Authors/Thomas Aquinas/Summa Theologiae/Part IIa/Q19

• Question 19.1 The goodness and malice of the interior act of the will
• Question 19.2
• Question 19.3
• Question 19.4
• Question 19.5
• Question 19.6
• Question 19.7
• Question 19.8
• Question 19.9
• Question 19.10

Latin	English
Iª-IIae q. 19 pr. Deinde considerandum est de bonitate actus interioris voluntatis. Et circa hoc quaeruntur decem. Primo, utrum bonitas voluntatis dependeat ex obiecto. Secundo, utrum ex solo obiecto dependeat. Tertio, utrum dependeat ex ratione. Quarto, utrum dependeat ex lege aeterna. Quinto, utrum ratio errans obliget. Sexto, utrum voluntas contra legem Dei sequens rationem errantem, sit mala. Septimo, utrum bonitas voluntatis in his quae sunt ad finem, dependeat ex intentione finis. Octavo, utrum quantitas bonitatis vel malitiae in voluntate, sequatur quantitatem boni vel mali in intentione. Nono, utrum bonitas voluntatis dependeat ex conformitate ad voluntatem divinam. Decimo, utrum necesse sit voluntatem humanam conformari divinae voluntati in volito, ad hoc quod sit bona.	Question 19. The goodness and malice of the interior act of the will Does the goodness of the will depend on the object? Does it depend on the object alone? Does it depend on reason? Does it depend on the eternal law? Does erring reason bind? Is the will evil if it follows the erring reason against the law of God? Does the goodness of the will in regard to the means, depend on the intention of the end? Does the degree of goodness or malice in the will depend on the degree of good or evil in the intention? Does the goodness of the will depend on its conformity to the Divine will? Is it necessary for the human will, in order to be good, to be conformed to the Divine will, as regards the thing willed?
Iª-IIae q. 19 a. 1 arg. 1 Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod bonitas voluntatis non dependeat ex obiecto. Voluntas enim non potest esse nisi boni, quia malum est praeter voluntatem, ut Dionysius dicit, IV cap. de Div. Nom. Si igitur bonitas voluntatis iudicaretur ex obiecto, sequeretur quod omnis voluntas esset bona, et nulla esset mala.	Objection 1. It would seem that the goodness of the will does not depend on the object. For the will cannot be directed otherwise than to what is good: since "evil is outside the scope of the will," as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv). If therefore the goodness of the will depended on the object, it would follow that every act of the will is good, and none bad.
Iª-IIae q. 19 a. 1 arg. 2 Praeterea, bonum per prius invenitur in fine, unde bonitas finis, inquantum huiusmodi, non dependet ab aliquo alio. Sed secundum philosophum, in VI Ethic., bona actio est finis, licet factio nunquam sit finis, ordinatur enim semper, sicut ad finem, ad aliquid factum. Ergo bonitas actus voluntatis non dependet ex aliquo obiecto.	Objection 2. Further, good is first of all in the end: wherefore the goodness of the end, as such, does not depend on any other. But, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. vi, 5), "goodness of action is the end, but goodness of making is never the end": because the latter is always ordained to the thing made, as to its end. Therefore the goodness of the act of the will does not depend on any object.
Iª-IIae q. 19 a. 1 arg. 3 Praeterea, unumquodque quale est, tale alterum facit. Sed obiectum voluntatis est bonum bonitate naturae. Non ergo potest praestare voluntati bonitatem moralem. Moralis ergo bonitas voluntatis non dependet ex obiecto.	Objection 3. Further, such as a thing is, such does it make a thing to be. But the object of the will is good, by reason of the goodness of nature. Therefore it cannot give moral goodness to the will. Therefore the moral goodness of the will does not depend on the object.
