Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae

Objection 1: It would seem that every pleasure is evil. For that which destroys prudence and hinders the use of reason, seems to be evil in itself: since man's good is to be "in accord with reason," as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv). But pleasure destroys prudence and hinders the use of reason; and so much the more, as the pleasure is greater: wherefore "in sexual pleasures," which are the greatest of all, "it is impossible to understand anything," as stated in Ethic. vii, 11. Moreover, Jerome says in his commentary on Matthew that "at the time of conjugal intercourse, the presence of the Holy Ghost is not vouchsafed, even if it be a prophet that fulfils the conjugal duty." Therefore pleasure is evil in itself; and consequently every pleasure is evil.

Objection 2: Further, that which the virtuous man shuns, and the man lacking in virtue seeks, seems to be evil in itself, and should be avoided; because, as stated in Ethic. x, 5 "the virtuous man is a kind of measure and rule of human actions"; and the Apostle says (1 Cor. 2:15): "The spiritual man judgeth all things." But children and dumb animals, in whom there is no virtue, seek pleasure: whereas the man who is master of himself does not. Therefore pleasures are evil in themselves and should be avoided.

Objection 3: Further, "virtue and art are concerned about the difficult and the good" (Ethic. ii, 3). But no art is ordained to pleasure. Therefore pleasure is not something good.

On the contrary, It is written (Ps. 36:4): "Delight in the Lord." Since, therefore, Divine authority leads to no evil, it seems that not every pleasure is evil.

I answer that, As stated in Ethic. x, 2,3 some have maintained that all pleasure is evil. The reason seems to have been that they took account only of sensible and bodily pleasures which are more manifest; since, also in other respects, the ancient philosophers did not discriminate between the intelligible and the sensible, nor between intellect and sense (De Anima iii, 3). And they held that all bodily pleasures should be reckoned as bad, and thus that man, being prone to immoderate pleasures, arrives at the mean of virtue by abstaining from pleasure. But they were wrong in holding this opinion. Because, since none can live without some sensible and bodily pleasure, if they who teach that all pleasures are evil, are found in the act of taking pleasure; men will be more inclined to pleasure by following the example of their works instead of listening to the doctrine of their words: since, in human actions and passions, wherein experience is of great weight, example moves more than words.

We must therefore say that some pleasures are good, and that some are evil. For pleasure is a repose of the appetitive power in some loved good, and resulting from some operation; wherefore we assign a twofold reason for this assertion. The first is in respect of the good in which a man reposes with pleasure. For good and evil in the moral order depend on agreement or disagreement with reason, as stated above (Question 18, Article 5): just as in the order of nature, a thing is said to be natural, if it agrees with nature, and unnatural, if it disagrees. Accordingly, just as in the natural order there is a certain natural repose, whereby a thing rests in that which agrees with its nature, for instance, when a heavy body rests down below; and again an unnatural repose, whereby a thing rests in that which disagrees with its nature, as when a heavy body rests up aloft: so, in the moral order, there is a good pleasure, whereby the higher or lower appetite rests in that which is in accord with reason; and an evil pleasure, whereby the appetite rests in that which is discordant from reason and the law of God.

The second reason can be found by considering the actions, some of which are good, some evil. Now pleasures which are conjoined to actions are more akin to those actions, than desires, which precede them in point of time. Wherefore, since the desires of good actions are good, and of evil actions, evil; much more are the pleasures of good actions good, and those of evil actions evil.

Reply to Objection 1: As stated above (Question 33, Article 3), it is not the pleasures which result from an act of reason, that hinder the reason or destroy prudence, but extraneous pleasures, such as the pleasures of the body. These indeed hinder the use of reason, as stated above (Question 33, Article 3), either by contrariety of the appetite that rests in something repugnant to reason, which makes the pleasure morally bad; or by fettering the reason: thus in conjugal intercourse, though the pleasure be in accord with reason, yet it hinders the use of reason, on account of the accompanying bodily change. But in this case the pleasure is not morally evil; as neither is sleep, whereby the reason is fettered, morally evil, if it be taken according to reason: for reason itself demands that the use of reason be interrupted at times. We must add, however, that although this fettering of the reason through the pleasure of conjugal intercourse has no moral malice, since it is neither a mortal nor a venial sin; yet it proceeds from a kind of moral malice, namely, from the sin of our first parent; because, as stated in the 1, Question 98, Article 2 the case was different in the state of innocence.

Reply to Objection 2: The temperate man does not shun all pleasures, but those that are immoderate, and contrary to reason. The fact that children and dumb animals seek pleasures, does not prove that all pleasures are evil: because they have from God their natural appetite, which is moved to that which is naturally suitable to them.

Reply to Objection 3: Art is not concerned with all kinds of good, but with the making of external things, as we shall state further on (Question 57, Article 3). But actions and passions, which are within us, are more the concern of prudence and virtue than of art. Nevertheless there is an art of making pleasure, namely, "the art of cookery and the art of making arguments," as stated in Ethic. vii, 12.

Articulus 1

Argumentum 1

Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod omnis delectatio sit mala.

Illud enim quod corrumpit prudentiam, et impedit rationis usum, videtur esse secundum se malum, quia bonum hominis est secundum rationem esse, ut dionysius dicit, in IV cap. De div. Nom..

Sed delectatio corrumpit prudentiam, et impedit rationis usum, et tanto magis, quanto delectationes sunt maiores.

Unde in delectationibus venereis, quae sunt maximae, impossibile est aliquid intelligere, ut dicitur in VII ethic..

