Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae

Objection 1: It would seem that sorrow is to be shunned more than pleasure is to be sought. For Augustine says (Questions. 83, qu. 63): "There is nobody that does not shun sorrow more than he seeks pleasure." Now that which all agree in doing, seems to be natural. Therefore it is natural and right for sorrow to be shunned more than pleasure is sought.

Objection 2: Further, the action of a contrary conduces to rapidity and intensity of movement: for "hot water freezes quicker and harder," as the Philosopher says (Meteor. i, 12). But the shunning of sorrow is due to the contrariety of the cause of sorrow; whereas the desire for pleasure does not arise from any contrariety, but rather from the suitableness of the pleasant object. Therefore sorrow is shunned more eagerly than pleasure is sought.

Objection 3: Further, the stronger the passion which a man resists according to reason, the more worthy is he of praise, and the more virtuous: since "virtue is concerned with the difficult and the good" (Ethic. ii, 3). But the brave man who resists the movement of shunning sorrow, is more virtuous than the temperate man, who resists the movement of desire for pleasure: since the Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 4) that "the brave and the just are chiefly praised." Therefore the movement of shunning sorrow is more eager than the movement of seeking pleasure.

On the contrary, Good is stronger than evil, as Dionysius declares (Div. Nom. iv). But pleasure is desirable for the sake of the good which is its object; whereas the shunning of sorrow is on account of evil. Therefore the desire for pleasure is more eager than the shunning of sorrow.

I answer that, The desire for pleasure is of itself more eager than the shunning of sorrow. The reason of this is that the cause of pleasure is a suitable good; while the cause of pain or sorrow is an unsuitable evil. Now it happens that a certain good is suitable without any repugnance at all: but it is not possible for any evil to be so unsuitable as not to be suitable in some way. Wherefore pleasure can be entire and perfect: whereas sorrow is always partial. Therefore desire for pleasure is naturally greater than the shunning of sorrow. Another reason is because the good, which is the object of pleasure, is sought for its own sake: whereas the evil, which is the object of sorrow, is to be shunned as being a privation of good: and that which is by reason of itself is stronger than that which is by reason of something else. Moreover we find a confirmation of this in natural movements. For every natural movement is more intense in the end, when a thing approaches the term that is suitable to its nature, than at the beginning, when it leaves the term that is unsuitable to its nature: as though nature were more eager in tending to what is suitable to it, than in shunning what is unsuitable. Therefore the inclination of the appetitive power is, of itself, more eager in tending to pleasure than in shunning sorrow.

But it happens accidentally that a man shuns sorrow more eagerly than he seeks pleasure: and this for three reasons. First, on the part of the apprehension. Because, as Augustine says (De Trin. x, 12), "love is felt more keenly, when we lack that which we love." Now from the lack of what we love, sorrow results, which is caused either by the loss of some loved good, or by the presence of some contrary evil. But pleasure suffers no lack of the good loved, for it rests in possession of it. Since then love is the cause of pleasure and sorrow, the latter is more the shunned, according as love is the more keenly felt on account of that which is contrary to it. Secondly, on the part of the cause of sorrow or pain, which cause is repugnant to a good that is more loved than the good in which we take pleasure. For we love the natural well-being of the body more than the pleasure of eating: and consequently we would leave the pleasure of eating and the like, from fear of the pain occasioned by blows or other such causes, which are contrary to the well-being of the body. Thirdly, on the part of the effect: namely, in so far as sorrow hinders not only one pleasure, but all.

Reply to Objection 1: The saying of Augustine that "sorrow is shunned more than pleasure is sought" is true accidentally but not simply. And this is clear from what he says after: "Since we see that the most savage animals are deterred from the greatest pleasures by fear of pain," which pain is contrary to life which is loved above all.

Reply to Objection 2: It is not the same with movement from within and movement from without. For movement from within tends to what is suitable more than it recedes from that which is unsuitable; as we remarked above in regard to natural movement. But movement from without is intensified by the very opposition: because each thing strives in its own way to resist anything contrary to it, as aiming at its own preservation. Hence violent movement is intense at first, and slackens towards the end. Now the movement of the appetitive faculty is from within: since it tends from the soul to the object. Consequently pleasure is, of itself, more to be sought than sorrow is to be shunned. But the movement of the sensitive faculty is from without, as it were from the object of the soul. Consequently the more contrary a thing is the more it is felt. And then too, accidentally, in so far as the senses are requisite for pleasure and pain, pain is shunned more than pleasure is sought.

Reply to Objection 3: A brave man is not praised because, in accordance with reason, he is not overcome by any kind of sorrow or pain whatever, but because he is not overcome by that which is concerned with the dangers of death. And this kind of sorrow is more shunned, than pleasures of the table or of sexual intercourse are sought, which latter pleasures are the object of temperance: thus life is loved more than food and sexual pleasure. But the temperate man is praised for refraining from pleasures of touch, more than for not shunning the pains which are contrary to them, as is stated in Ethic. iii, 11.

Articulus 6

Argumentum 1

Ad sextum sic proceditur. Videtur quod magis sit fugienda tristitia, quam delectatio appetenda.

Dicit enim Augustinus, in libro octoginta trium quaest., nemo est qui non magis dolorem fugiat, quam appetat voluptatem.

Illud autem in quo communiter omnia consentiunt, videtur esse naturale. Ergo naturale est et conveniens quod plus tristitia fugiatur, quam delectatio appetatur.