Iª-IIae q. 19 a. 1 s. c. Sed contra est quod philosophus dicit, in V Ethic., quod iustitia est secundum quam aliqui volunt iusta, et eadem ratione, virtus est secundum quam aliqui volunt bona. Sed bona voluntas est quae est secundum virtutem. Ergo bonitas voluntatis est ex hoc quod aliquis vult bonum.	On the contrary, the Philosopher says (Ethic. v, 1) that justice is that habit "from which men wish for just things": and accordingly, virtue is a habit from which men wish for good things. But a good will is one which is in accordance with virtue. Therefore the goodness of the will is from the fact that a man wills that which is good.
Iª-IIae q. 19 a. 1 co. Respondeo dicendum quod bonum et malum sunt per se differentiae actus voluntatis. Nam bonum et malum per se ad voluntatem pertinent; sicut verum et falsum ad rationem, cuius actus per se distinguitur differentia veri et falsi, prout dicimus opinionem esse veram vel falsam. Unde voluntas bona et mala sunt actus differentes secundum speciem. Differentia autem speciei in actibus est secundum obiecta, ut dictum est. Et ideo bonum et malum in actibus voluntatis proprie attenditur secundum obiecta.	I answer that, Good and evil are essential differences of the act of the will. Because good and evil of themselves regard the will; just as truth and falsehood regard reason; the act of which is divided essentially by the difference of truth and falsehood, for as much as an opinion is said to be true or false. Consequently good and evil will are acts differing in species. Now the specific difference in acts is according to objects, as stated above (Question 18, Article 5). Therefore good and evil in the acts of the will is derived properly from the objects.
Iª-IIae q. 19 a. 1 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod voluntas non semper est veri boni, sed quandoque est apparentis boni, quod quidem habet aliquam rationem boni, non tamen simpliciter convenientis ad appetendum. Et propter hoc actus voluntatis non est bonus semper, sed aliquando malus.	Reply to Objection 1. The will is not always directed to what is truly good, but sometimes to the apparent good; which has indeed some measure of good, but not of a good that is simply suitable to be desired. Hence it is that the act of the will is not always good, but sometimes evil.
Iª-IIae q. 19 a. 1 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod, quamvis aliquis actus possit esse ultimus finis hominis secundum aliquem modum, non tamen talis actus est actus voluntatis, ut supra dictum est.	Reply to Objection 2. Although an action can, in a certain way, be man's last end; nevertheless such action is not an act of the will, as stated above (1, 1, ad 2).
Iª-IIae q. 19 a. 1 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod bonum per rationem repraesentatur voluntati ut obiectum; et inquantum cadit sub ordine rationis, pertinet ad genus moris, et causat bonitatem moralem in actu voluntatis. Ratio enim principium est humanorum et moralium actuum, ut supra dictum est.	Reply to Objection 3. Good is presented to the will as its object by the reason: and in so far as it is in accord with reason, it enters the moral order, and causes moral goodness in the act of the will: because the reason is the principle of human and moral acts, as stated above (Question 18, Article 5).
Iª-IIae q. 19 a. 2 arg. 1 Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod bonitas voluntatis non dependeat solum ex obiecto. Finis enim affinior est voluntati quam alteri potentiae. Sed actus aliarum potentiarum recipiunt bonitatem non solum ex obiecto, sed etiam ex fine, ut ex supradictis patet. Ergo etiam actus voluntatis recipit bonitatem non solum ex obiecto, sed etiam ex fine.	Objection 1. It would seem that the goodness of the will does not depend on the object alone. For the end has a closer relationship to the will than to any other power. But the acts of the other powers derive goodness not only from the object but also from the end, as we have shown above (18, 04). Therefore the act also of the will derives goodness not only from the object but also from the end.
Iª-IIae q. 19 a. 2 arg. 2 Praeterea, bonitas actus non solum est ex obiecto, sed etiam ex circumstantiis, ut supra dictum est. Sed secundum diversitatem circumstantiarum contingit esse diversitatem bonitatis et malitiae in actu voluntatis, puta quod aliquis velit quando debet et ubi debet, et quantum debet, et quomodo debet, vel prout non debet. Ergo bonitas voluntatis non solum dependet ex obiecto, sed etiam ex circumstantiis.	Objection 2. Further, the goodness of an action is derived not only from the object but also from the circumstances, as stated above (Question 18, Article 3). But according to the diversity of circumstances there may be diversity of goodness and malice in the act of the will: for instance, if a man will, when he ought, where he ought, as much as he ought, and how he ought, or if he will as he ought not. Therefore the goodness of the will depends not only on the object, but also on the circumstances.
