Did God Will Evil for Its Own Sake?
by Aquinas argues that God did will physical evil for its own sake but willed the creation of a universe which involves the possibility of physical defects and pains. For instance by creating sensitive beings, he willed the capacity for feeling pains and that for experiencing pleasure which is inseparable from the human nature.
Aquinas argues that God did will physical evil for its own sake but willed the creation of a universe which involves the possibility of physical defects and pains. For instance by creating sensitive beings, he willed the capacity for feeling pains and that for experiencing pleasure which is inseparable from the human nature. God did not will suffering per se but he willed that nature, which goes with the capacity for experience pains and sufferings.
Thus, St. Thomas says the perfection of the whole universe requires the existence corruptible beings which are subject to corruption in death as well as those that are not subject to corruption. However, God, Aquinas says did not will corruption or death for its own sake but it could concluded that he caused it accidentally i.e. per accidence given that he willed a universe which its order required that some beings should have the capacity for both defect and corruption. Thus, Aquinas is of the view that God will physical evil per accidence rather than per se, for the perfection of the whole universe which is God’s work of art.
Freedom in St. Thomas Aquinas’s view is a very significant good without which man could not offer God the love and respect which is wroth of freedom affords man the opportunity of participating in the divine freedom in own limited capacity. However, man’s freedom involves the capacity for choosing against God and the moral law and for sinning. Given the foregoing, should we now say that God willed moral evil or that he is the cause of moral evil per accidence?
From Aquinas’ perspective, God did not will moral evil either per se or per accidence, but rather he permitted it. But why did he permit it? For the sake of a greater good, Aquinas says, to be precise, that man might be free and that he might love and serve God out of his own choice. From the foregoing, it may readily appear that since God permitted certain physical evils not for their own sake but for the perfection of the entire universe, he equally willed moral evil for sake of a greater good, namely, that moral good might shine intensely in contrast.
However, the difference is crystal clear. Physical perfection of the universe, according to Aquinas, requires the existence of beings which are capable of dying and as such that it could be said that God will evil per accidence. By that he meant that God willed the creation of animals and men which naturally are mortal creatures, for the sake of the perfection of the universe. In the natural order of events, death, as it were, is unavoidably connected with animal and human existence.
On the other hand, even though it is required that man should free for the sake of the perfection of the entire universe, he is not required to misuse his freedom thereby committing sins. Hence, God could not be said to have willed moral evil either per se or per accidents. He only permitted in order to produce or to bring about a greater good.
Liked it
