Introduction: Natural law and the virtues: affective virtues
Introduction Thus far we have seen two reasons why our appetitive inclinations are not by themselves enough to enable us to attain our characteristic human good. The first concerned the sensory desire: since on its own it can come into conflict with reason, it requires the virtues of temperateness and courage if it is to be properly disposed to the human good as discerned by reason.Thesecondconcernedtherationaldesire:sincethewillisdirected to the good of the individual, it requires the virtue of justice if it is to be properly disposed to the good of others. There is a third reason, which concerns desire in general. Aquinas explains that animals 'engage in a limited number of activities' and their good is fixed and unchanging. So they need only what he calls 'natural judgement' – a kind of recognition of what is good that does not involve intellectual discernment – and a natural appetite for their fixed and unchanging good. Human beings, by contrast, 'engage in many diverse activities'. Their 'good comes in many varieties, and what is good for human beings comprises many different things. Therefore there could not be a natural desire in human beings for a determinate good that suited all the conditions needed for something to be good for them.' Nor is natural judgement adequate for our attainment of this varied and multifaceted human good. Human beings therefore need reason, 'which is capable of comparing different things, to discover and discern their own distinctive good, determined in the light of all relevant circumstances, as it should be sought at this time and in this place' (DQVirtGen rep.). The virtue that enables reason to do this easily and reliably is practical wisdom.
To summarise the argument thus far: Aquinas's natural law theory is an account of the most general forms of human flourishing. From that account we learn precisely why temperateness, courage, justice, and practical wisdom are necessary for human flourishing. What I want to do now is to discuss Aquinas's account of those virtues and their relation to each other, and show how even the specific details of his conception of virtue and practical reasoning depend upon the general account of human flourishing established in the discussion of the natural law.
Natural law and the virtues: affective virtues The doctrine of the affective virtues – temperateness and fortitude, which modify not only our actions but our emotions – is part of an explanation of how we go about achieving the end that is set forth in the theory of xv
Introduction natural law. As we have seen, the most general principles of practical reason (or, in other words, the precepts of the natural law) prescribe that certain broadly conceived goods be pursued in action. Those goods are arranged both hierarchically and inclusively. So according to the natural law, a life well lived is one in which reason governs every level of human functioning so that it makes its proper contribution to the overall human good. If we are to live such a life, we must re-educate our emotions so that they spontaneously aim us at our proper end. A life in which we are constantly having to struggle against contrary desires, in which reason is always having to put down insurrections in order to maintain its sway, is not a good life. The affective virtues help ensure that we act consistently, not just haphazardly, in the pursuit of our end, and that we do so in a way that befits a creature endowed with reason.
This overview of the place of temperateness and fortitude in Aquinas's moral theory shows how natural law theory motivates the doctrine of the affective virtues. I now want to point out how natural law theory also supplies part of the content of that doctrine. I shall focus on temperateness. In aae ., Aquinas explains the 'standard of temperateness' (regula temperantiae), and he does so by appealing to the natural law considerations
I have already sketched:
The good of moral virtue consists chiefly in the order of reason, for 'the human good is to be in accordance with reason', as Dionysius says. Now reason's preeminent ordering consists in its ordering things to an end, and the good of reason consists chiefly in this ordering: for the good has the character of an end, and the end itself is the standard for those things that bear on the end. Now all pleasant things (delectabilia) that are used by human beings are ordered to some need of this life as to their end. And so the need of this life is the standard adopted by temperateness concerning those pleasant things of which it makes use; in other words, it makes use of them only to the extent that the need of this life requires.
In his reply to the second objection Aquinas again appeals to natural law considerations to clarify this standard. Human beings need not merely subsistence, but a graceful, fitting, well-disposed life. So the standard of temperateness does not imply that human beings may only eat and drink the bare minimum they need to survive, but that human beings may eat and drink whatever is necessary for health and well-being. Indeed, they xvi