Iª-IIae q. 19 a. 2 arg. 3 Praeterea, ignorantia circumstantiarum excusat malitiam voluntatis, ut supra habitum est. Sed hoc non esset, nisi bonitas et malitia voluntatis a circumstantiis dependeret. Ergo bonitas et malitia voluntatis dependet ex circumstantiis, et non a solo obiecto.	Objection 3. Further, ignorance of circumstances excuses malice of the will, as stated above (Question 6, Article 8). But it would not be so, unless the goodness or malice of the will depended on the circumstances. Therefore the goodness and malice of the will depend on the circumstances, and not only on the object.
Iª-IIae q. 19 a. 2 s. c. Sed contra, ex circumstantiis, inquantum huiusmodi, actus non habet speciem, ut supra dictum est. Sed bonum et malum sunt specificae differentiae actus voluntatis, ut dictum est. Ergo bonitas et malitia voluntatis non dependet ex circumstantiis, sed ex solo obiecto.	On the contrary, An action does not take its species from the circumstances as such, as stated above (18, 10, ad 2). But good and evil are specific differences of the act of the will, as stated above (Article 1). Therefore the goodness and malice of the will depend, not on the circumstances, but on the object alone.
Iª-IIae q. 19 a. 2 co. Respondeo dicendum quod in quolibet genere, quanto aliquid est prius, tanto est simplicius et in paucioribus consistens, sicut prima corpora sunt simplicia. Et ideo invenimus quod ea quae sunt prima in quolibet genere, sunt aliquo modo simplicia, et in uno consistunt. Principium autem bonitatis et malitiae humanorum actuum est ex actu voluntatis. Et ideo bonitas et malitia voluntatis secundum aliquid unum attenditur, aliorum vero actuum bonitas et malitia potest secundum diversa attendi. Illud autem unum quod est principium in quolibet genere, non est per accidens, sed per se, quia omne quod est per accidens, reducitur ad id quod est per se, sicut ad principium. Et ideo bonitas voluntatis ex solo uno illo dependet, quod per se facit bonitatem in actu, scilicet ex obiecto, et non ex circumstantiis, quae sunt quaedam accidentia actus.	I answer that, In every genus, the more a thing is first, the more simple it is, and the fewer the principles of which it consists: thus primary bodies are simple. Hence it is to be observed that the first things in every genus, are, in some way, simple and consist of one principle. Now the principle of the goodness and malice of human actions is taken from the act of the will. Consequently the goodness and malice of the act of the will depend on some one thing; while the goodness and malice of other acts may depend on several things. Now that one thing which is the principle in each genus, is not something accidental to that genus, but something essential thereto: because whatever is accidental is reduced to something essential, as to its principle. Therefore the goodness of the will's act depends on that one thing alone, which of itself causes goodness in the act; and that one thing is the object, and not the circumstances, which are accidents, as it were, of the act.
Iª-IIae q. 19 a. 2 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod finis est obiectum voluntatis, non autem aliarum virium. Unde quantum ad actum voluntatis, non differt bonitas quae est ex obiecto, a bonitate quae est ex fine, sicut in actibus aliarum virium, nisi forte per accidens, prout finis dependet ex fine, et voluntas ex voluntate.	Reply to Objection 1. The end is the object of the will, but not of the other powers. Hence, in regard to the act of the will, the goodness derived from the object, does not differ from that which is derived from the end, as they differ in the acts of the other powers; except perhaps accidentally, in so far as one end depends on another, and one act of the will on another.
