FIRST ARTICLE [II-II, Q. 144, Art. 1]

Whether Shamefacedness Is a Virtue?

Objection 1: It seems that shamefacedness is a virtue. For it is

proper to a virtue "to observe the mean as fixed by reason": this is

clear from the definition of virtue given in _Ethic._ ii, 6. Now

shamefacedness observes the mean in this way, as the Philosopher

observes (Ethic. ii, 7). Therefore shamefacedness is a virtue.

Obj. 2: Further, whatever is praiseworthy is either a virtue or

something connected with virtue. Now shamefacedness is praiseworthy.

But it is not part of a virtue. For it is not a part of prudence,

since it is not in the reason but in the appetite; nor is it a part

of justice. Since shamefacedness implies a certain passion, whereas

justice is not about the passions; nor again is it a part of

fortitude, because it belongs to fortitude to be persistent and

aggressive, while it belongs to shamefacedness to recoil from

something; nor lastly is it a part of temperance, since the latter is

about desires, whereas shamefacedness is a kind of fear according as

the Philosopher states (Ethic. iv, 9) and Damascene (De Fide Orth.

ii, 15). Hence it follows that shamefacedness is a virtue.

Obj. 3: Further, the honest and the virtuous are convertible

according to Tully (De Offic. i, 27). Now shamefacedness is a part of

honesty: for Ambrose says (De Offic. i, 43) that "shamefacedness is

the companion and familiar of the restful mind, averse to wantonness,

a stranger to any kind of excess, the friend of sobriety and the

support of what is honest, a seeker after the beautiful." Therefore

shamefacedness is a virtue.

Obj. 4: Further, every vice is opposed to a virtue. Now certain vices

are opposed to shamefacedness, namely shamelessness and inordinate

prudery. Therefore shamefacedness is a virtue.

Obj. 5: Further, "like acts beget like habits," according to _Ethic._

ii, 1. Now shamefacedness implies a praiseworthy act; wherefore from

many such acts a habit results. But a habit of praiseworthy deeds is

a virtue, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. i, 12). Therefore

shamefacedness is a virtue.

_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher says (Ethic. ii, 7; iv, 9) that

shamefacedness is not a virtue.

_I answer that,_ Virtue is taken in two ways, in a strict sense and

in a broad sense. Taken strictly virtue is a perfection, as stated in

_Phys._ vii, 17, 18. Wherefore anything that is inconsistent with

perfection, though it be good, falls short of the notion of virtue.

Now shamefacedness is inconsistent with perfection, because it is the

fear of something base, namely of that which is disgraceful. Hence

Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii, 15) that "shamefacedness is fear of

a base action." Now just as hope is about a possible and difficult

good, so is fear about a possible and arduous evil, as stated above

(I-II, Q. 40, A. 1; Q. 41, A. 2; Q. 42, A. 3), when we were treating

of the passions. But one who is perfect as to a virtuous habit, does

not apprehend that which would be disgraceful and base to do, as

being possible and arduous, that is to say difficult for him to

avoid; nor does he actually do anything base, so as to be in fear of

disgrace. Therefore shamefacedness, properly speaking, is not a

virtue, since it falls short of the perfection of virtue.

Taken, however, in a broad sense virtue denotes whatever is good and

praiseworthy in human acts or passions; and in this way

shamefacedness is sometimes called a virtue, since it is a

praiseworthy passion.

Reply Obj. 1: Observing the mean is not sufficient for the notion of

virtue, although it is one of the conditions included in virtue's

definition: but it is requisite, in addition to this, that it be "an

elective habit," that is to say, operating from choice. Now

shamefacedness denotes, not a habit but a passion, nor does its

movement result from choice, but from an impulse of passion. Hence it

falls short of the notion of virtue.

Reply Obj. 2: As stated above, shamefacedness is fear of baseness and

disgrace. Now it has been stated (Q. 142, A. 4) that the vice of

intemperance is most base and disgraceful. Wherefore shamefacedness

pertains more to temperance than to any other virtue, by reason of

its motive cause, which is a base action though not according to the

species of the passion, namely fear. Nevertheless in so far as the

vices opposed to other virtues are base and disgraceful,

shamefacedness may also pertain to other virtues.

Reply Obj. 3: Shamefacedness fosters honesty, by removing that which

is contrary thereto, but not so as to attain to the perfection of

honesty.

Reply Obj. 4: Every defect causes a vice, but not every good is

sufficient for the notion of virtue. Consequently it does not follow

that whatever is directly opposed to vice is a virtue, although every

vice is opposed to a virtue, as regards its origin. Hence

shamelessness, in so far as it results from excessive love of

disgraceful things, is opposed to temperance.

Reply Obj. 5: Being frequently ashamed causes the habit of an

acquired virtue whereby one avoids disgraceful things which are the

object of shamefacedness, without continuing to be ashamed in their

regard: although as a consequence of this acquired virtue, a man

would be more ashamed, if confronted with the matter of

shamefacedness.

_______________________

Summa Theologica, Part II-II (Secunda Secundae) Translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province · 第 862 / 1128 题