Argumentum 2

Praeterea, actio contrarii facit ad velocitatem et intensionem motus, aqua enim calida citius et fortius congelatur, ut dicit philosophus, in libro meteor..

Sed fuga tristitiae est ex contrarietate contristantis, appetitus autem delectationis non est ex aliqua contrarietate, sed magis procedit ex convenientia delectantis. Ergo maior est fuga tristitiae quam appetitus delectationis.

Argumentum 3

Praeterea, quanto aliquis secundum rationem fortiori passioni repugnat, tanto laudabilior est et virtuosior, quia virtus est circa difficile et bonum, ut dicitur in II ethic..

Sed fortis, qui resistit motui quo fugitur dolor, est virtuosior quam temperatus, qui resistit motui quo appetitur delectatio, dicit enim philosophus, in II rhetoric., quod fortes et iusti maxime honorantur.

Ergo vehementior est motus quo fugitur tristitia, quam motus quo appetitur delectatio.

Sed Contra

Sed contra, bonum est fortius quam malum, ut patet per dionysium, IV cap. De div. Nom..

Sed delectatio est appetibilis propter bonum, quod est eius obiectum, fuga autem tristitiae est propter malum. Ergo fortior est appetitus delectationis quam fuga tristitiae.

Corpus

Respondeo dicendum quod, per se loquendo, appetitus delectationis est fortior quam fuga tristitiae. Cuius ratio est, quia causa delectationis est bonum conveniens, causa autem doloris sive tristitiae est aliquod malum repugnans. Contingit autem aliquod bonum esse conveniens absque omni dissonantia, non autem potest esse aliquod malum totaliter, absque omni convenientia, repugnans. Unde delectatio potest esse integra et perfecta, tristitia autem est semper secundum partem. Unde naturaliter maior est appetitus delectationis quam fuga tristitiae. Alia vero ratio est, quia bonum, quod est obiectum delectationis, propter seipsum appetitur, malum autem, quod est obiectum tristitiae, est fugiendum inquantum est privatio boni. Quod autem est per se, potius est illo quod est per aliud. Cuius etiam signum apparet in motibus naturalibus. Nam omnis motus naturalis intensior est in fine, cum appropinquat ad terminum suae naturae convenientem, quam in principio, cum recedit a termino suae naturae non convenienti, quasi natura magis tendat in id quod est sibi conveniens, quam fugiat id quod est sibi repugnans. Unde et inclinatio appetitivae virtutis, per se loquendo, vehementius tendit in delectationem quam fugiat tristitiam. Sed per accidens contingit quod tristitiam aliquis magis fugit, quam delectationem appetat. Et hoc tripliciter. Primo quidem, ex parte apprehensionis. Quia, ut Augustinus dicit, X de Trin., amor magis sentitur, cum eum prodit indigentia.

Ex indigentia autem amati procedit tristitia, quae est ex amissione alicuius boni amati, vel ex incursu alicuius mali contrarii. Delectatio autem non habet indigentiam boni amati, sed quiescit in eo iam adepto. Cum igitur amor sit causa delectationis et tristitiae, tanto magis fugitur tristitia, quanto magis sentitur amor ex eo quod contrariatur amori.

Secundo, ex parte causae contristantis, vel dolorem inferentis, quae repugnat bono magis amato quam sit bonum illud in quo delectamur. Magis enim amamus consistentiam corporis naturalem, quam delectationem cibi. Et ideo timore doloris qui provenit ex flagellis vel aliis huiusmodi, quae contrariantur bonae consistentiae corporis, dimittimus delectationem ciborum vel aliorum huiusmodi. Tertio, ex parte effectus, inquantum scilicet tristitia impedit non unam tantum delectationem, sed omnes.

Ad 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod illud quod Augustinus dicit, quod dolor magis fugitur quam voluptas appetatur, est verum per accidens, et non per se.

Et hoc patet ex eo quod subdit, quandoquidem videmus etiam immanissimas bestias a maximis voluptatibus absterreri dolorum metu, qui contrariatur vitae, quae maxime amatur.

Ad 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod aliter est in motu qui est ab interiori, et aliter in motu qui est ab exteriori. Motus enim qui est ab interiori, magis tendit in id quod est conveniens, quam recedat a contrario, sicut supra dictum est de motu naturali.

Sed motus qui est ab extrinseco, intenditur ex ipsa contrarietate, quia unumquodque suo modo nititur ad resistendum contrario, sicut ad conservationem sui ipsius. Unde motus violentus intenditur in principio, et remittitur in fine. Motus autem appetitivae partis est ab intrinseco, cum sit ab anima ad res. Et ideo, per se loquendo, magis appetitur delectatio quam fugiatur tristitia.

Sed motus sensitivae partis est ab exteriori, quasi a rebus ad animam. Unde magis sentitur quod est magis contrarium. Et sic etiam per accidens, inquantum sensus requiritur ad delectationem et tristitiam, magis fugitur tristitia quam delectatio appetatur.

Ad 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod fortis non laudatur ex eo quod secundum rationem non vincitur a dolore vel tristitia quacumque, sed ea quae consistit in periculis mortis. Quae quidem tristitia magis fugitur quam appetatur delectatio ciborum vel venereorum, circa quam est temperantia, sicut vita magis amatur quam cibus vel coitus. Sed temperatus magis laudatur ex hoc quod non prosequitur delectationes tactus, quam ex hoc quod non fugit tristitias contrarias, ut patet in III ethic..