Iª-IIae q. 19 a. 2 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod, supposito quod voluntas sit boni, nulla circumstantia potest eam facere malam. Quod ergo dicitur quod aliquis vult aliquod bonum quando non debet vel ubi non debet, potest intelligi dupliciter. Uno modo, ita quod ista circumstantia referatur ad volitum. Et sic voluntas non est boni, quia velle facere aliquid quando non debet fieri, non est velle bonum. Alio modo, ita quod referatur ad actum volendi. Et sic impossibile est quod aliquis velit bonum quando non debet, quia semper homo debet velle bonum, nisi forte per accidens, inquantum aliquis, volendo hoc bonum, impeditur ne tunc velit aliquod bonum debitum. Et tunc non incidit malum ex eo quod aliquis vult illud bonum; sed ex eo quod non vult aliud bonum. Et similiter dicendum est de aliis circumstantiis.	Reply to Objection 2. Given that the act of the will is fixed on some good, no circumstances can make that act bad. Consequently when it is said that a man wills a good when he ought not, or where he ought not, this can be understood in two ways. First, so that this circumstance is referred to the thing willed. And thus the act of the will is not fixed on something good: since to will to do something when it ought not to be done, is not to will something good. Secondly, so that the circumstance is referred to the act of willing. And thus, it is impossible to will something good when one ought not to, because one ought always to will what is good: except, perhaps, accidentally, in so far as a man by willing some particular good, is prevented from willing at the same time another good which he ought to will at that time. And then evil results, not from his willing that particular good, but from his not willing the other. The same applies to the other circumstances.
Iª-IIae q. 19 a. 2 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod circumstantiarum ignorantia excusat malitiam voluntatis, secundum quod circumstantiae se tenent ex parte voliti, inquantum scilicet ignorat circumstantias actus quem vult.	Reply to Objection 3. Ignorance of circumstances excuses malice of the will, in so far as the circumstance affects the thing willed: that is to say, in so far as a man ignores the circumstances of the act which he wills.
Iª-IIae q. 19 a. 3 arg. 1 Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod bonitas voluntatis non dependeat a ratione. Prius enim non dependet a posteriori. Sed bonum per prius pertinet ad voluntatem quam ad rationem, ut ex supradictis patet. Ergo bonum voluntatis non dependet a ratione.	Objection 1. It would seem that the goodness of the will does not depend on reason. For what comes first does not depend on what follows. But the good belongs to the will before it belongs to reason, as is clear from what has been said above (Question 9, Article 1). Therefore the goodness of the will does not depend on reason.
Iª-IIae q. 19 a. 3 arg. 2 Praeterea, philosophus dicit, in VI Ethic., quod bonitas intellectus practici est verum conforme appetitui recto. Appetitus autem rectus est voluntas bona. Ergo bonitas rationis practicae magis dependet a bonitate voluntatis, quam e converso.	Objection 2. Further, the Philosopher says (Ethic. vi, 2) that the goodness of the practical intellect is "a truth that is in conformity with right desire." But right desire is a good will. Therefore the goodness of the practical reason depends on the goodness of the will, rather than conversely.
Iª-IIae q. 19 a. 3 arg. 3 Praeterea, movens non dependet ab eo quod movetur, sed e converso. Voluntas autem movet rationem et alias vires, ut supra dictum est. Ergo bonitas voluntatis non dependet a ratione.	Objection 3. Further, the mover does not depend on that which is moved, but vice versa. But the will moves the reason and the other powers, as stated above (Question 9, Article 1). Therefore the goodness of the will does not depend on reason.
Iª-IIae q. 19 a. 3 s. c. Sed contra est quod Hilarius dicit, in X de Trin., immoderata est omnis susceptarum voluntatum pertinacia, ubi non rationi voluntas subiicitur. Sed bonitas voluntatis consistit in hoc quod non sit immoderata. Ergo bonitas voluntatis dependet ex hoc quod sit subiecta rationi.	On the contrary, Hilary says (De Trin. x): "It is an unruly will that persists in its desires in opposition to reason." But the goodness of the will consists in not being unruly. Therefore the goodness of the will depends on its being subject to reason.
