THIRD ARTICLE [II-II, Q. 142, Art. 3]

Whether Cowardice* Is a Greater Vice Than Intemperance?

[*Cf. Q. 125]

Objection 1: It would seem that cowardice is a greater vice than

intemperance. For a vice deserves reproach through being opposed to

the good of virtue. Now cowardice is opposed to fortitude, which is a

more excellent virtue than temperance, as stated above (A. 2; Q. 141,

A. 8). Therefore cowardice is a greater vice than intemperance.

Obj. 2: Further, the greater the difficulty to be surmounted, the

less is a man to be reproached for failure, wherefore the Philosopher

says (Ethic. vii, 7) that "it is no wonder, in fact it is pardonable,

if a man is mastered by strong and overwhelming pleasures or pains."

Now seemingly it is more difficult to control pleasures than other

passions; hence it is stated in _Ethic._ ii, 3, that "it is more

difficult to contend against pleasure than against anger, which would

seem to be stronger than fear." Therefore intemperance, which is

overcome by pleasure, is a less grievous sin than cowardice, which is

overcome by fear.

Obj. 3: Further, it is essential to sin that it be voluntary. Now

cowardice is more voluntary than intemperance, since no man desires

to be intemperate, whereas some desire to avoid dangers of death,

which pertains to cowardice. Therefore cowardice is a more grievous

sin than intemperance.

_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher says (Ethic. iii, 12) that

"intemperance seems more akin to voluntary action than cowardice."

Therefore it is more sinful.

_I answer that,_ one may be compared with another in two ways. First,

with regard to the matter or object; secondly, on the part of the man

who sins: and in both ways intemperance is a more grievous sin than

cowardice.

First, as regards the matter. For cowardice shuns dangers of death,

to avoid which the principal motive is the necessity of preserving

life. On the other hand, intemperance is about pleasures, the desire

of which is not so necessary for the preservation of life, because,

as stated above (A. 2, ad 2), intemperance is more about certain

annexed pleasures or desires than about natural desires or pleasures.

Now the more necessary the motive of sin the less grievous the sin.

Wherefore intemperance is a more grievous vice than cowardice, on the

part of the object or motive matter.

In like manner again, on the part of the man who sins, and this for

three reasons. First, because the more sound-minded a man is, the

more grievous his sin, wherefore sins are not imputed to those who

are demented. Now grave fear and sorrow, especially in dangers of

death, stun the human mind, but not so pleasure which is the motive

of intemperance. Secondly, because the more voluntary a sin the

graver it is. Now intemperance has more of the voluntary in it than

cowardice has, and this for two reasons. The first is because actions

done through fear have their origin in the compulsion of an external

agent, so that they are not simply voluntary but mixed, as stated in

_Ethic._ iii, 1, whereas actions done for the sake of pleasure are

simply voluntary. The second reason is because the actions of an

intemperate man are more voluntary individually and less voluntary

generically. For no one would wish to be intemperate, yet man is

enticed by individual pleasures which make of him an intemperate man.

Hence the most effective remedy against intemperance is not to dwell

on the consideration of singulars. It is the other way about in

matters relating to cowardice: because the particular action that

imposes itself on a man is less voluntary, for instance to cast aside

his shield, and the like, whereas the general purpose is more

voluntary, for instance to save himself by flight. Now that which is

more voluntary in the particular circumstances in which the act takes

place, is simply more voluntary. Wherefore intemperance, being simply

more voluntary than cowardice, is a greater vice. Thirdly, because it

is easier to find a remedy for intemperance than for cowardice, since

pleasures of food and sex, which are the matter of intemperance, are

of everyday occurrence, and it is possible for man without danger by

frequent practice in their regard to become temperate; whereas

dangers of death are of rare occurrence, and it is more dangerous for

man to encounter them frequently in order to cease being a coward.

Reply Obj. 1: The excellence of fortitude in comparison with

temperance may be considered from two standpoints. First, with regard

to the end, which has the aspect of good: because fortitude is

directed to the common good more than temperance is. And from this

point of view cowardice has a certain precedence over intemperance,

since by cowardice some people forsake the defense of the common

good. Secondly, with regard to the difficulty, because it is more

difficult to endure dangers of death than to refrain from any

pleasures whatever: and from this point of view there is no need for

cowardice to take precedence of intemperance. For just as it is a

greater strength that does not succumb to a stronger force, so on the

other hand to be overcome by a stronger force is proof of a lesser

vice, and to succumb to a weaker force, is the proof of a greater

vice.

Reply Obj. 2: Love of self-preservation, for the sake of which one

shuns perils of death, is much more connatural than any pleasures

whatever of food and sex which are directed to the preservation of

life. Hence it is more difficult to overcome the fear of dangers of

death, than the desire of pleasure in matters of food and sex:

although the latter is more difficult to resist than anger, sorrow,

and fear, occasioned by certain other evils.

Reply Obj. 3: The voluntary, in cowardice, depends rather on a

general than on a particular consideration: wherefore in such cases

we have the voluntary not simply but in a restricted sense.

_______________________

Summa Theologica, Part II-II (Secunda Secundae) Translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province · 第 856 / 1128 题