THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 18, Art. 3]

Whether Man's Action Is Good or Evil from a Circumstance?

Objection 1: It would seem that an action is not good or evil from a

circumstance. For circumstances stand around (_circumstant_) an action,

as being outside it, as stated above (Q. 7, A. 1). But "good and evil

are in things themselves," as is stated in _Metaph._ vi, 4. Therefore

an action does not derive goodness or malice from a circumstance.

Obj. 2: Further, the goodness or malice of an action is considered

principally in the doctrine of morals. But since circumstances are

accidents of actions, it seems that they are outside the scope of

art: because "no art takes notice of what is accidental" (Metaph. vi,

2). Therefore the goodness or malice of an action is not taken from a

circumstance.

Obj. 3: Further, that which belongs to a thing, in respect of its

substance, is not ascribed to it in respect of an accident. But good

and evil belong to an action in respect of its substance; because an

action can be good or evil in its genus as stated above (A. 2).

Therefore an action is not good or bad from a circumstance.

_On the contrary,_ the Philosopher says (Ethic. ii, 3) that a

virtuous man acts as he should, and when he should, and so on in

respect of the other circumstances. Therefore, on the other hand, the

vicious man, in the matter of each vice, acts when he should not, or

where he should not, and so on with the other circumstances.

Therefore human actions are good or evil according to circumstances.

_I answer that,_ In natural things, it is to be noted that the whole

fulness of perfection due to a thing, is not from the mere

substantial form, that gives it its species; since a thing derives

much from supervening accidents, as man does from shape, color, and

the like; and if any one of these accidents be out of due proportion,

evil is the result. So it is with action. For the plenitude of its

goodness does not consist wholly in its species, but also in certain

additions which accrue to it by reason of certain accidents: and such

are its due circumstances. Wherefore if something be wanting that is

requisite as a due circumstance the action will be evil.

Reply Obj. 1: Circumstances are outside an action, inasmuch as they

are not part of its essence; but they are in an action as accidents

thereof. Thus, too, accidents in natural substances are outside the

essence.

Reply Obj. 2: Every accident is not accidentally in its subject; for

some are proper accidents; and of these every art takes notice. And

thus it is that the circumstances of actions are considered in the

doctrine of morals.

Reply Obj. 3: Since good and being are convertible; according as

being is predicated of substance and of accident, so is good

predicated of a thing both in respect of its essential being, and in

respect of its accidental being; and this, both in natural things and

in moral actions.

________________________

Summa Theologica, Part I-II (Pars Prima Secundae) From the Complete American Edition · 第 135 / 746 题