Et Hieronymus etiam dicit, super Matth., quod illo tempore quo coniugales actus geruntur, praesentia sancti spiritus non dabitur, etiam si propheta esse videatur qui officio generationis obsequitur.

Ergo delectatio est secundum se malum. Ergo omnis delectatio mala.

Argumentum 2

Praeterea, illud quod fugit virtuosus, et prosequitur deficiens a virtute, videtur esse secundum se malum, et fugiendum, quia, ut dicitur in X ethic., virtuosus est quasi mensura et regula humanorum actuum; et apostolus dicit, I ad Cor. II, spiritualis iudicat omnia.

Sed pueri et bestiae, in quibus non est virtus, prosequuntur delectationes, fugit autem eas temperatus. Ergo delectationes secundum se sunt malae, et fugiendae.

Argumentum 3

Praeterea, virtus et ars sunt circa difficile et bonum, ut dicitur in II ethic..

Sed nulla ars ordinata est ad delectationem. Ergo delectatio non est aliquid bonum.

Sed Contra

Sed contra est quod in Psalmo XXXVI, dicitur, delectare in domino.

Cum igitur ad nihil mali auctoritas divina inducat, videtur quod non omnis delectatio sit mala.

Corpus

Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut dicitur in X ethic., aliqui posuerunt omnes delectationes esse malas. Cuius ratio videtur fuisse, quia intentionem suam referebant ad solas delectationes sensibiles et corporales, quae sunt magis manifestae, nam et in ceteris intelligibilia a sensibilibus antiqui philosophi non distinguebant, nec intellectum a sensu, ut dicitur in libro de anima.

Delectationes autem corporales ut dicitur in libro de anima. Delectationes autem corporales arbitrabantur dicendum omnes esse malas, ut sic homines, qui ad delectationes immoderatas sunt proni, a delectationibus se retrahentes, ad medium virtutis perveniant.

Sed haec existimatio non fuit conveniens. Cum enim nullus possit vivere sine aliqua sensibili et corporali delectatione, si illi qui docent omnes delectationes esse malas, deprehendantur aliquas delectationes suscipere; magis homines ad delectationes erunt proclives exemplo operum, verborum doctrina praetermissa. In operationibus enim et passionibus humanis, in quibus experientia plurimum valet, magis movent exempla quam verba. Dicendum est ergo aliquas delectationes esse bonas, et aliquas esse malas.

Est enim delectatio quies appetitivae virtutis in aliquo bono amato, et consequens aliquam operationem. Unde huius ratio duplex accipi potest. Una quidem ex parte boni in quo aliquis quiescens delectatur. Bonum enim et malum in moralibus dicitur secundum quod convenit rationi vel discordat ab ea, ut supra dictum est, sicut in rebus naturalibus aliquid dicitur naturale ex eo quod naturae convenit, innaturale vero ex eo quod est a natura discordans. Sicut igitur in naturalibus est quaedam quies naturalis, quae scilicet est in eo quod convenit naturae, ut cum grave quiescit deorsum; et quaedam innaturalis, quae est in eo quod repugnat naturae, sicut cum grave quiescit sursum, ita et in moralibus est quaedam delectatio bona, secundum quod appetitus superior aut inferior requiescit in eo quod convenit rationi; et quaedam mala, ex eo quod quiescit in eo quod a ratione discordat, et a lege dei. Alia ratio accipi potest ex parte operationum, quarum quaedam sunt bonae, et quaedam malae.

Operationibus autem magis sunt affines delectationes, quae sunt eis coniunctae, quam concupiscentiae, quae tempore eas praecedunt. Unde, cum concupiscentiae bonarum operationum sint bonae, malarum vero malae; multo magis delectationes bonarum operationum sunt bonae, malarum vero malae.

Ad 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, delectationes quae sunt de actu rationis, non impediunt rationem, neque corrumpunt prudentiam; sed delectationes extraneae, cuiusmodi sunt delectationes corporales. Quae quidem rationis usum impediunt, sicut supra dictum est, et per contrarietatem appetitus, qui quiescit in eo quod repugnat rationi, et ex hoc habet delectatio quod sit moraliter mala, vel secundum quandam ligationem rationis, sicut in concubitu coniugali delectatio, quamvis sit in eo quod convenit rationi, tamen impedit rationis usum, propter corporalem transmutationem adiunctam. Sed ex hoc non consequitur malitiam moralem, sicut nec somnus quo ligatur usus rationis, moraliter est malus, si sit secundum rationem receptus, nam et ipsa ratio hoc habet, ut quandoque rationis usus intercipiatur. Dicimus tamen quod huiusmodi ligamentum rationis ex delectatione in actu coniugali, etsi non habeat malitiam moralem, quia non est peccatum mortale nec veniale; provenit tamen ex quadam morali malitia, scilicet ex peccato primi parentis, nam hoc in statu innocentiae non erat, ut patet ex his quae in primo dicta sunt.

Ad 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod temperatus non fugit omnes delectationes, sed immoderatas, et rationi non convenientes. Quod autem pueri et bestiae delectationes prosequantur, non ostendit eas universaliter esse malas, quia in eis est naturalis appetitus a deo, qui movetur in id quod est eis conveniens.

Ad 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod non omnis boni est ars, sed exteriorum factibilium, ut infra dicetur.

Circa operationes autem et passiones quae sunt in nobis, magis est prudentia et virtus quam ars. Et tamen aliqua ars est factiva delectationis; scilicet pulmentaria et pigmentaria, ut dicitur in VII ethic..