Iª-IIae q. 19 a. 3 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, bonitas voluntatis proprie ex obiecto dependet. Obiectum autem voluntatis proponitur ei per rationem. Nam bonum intellectum est obiectum voluntatis proportionatum ei; bonum autem sensibile, vel imaginarium, non est proportionatum voluntati, sed appetitui sensitivo, quia voluntas potest tendere in bonum universale, quod ratio apprehendit; appetitus autem sensitivus non tendit nisi in bonum particulare, quod apprehendit vis sensitiva. Et ideo bonitas voluntatis dependet a ratione, eo modo quo dependet ab obiecto.	I answer that, As stated above (1,2), the goodness of the will depends properly on the object. Now the will's object is proposed to it by reason. Because the good understood is the proportionate object of the will; while sensitive or imaginary good is proportionate not to the will but to the sensitive appetite: since the will can tend to the universal good, which reason apprehends; whereas the sensitive appetite tends only to the particular good, apprehended by the sensitive power. Therefore the goodness of the will depends on reason, in the same way as it depends on the object.
Iª-IIae q. 19 a. 3 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod bonum sub ratione boni, idest appetibilis, per prius pertinet ad voluntatem quam ad rationem. Sed tamen per prius pertinet ad rationem sub ratione veri, quam ad voluntatem sub ratione appetibilis, quia appetitus voluntatis non potest esse de bono, nisi prius a ratione apprehendatur.	Reply to Objection 1. The good considered as such, i.e. as appetible, pertains to the will before pertaining to the reason. But considered as true it pertains to the reason, before, under the aspect of goodness, pertaining to the will: because the will cannot desire a good that is not previously apprehended by reason.
Iª-IIae q. 19 a. 3 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod philosophus ibi loquitur de intellectu practico, secundum quod est consiliativus et ratiocinativus eorum quae sunt ad finem, sic enim perficitur per prudentiam. In his autem quae sunt ad finem, rectitudo rationis consistit in conformitate ad appetitum finis debiti. Sed tamen et ipse appetitus finis debiti praesupponit rectam apprehensionem de fine, quae est per rationem.	Reply to Objection 2. The Philosopher speaks here of the practical intellect, in so far as it counsels and reasons about the means: for in this respect it is perfected by prudence. Now in regard to the means, the rectitude of the reason depends on its conformity with the desire of a due end: nevertheless the very desire of the due end presupposes on the part of reason a right apprehension of the end.
Iª-IIae q. 19 a. 3 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod voluntas quodam modo movet rationem; et ratio alio modo movet voluntatem, ex parte scilicet obiecti, ut supra dictum est.	Reply to Objection 3. The will moves the reason in one way: the reason moves the will in another, viz. on the part of the object, as stated above (Question 9, Article 01).
Iª-IIae q. 19 a. 4 arg. 1 Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod bonitas voluntatis humanae non dependeat a lege aeterna. Unius enim una est regula et mensura. Sed regula humanae voluntatis, ex qua eius bonitas dependet, est ratio recta. Ergo non dependet bonitas voluntatis a lege aeterna.	Objection 1. It would seem that the goodness of the human will does not depend on the eternal law. Because to one thing there is one rule and one measure. But the rule of the human will, on which its goodness depends, is right reason. Therefore the goodness of the will does not depend on the eternal law.
Iª-IIae q. 19 a. 4 arg. 2 Praeterea, mensura est homogenea mensurato, ut dicitur X Metaphys. Sed lex aeterna non est homogenea voluntati humanae. Ergo lex aeterna non potest esse mensura voluntatis humanae, ut ab ea bonitas eius dependeat.	Objection 2. Further, "a measure is homogeneous with the thing measured" (Metaph. x, 1). But the eternal law is not homogeneous with the human will. Therefore the eternal law cannot be the measure on which the goodness of the human will depends.
Iª-IIae q. 19 a. 4 arg. 3 Praeterea, mensura debet esse certissima. Sed lex aeterna est nobis ignota. Ergo non potest esse nostrae voluntatis mensura, ut ab ea bonitas voluntatis nostrae dependeat.	Objection 3. Further, a measure should be most certain. But the eternal law is unknown to us. Therefore it cannot be the measure on which the goodness of our will depends.
