia optata succedunt, quodam modo intellecta, est bona et sufficiens; alio vero modo, est imperfecta. Si enim intelligatur simpliciter de omnibus quae vult homo naturali appetitu, sic verum est quod qui habet omnia quae vult, est beatus, nihil enim satiat naturalem hominis appetitum, nisi bonum perfectum, quod est beatitudo. Si vero intelligatur de his quae homo vult secundum apprehensionem rationis, sic habere quaedam quae homo vult, non pertinet ad beatitudinem, sed magis ad miseriam inquantum huiusmodi habita impediunt hominem ne habeat quaecumque naturaliter vult, sicut etiam ratio accipit ut vera interdum quae impediunt a cognitione veritatis. Et secundum hanc considerationem, Augustinus addidit ad perfectionem beatitudinis, quod nihil mali velit. Quamvis primum posset sufficere, si recte intelligeretur, scilicet quod beatus est qui habet omnia quae vult.