David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
In Brian Davies & Eleonore Stump (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Aquinas. Oxford University Press 199-208 (2011)
Aquinas opens the second part of the ST by arguing, in a series of careful steps, that there is one and only one ultimate end for all human actions. The placement of this argument is no accident, since the notion of an end is of fundamental importance not only in Aquinas’s theory of human action but in his accounts of practical reasoning, law, and the virtues. Yet the interpretation of Aquinas’s argument in ST 1a2ae, q.1, is a matter of considerable controversy. I shall first follow the argument through its successive steps and then briefly consider three possible ways of understanding Aquinas’s claim that all human actions have exactly one ultimate end. Aquinas first argues that every human action is for the sake of some end. That is, every human action is purposive in some way; it is done for the sake of attaining some goal or realizing some desired state of affairs. To the obvious objection that we do things all the time without any purpose at all, Aquinas replies by distinguishing between a human action (actus humanus) and an action of a human being (actio hominis). Human actions, properly so called, are those that proceed from human beings in virtue of their distinguishing power, which is to be in control of their own actions (dominus suorum actuum) through reason and will. Anything else that a human being does can be called the action of a human being, but not (in the proper sense) a human action. Human actions, then, are those that are willed on the basis of rational deliberation. And since “the object of the will is an end and a good, it follows that all human actions are for the sake of an end.”1 What, precisely, is meant by the “end” of a human action? Aquinas tells us in a. 2 that an end is something cognized as good. It must be something cognized because otherwise we just have “natural appetite,” the sort of built-in directedness by which heavy objects are moved..
|Keywords||Thomas Aquinas happiness action theory will intellect freedom|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
John Langan (1991). Egoism and Mortality in the Teleology of Thomas Aquinas. Journal of Philosophical Research 16:411-426.
John Peterson (1999). Natural Law, End, And Virtue In Aquinas. Journal of Philosophical Research 24:397-413.
C. Mantzavinos (2012). Explanations of Meaningful Actions. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 42 (2):224-238.
Patrick Frierson (2005). Kant's Empirical Account of Human Action. Philosophers' Imprint 5 (7):1-34.
Alan Donagan (1987). Choice, the Essential Element in Human Action. Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Arthur B. Cody (1971). Is 'Human Action' A Category? Inquiry 14 (1-4):386-419.
Anfinn Stigen (1970). The Concept of a Human Action. Inquiry 13 (1-4):1 – 31.
Joseph Pilsner (2006). The Specification of Human Actions in St. Thomas Aquinas. Oxford University Press.
Jan A. Aertsen (2005). Aquinas and the Human Desire for Knowledge. American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 79 (3):411-430.
Added to index2009-06-09
Total downloads73 ( #44,297 of 1,725,865 )
Recent downloads (6 months)11 ( #59,778 of 1,725,865 )
How can I increase my downloads?