Iª-IIae q. 19 a. 4 s. c. Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, XXII libro contra Faustum, quod peccatum est factum, dictum vel concupitum aliquid contra aeternam legem. Sed malitia voluntatis est radix peccati. Ergo, cum malitia bonitati opponatur, bonitas voluntatis dependet a lege aeterna.	On the contrary, Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxii, 27) that "sin is a deed, word or desire against the eternal law." But malice of the will is the root of sin. Therefore, since malice is contrary to goodness, the goodness of the will depends on the eternal law.
Iª-IIae q. 19 a. 4 co. Respondeo dicendum quod in omnibus causis ordinatis, effectus plus dependet a causa prima quam a causa secunda, quia causa secunda non agit nisi in virtute primae causae. Quod autem ratio humana sit regula voluntatis humanae, ex qua eius bonitas mensuretur, habet ex lege aeterna, quae est ratio divina. Unde in Psalmo IV, dicitur, multi dicunt, quis ostendit nobis bona? Signatum est super nos lumen vultus tui, domine, quasi diceret, lumen rationis quod in nobis est, intantum potest nobis ostendere bona, et nostram voluntatem regulare, inquantum est lumen vultus tui, idest a vultu tuo derivatum. Unde manifestum est quod multo magis dependet bonitas voluntatis humanae a lege aeterna, quam a ratione humana, et ubi deficit humana ratio, oportet ad rationem aeternam recurrere.	I answer that, Wherever a number of causes are subordinate to one another, the effect depends more on the first than on the second cause: since the second cause acts only in virtue of the first. Now it is from the eternal law, which is the Divine Reason, that human reason is the rule of the human will, from which the human derives its goodness. Hence it is written (Psalm 4:6-7): "Many say: Who showeth us good things? The light of Thy countenance, O Lord, is signed upon us": as though to say: "The light of our reason is able to show us good things, and guide our will, in so far as it is the light (i.e. derived from) Thy countenance." It is therefore evident that the goodness of the human will depends on the eternal law much more than on human reason: and when human reason fails we must have recourse to the Eternal Reason.
Iª-IIae q. 19 a. 4 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod unius rei non sunt plures mensurae proximae, possunt tamen esse plures mensurae, quarum una sub alia ordinetur.	Reply to Objection 1. To one thing there are not several proximate measures; but there can be several measures if one is subordinate to the other.
Iª-IIae q. 19 a. 4 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod mensura proxima est homogenea mensurato, non autem mensura remota.	Reply to Objection 2. A proximate measure is homogeneous with the thing measured; a remote measure is not.
Iª-IIae q. 19 a. 4 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod, licet lex aeterna sit nobis ignota secundum quod est in mente divina; innotescit tamen nobis aliqualiter vel per rationem naturalem, quae ab ea derivatur ut propria eius imago; vel per aliqualem revelationem superadditam.	Reply to Objection 3. Although the eternal law is unknown to us according as it is in the Divine Mind: nevertheless, it becomes known to us somewhat, either by natural reason which is derived therefrom as its proper image; or by some sort of additional revelation.
Iª-IIae q. 19 a. 5 arg. 1 Ad quintum sic proceditur. Videtur quod voluntas discordans a ratione errante, non sit mala. Ratio enim est regula voluntatis humanae, inquantum derivatur a lege aeterna, ut dictum est. Sed ratio errans non derivatur a lege aeterna. Ergo ratio errans non est regula voluntatis humanae. Non est ergo voluntas mala, si discordat a ratione errante.	Objection 1. It would seem that the will is not evil when it is at variance with erring reason. Because the reason is the rule of the human will, in so far as it is derived from the eternal law, as stated above (Article 4). But erring reason is not derived from the eternal law. Therefore erring reason is not the rule of the human will. Therefore the will is not evil, if it be at variance with erring reason.
