THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 6, Art. 3]

Whether There Can Be Voluntariness Without Any Act?

Objection 1: It would seem that voluntariness cannot be without any

act. For that is voluntary which proceeds from the will. But nothing

can proceed from the will, except through some act, at least an act

of the will. Therefore there cannot be voluntariness without act.

Obj. 2: Further, just as one is said to wish by an act of the will,

so when the act of the will ceases, one is said not to wish. But not

to wish implies involuntariness, which is contrary to voluntariness.

Therefore there can be nothing voluntary when the act of the will

ceases.

Obj. 3: Further, knowledge is essential to the voluntary, as stated

above (AA. 1, 2). But knowledge involves an act. Therefore

voluntariness cannot be without some act.

_On the contrary,_ The word "voluntary" is applied to that of which

we are masters. Now we are masters in respect of to act and not to

act, to will and not to will. Therefore just as to act and to will

are voluntary, so also are not to act and not to will.

_I answer that,_ Voluntary is what proceeds from the will. Now one

thing proceeds from another in two ways. First, directly; in which

sense something proceeds from another inasmuch as this other acts;

for instance, heating from heat. Secondly, indirectly; in which sense

something proceeds from another through this other not acting; thus

the sinking of a ship is set down to the helmsman, from his having

ceased to steer. But we must take note that the cause of what follows

from want of action is not always the agent as not acting; but only

then when the agent can and ought to act. For if the helmsman were

unable to steer the ship or if the ship's helm be not entrusted to

him, the sinking of the ship would not be set down to him, although

it might be due to his absence from the helm.

Since, then, the will by willing and acting, is able, and sometimes

ought, to hinder not-willing and not-acting; this not-willing and

not-acting is imputed to, as though proceeding from, the will. And

thus it is that we can have the voluntary without an act; sometimes

without outward act, but with an interior act; for instance, when one

wills not to act; and sometimes without even an interior act, as when

one does not will to act.

Reply Obj. 1: We apply the word "voluntary" not only to that which

proceeds from the will directly, as from its action; but also to that

which proceeds from it indirectly as from its inaction.

Reply Obj. 2: "Not to wish" is said in two senses. First, as though

it were one word, and the infinitive of "I-do-not-wish." Consequently

just as when I say "I do not wish to read," the sense is, "I wish not

to read"; so "not to wish to read" is the same as "to wish not to

read," and in this sense "not to wish" implies involuntariness.

Secondly it is taken as a sentence: and then no act of the will is

affirmed. And in this sense "not to wish" does not imply

involuntariness.

Reply Obj. 3: Voluntariness requires an act of knowledge in the same

way as it requires an act of will; namely, in order that it be in

one's power to consider, to wish and to act. And then, just as not to

wish, and not to act, when it is time to wish and to act, is

voluntary, so is it voluntary not to consider.

________________________

Summa Theologica, Part I-II (Pars Prima Secundae) From the Complete American Edition · 第 58 / 746 题