SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 34, Art. 2]

Whether Every Pleasure Is Good?

Objection 1: It would seem that every pleasure is good. Because as

stated in the First Part (Q. 5, A. 6) there are three kinds of good:

the virtuous, the useful, and the pleasant. But everything virtuous

is good; and in like manner everything useful is good. Therefore also

every pleasure is good.

Obj. 2: Further, that which is not sought for the sake of something

else, is good in itself, as stated in _Ethic._ i, 6, 7. But pleasure

is not sought for the sake of something else; for it seems absurd to

ask anyone why he seeks to be pleased. Therefore pleasure is good in

itself. Now that which is predicated of a thing considered in itself,

is predicated thereof universally. Therefore every pleasure is good.

Obj. 3: Further, that which is desired by all, seems to be good of

itself: because good is "what all things seek," as stated in _Ethic._

i, 1. But everyone seeks some kind of pleasure, even children and

dumb animals. Therefore pleasure is good in itself: and consequently

all pleasure is good.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Prov. 2:14): "Who are glad when

they have done evil, and rejoice in most wicked things."

_I answer that,_ While some of the Stoics maintained that all

pleasures are evil, the Epicureans held that pleasure is good in

itself, and that consequently all pleasures are good. They seem to

have thus erred through not discriminating between that which is good

simply, and that which is good in respect of a particular individual.

That which is good simply, is good in itself. Now that which is not

good in itself, may be good in respect of some individual in two

ways. In one way, because it is suitable to him by reason of a

disposition in which he is now, which disposition, however, is not

natural: thus it is sometimes good for a leper to eat things that are

poisonous, which are not suitable simply to the human temperament. In

another way, through something unsuitable being esteemed suitable.

And since pleasure is the repose of the appetite in some good, if the

appetite reposes in that which is good simply, the pleasure will be

pleasure simply, and good simply. But if a man's appetite repose in

that which is good, not simply, but in respect of that particular

man, then his pleasure will not be pleasure simply, but a pleasure to

him; neither will it be good simply, but in a certain respect, or an

apparent good.

Reply Obj. 1: The virtuous and the useful depend on accordance with

reason, and consequently nothing is virtuous or useful, without being

good. But the pleasant depends on agreement with the appetite, which

tends sometimes to that which is discordant from reason. Consequently

not every object of pleasure is good in the moral order which depends

on the order of reason.

Reply Obj. 2: The reason why pleasure is not sought for the sake of

something else is because it is repose in the end. Now the end may be

either good or evil; although nothing can be an end except in so far

as it is good in respect of such and such a man: and so too with

regard to pleasure.

Reply Obj. 3: All things seek pleasure in the same way as they seek

good: since pleasure is the repose of the appetite in good. But, just

as it happens that not every good which is desired, is of itself and

verily good; so not every pleasure is of itself and verily good.

________________________

Summa Theologica, Part I-II (Pars Prima Secundae) From the Complete American Edition · 第 240 / 746 题