FIFTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 60, Art. 5]

Whether the Moral Virtues Differ in Point of the Various Objects of

the Passions?

Objection 1: It would seem that the moral virtues do not differ

according to the objects of the passions. For just as there are

objects of passions, so are there objects of operations. Now those

moral virtues that are about operations, do not differ according to

the objects of those operations: for the buying and selling either of

a house or of a horse belong to the one same virtue of justice.

Therefore neither do those moral virtues that are about passions

differ according to the objects of those passions.

Obj. 2: Further, the passions are acts or movements of the sensitive

appetite. Now it needs a greater difference to differentiate habits

than acts. Hence diverse objects which do not diversify the species

of passions, do not diversify the species of moral virtue: so that

there is but one moral virtue about all objects of pleasure, and the

same applies to the other passions.

Obj. 3: Further, more or less do not change a species. Now various

objects of pleasure differ only by reason of being more or less

pleasurable. Therefore all objects of pleasure belong to one species

of virtue: and for the same reason so do all fearful objects, and the

same applies to others. Therefore moral virtue is not diversified

according to the objects of the passions.

Obj. 4: Further, virtue hinders evil, even as it produces good. But

there are various virtues about the desires for good things: thus

temperance is about desires for the pleasure of touch, and

_eutrapelia_ about pleasures in games. Therefore there should be

different virtues about fears of evils.

_On the contrary,_ Chastity is about sexual pleasures, abstinence

about pleasures of the table, and _eutrapelia_ about pleasures in

games.

_I answer that,_ The perfection of a virtue depends on the reason;

whereas the perfection of a passion depends on the sensitive

appetite. Consequently virtues must needs be differentiated according

to their relation to reason, but the passions according to their

relation to the appetite. Hence the objects of the passions,

according as they are variously related to the sensitive appetite,

cause the different species of passions: while, according as they are

related to reason, they cause the different species of virtues. Now

the movement of reason is not the same as that of the sensitive

appetite. Wherefore nothing hinders a difference of objects from

causing diversity of passions, without causing diversity of virtues,

as when one virtue is about several passions, as stated above (A. 4);

and again, a difference of objects from causing different virtues,

without causing a difference of passions, since several virtues are

directed about one passion, e.g. pleasure.

And because diverse passions belonging to diverse powers, always

belong to diverse virtues, as stated above (A. 4); therefore a

difference of objects that corresponds to a difference of powers

always causes a specific difference of virtues--for instance the

difference between that which is good absolutely speaking, and that

which is good and difficult to obtain. Moreover since the reason

rules man's lower powers in a certain order, and even extends to

outward things; hence, one single object of the passions, according

as it is apprehended by sense, imagination, or reason, and again,

according as it belongs to the soul, body, or external things, has

various relations to reason, and consequently is of a nature to cause

a difference of virtues. Consequently man's good which is the object

of love, desire and pleasure, may be taken as referred either to a

bodily sense, or to the inner apprehension of the mind: and this same

good may be directed to man's good in himself, either in his body or

in his soul, or to man's good in relation to other men. And every

such difference, being differently related to reason, differentiates

virtues.

Accordingly, if we take a good, and it be something discerned by the

sense of touch, and something pertaining to the upkeep of human life

either in the individual or in the species, such as the pleasures of

the table or of sexual intercourse, it will belong to the virtue of

_temperance._ As regards the pleasures of the other senses, they are

not intense, and so do not present much difficulty to the reason:

hence there is no virtue corresponding to them; for virtue, "like

art, is about difficult things" (Ethic. ii, 3).

On the other hand, good discerned not by the senses, but by an inner

power, and belonging to man in himself, is like money and honor; the

former, by its very nature, being employable for the good of the

body, while the latter is based on the apprehension of the mind.

These goods again may be considered either absolutely, in which way

they concern the concupiscible faculty, or as being difficult to

obtain, in which way they belong to the irascible part: which

distinction, however, has no place in pleasurable objects of touch;

since such are of base condition, and are becoming to man in so far

as he has something in common with irrational animals. Accordingly in

reference to money considered as a good absolutely, as an object of

desire, pleasure, or love, there is _liberality_: but if we consider

this good as difficult to get, and as being the object of our hope,

there is _magnificence_ [*_megaloprepeia_]. With regard to that good

which we call honor, taken absolutely, as the object of love, we have

a virtue called _philotimia,_ i.e. _love of honor_: while if we

consider it as hard to attain, and as an object of hope, then we have

_magnanimity._ Wherefore liberality and _philotimia_ seem to be in

the concupiscible part, while magnificence and magnanimity are in the

irascible.

As regards man's good in relation to other men, it does not seem hard

to obtain, but is considered absolutely, as the object of the

concupiscible passions. This good may be pleasurable to a man in his

behavior towards another either in some serious matter, in actions,

to wit, that are directed by reason to a due end, or in playful

actions, viz. that are done for mere pleasure, and which do not stand

in the same relation to reason as the former. Now one man behaves

towards another in serious matters, in two ways. First, as being

pleasant in his regard, by becoming speech and deeds: and this

belongs to a virtue which Aristotle (Ethic. ii, 7) calls "friendship"

[*_philia_], and may be rendered "affability." Secondly, one man

behaves towards another by being frank with him, in words and deeds:

this belongs to another virtue which (Ethic. iv, 7) he calls

"truthfulness" [*_aletheia_]. For frankness is more akin to the

reason than pleasure, and serious matters than play. Hence there is

another virtue about the pleasures of games, which the Philosopher

calls _eutrapelia_ (Ethic. iv, 8).

It is therefore evident that, according to Aristotle, there are ten

moral virtues about the passions, viz. fortitude, temperance,

liberality, magnificence, magnanimity, _philotimia,_ gentleness,

friendship, truthfulness, and _eutrapelia,_ all of which differ in

respect of their diverse matter, passions, or objects: so that if we

add _justice,_ which is about operations, there will be eleven in all.

Reply Obj. 1: All objects of the same specific operation have the

same relation to reason: not so all the objects of the same specific

passion; because operations do not thwart reason as the passions do.

Reply Obj. 2: Passions are not differentiated by the same rule as

virtues are, as stated above.

Reply Obj. 3: More and less do not cause a difference of species,

unless they bear different relations to reason.

Reply Obj. 4: Good is a more potent mover than evil: because evil

does not cause movement save in virtue of good, as Dionysius states

(Div. Nom. iv). Hence an evil does not prove an obstacle to reason,

so as to require virtues unless that evil be great; there being,

seemingly, one such evil corresponding to each kind of passion. Hence

there is but one virtue, meekness, for every form of anger; and,

again, but one virtue, fortitude, for all forms of daring. On the

other hand, good involves difficulty, which requires virtue, even if

it be not a great good in that particular kind of passion.

Consequently there are various moral virtues about desires, as stated

above.

________________________

Summa Theologica, Part I-II (Pars Prima Secundae) From the Complete American Edition · 第 394 / 746 题