Iª-IIae q. 19 a. 5 arg. 2 Praeterea, secundum Augustinum, inferioris potestatis praeceptum non obligat, si contrarietur praecepto potestatis superioris, sicut si proconsul iubeat aliquid quod imperator prohibet. Sed ratio errans quandoque proponit aliquid quod est contra praeceptum superioris, scilicet Dei, cuius est summa potestas. Ergo dictamen rationis errantis non obligat. Non est ergo voluntas mala, si discordet a ratione errante.	Objection 2. Further, according to Augustine, the command of a lower authority does not bind if it be contrary to the command of a higher authority: for instance, if a provincial governor command something that is forbidden by the emperor. But erring reason sometimes proposes what is against the command of a higher power, namely, God Whose power is supreme. Therefore the decision of an erring reason does not bind. Consequently the will is not evil if it be at variance with erring reason.
Iª-IIae q. 19 a. 5 arg. 3 Praeterea, omnis voluntas mala reducitur ad aliquam speciem malitiae. Sed voluntas discordans a ratione errante, non potest reduci ad aliquam speciem malitiae, puta, si ratio errans errat in hoc, quod dicat esse fornicandum, voluntas eius qui fornicari non vult, ad nullam malitiam reduci potest. Ergo voluntas discordans a ratione errante, non est mala.	Objection 3. Further, every evil will is reducible to some species of malice. But the will that is at variance with erring reason is not reducible to some species of malice. For instance, if a man's reason err in telling him to commit fornication, his will in not willing to do so, cannot be reduced to any species of malice. Therefore the will is not evil when it is at variance with erring reason.
Iª-IIae q. 19 a. 5 s. c. Sed contra, sicut in primo dictum est, conscientia nihil aliud est quam applicatio scientiae ad aliquem actum. Scientia autem in ratione est. Voluntas ergo discordans a ratione errante, est contra conscientiam. Sed omnis talis voluntas est mala, dicitur enim Rom. XIV, omne quod non est ex fide, peccatum est, idest omne quod est contra conscientiam. Ergo voluntas discordans a ratione errante, est mala.	On the contrary, As stated in the I, 79, 13, conscience is nothing else than the application of knowledge to some action. Now knowledge is in the reason. Therefore when the will is at variance with erring reason, it is against conscience. But every such will is evil; for it is written (Romans 14:23): "All that is not of faith"--i.e. all that is against conscience--"is sin." Therefore the will is evil when it is at variance with erring reason.
Iª-IIae q. 19 a. 5 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, cum conscientia sit quodammodo dictamen rationis (est enim quaedam applicatio scientiae ad actum, ut in primo dictum est), idem est quaerere utrum voluntas discordans a ratione errante sit mala, quod quaerere utrum conscientia errans obliget. Circa quod, aliqui distinxerunt tria genera actuum, quidam enim sunt boni ex genere; quidam sunt indifferentes; quidam sunt mali ex genere. Dicunt ergo quod, si ratio vel conscientia dicat aliquid esse faciendum quod sit bonum ex suo genere, non est ibi error. Similiter, si dicat aliquid non esse faciendum quod est malum ex suo genere, eadem enim ratione praecipiuntur bona, qua prohibentur mala. Sed si ratio vel conscientia dicat alicui quod illa quae sunt secundum se mala, homo teneatur facere ex praecepto; vel quod illa quae sunt secundum se bona, sint prohibita; erit ratio vel conscientia errans. Et similiter si ratio vel conscientia dicat alicui quod id quod est secundum se indifferens, ut levare festucam de terra, sit prohibitum vel praeceptum, erit ratio vel conscientia errans. Dicunt ergo quod ratio vel conscientia errans circa indifferentia, sive praecipiendo sive prohibendo, obligat, ita quod voluntas discordans a tali ratione errante, erit mala et peccatum. Sed ratio vel conscientia errans praecipiendo ea quae sunt per se mala, vel prohibendo ea quae sunt per se bona et necessaria ad salutem, non obligat, unde in talibus voluntas discordans a ratione vel conscientia errante, non est mala. Sed hoc irrationabiliter dicitur. In indifferentibus enim, voluntas discordans a ratione vel conscientia errante, est mala aliquo modo propter obiectum, a quo bonitas vel malitia voluntatis dependet, non autem propter obiectum secundum sui naturam; sed secundum quod per accidens a ratione apprehenditur ut malum ad faciendum vel ad vitandum. Et