130. The different levels of moral instruction
130. THE DIFFERENT LEVELS OF MORAL INSTRUCTION
The next question about morality is the How question. Can it be taught, and if so how?
As in speculative sciences men are persuaded to assent to the conclusions by means of syllogistic arguments, so too in every law men are persuaded to observe its precepts by means of punishments and rewards. Now it is to be observed that in speculative sciences the means of persuasion are adapted to the conditions of the pupil, wherefore the process of argument in sciences should be ordered becomingly, so that the instruction is based on principles more generally known. And thus also he who would persuade a man to the observance of any precepts needs to move him at first by things for which he has an affection, just as children are induced to do something by means of little childish gifts.
. . . [T]he Old Law disposed men to the coming of Christ as the imperfect disposes to the perfect, wherefore it was given to a people as yet imperfect in comparison to the perfection which was to result from Christ’s coming, and for this reason that people is compared to a child that is still under a pedagogue (Gal 3:24). . . .
Those who are yet imperfect desire temporal goods, albeit in subordination to God; whereas the perverse place their end in temporal things. It was therefore fitting that the Old Law should conduct men to God by means of temporal goods for which the imperfect have an affection (I-II,99,6).
We are persuaded intellectually, or “taught” (changed from ignorance to knowledge) through arguments. We are persuaded morally (changed from evil to good), not merely by arguments but by rewards and punishments; not merely by educating our intellect but by educating our desires.
When we are persuaded intellectually, two truths are joined: the truth of the premises that we already believe and the truth of the conclusion that follows from them, which we did not believe before we were persuaded by this argument. When we are persuaded morally, by rewards and punishments, two goods, two objects of desire, are joined: the good of the deed we ought to do but do not desire, and the good of the reward we already desire. Thus we are led from presently desired goods to new and harder-to-love goods, as we are led from already-known premises to new, harder-to-know conclusions.
We must correct St. Thomas here in one particular. The Old Law was not merely this-worldly: either in the perfection of its demands, or in the divine source of them, or in the promised rewards for them. It already commanded perfection and revealed the divine reason and rewards for them: “Be ye holy for I am holy.” The contrast between the Old Law and the New is a difference in degree, not in kind: an increased clarity about the otherworldly, spiritual rewards, not a new morality. Christ explicitly said that He came not to give a different law, but only to reveal and fulfill the heart of the Old Law: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them” (Mt 5:17). The Old Law already commanded perfection: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might” (Deut 6:5).
It is true that among the Chosen People their understanding of their own law progressed from a more primitive stage, where (1) sins and sinners were not clearly distinguished (and therefore God commanded aggressive war against the devil-worshipping Caananites), where (2) justice was clearer than love (as it usually is among children who play “cops and robbers” and who love fairy tales where the villains are killed at the end), and where (3) collective good and evil was clearer than individual good and evil (thus the sins of the fathers are visited upon the children because families are more important than individuals), to a stage where it was seen that (1) the whole reason to hate sins was to love sinners, that (2) the whole reason for justice was to be the necessary foundation for the temple of love, and that (3) personal responsibility was more absolute than collective responsibility, because the whole reason for the temporary earthly community was to instruct and perfect immortal, Heaven-destined persons.