quia obiectum voluntatis est id quod proponitur a ratione, ut dictum est, ex quo aliquid proponitur a ratione ut malum, voluntas, dum in illud fertur, accipit rationem mali. Hoc autem contingit non solum in indifferentibus, sed etiam in per se bonis vel malis. Non solum enim id quod est indifferens, potest accipere rationem boni vel mali per accidens; sed etiam id quod est bonum, potest accipere rationem mali, vel illud quod est malum, rationem boni, propter apprehensionem rationis. Puta, abstinere a fornicatione bonum quoddam est, tamen in hoc bonum non fertur voluntas, nisi secundum quod a ratione proponitur. Si ergo proponatur ut malum a ratione errante, feretur in hoc sub ratione mali. Unde voluntas erit mala, quia vult malum, non quidem id quod est malum per se, sed id quod est malum per accidens, propter apprehensionem rationis. Et similiter credere in Christum est per se bonum, et necessarium ad salutem, sed voluntas non fertur in hoc, nisi secundum quod a ratione proponitur. Unde si a ratione proponatur ut malum, voluntas feretur in hoc ut malum, non quia sit malum secundum se, sed quia est malum per accidens ex apprehensione rationis. Et ideo philosophus dicit, in VII Ethic., quod, per se loquendo, incontinens est qui non sequitur rationem rectam, per accidens autem, qui non sequitur etiam rationem falsam. Unde dicendum est simpliciter quod omnis voluntas discordans a ratione, sive recta sive errante, semper est mala.	I answer that, Since conscience is a kind of dictate of the reason (for it is an application of knowledge to action, as was stated in the I, 19, 13), to inquire whether the will is evil when it is at variance with erring reason, is the same as to inquire "whether an erring conscience binds." On this matter, some distinguished three kinds of actions: for some are good generically; some are indifferent; some are evil generically. And they say that if reason or conscience tell us to do something which is good generically, there is no error: and in like manner if it tell us not to do something which is evil generically; since it is the same reason that prescribes what is good and forbids what is evil. On the other hand if a man's reason or conscience tells him that he is bound by precept to do what is evil in itself; or that what is good in itself, is forbidden, then his reason or conscience errs. In like manner if a man's reason or conscience tell him, that what is indifferent in itself, for instance to raise a straw from the ground, is forbidden or commanded, his reason or conscience errs. They say, therefore, that reason or conscience when erring in matters of indifference, either by commanding or by forbidding them, binds: so that the will which is at variance with that erring reason is evil and sinful. But they say that when reason or conscience errs in commanding what is evil in itself, or in forbidding what is good in itself and necessary for salvation, it does not bind; wherefore in such cases the will which is at variance with erring reason or conscience is not evil. But this is unreasonable. For in matters of indifference, the will that is at variance with erring reason or conscience, is evil in some way on account of the object, on which the goodness or malice of the will depends; not indeed on account of the object according as it is in its own nature; but according as it is accidentally apprehended by reason as something evil to do or to avoid. And since the object of the will is that which is proposed by the reason, as stated above (Article 3), from the very fact that a thing is proposed by the reason as being evil, the will by tending thereto becomes evil. And this is the case not only in indifferent matters, but also in those that are good or evil in themselves. For not only indifferent matters can received the character of goodness or malice accidentally; but also that which is good, can receive the character of evil, or that which is evil, can receive the character of goodness, on account of the reason apprehending it as such. For instance, to refrain from fornication is good: yet the will does not tend to this good except in so far as it is proposed by the reason. If, therefore, the erring reason propose it as an evil, the will tends to it as to something evil. Consequently the will is evil, because it wills evil, not indeed that which is evil in itself, but that which is evil accidentally, through being apprehended as such by the reason. In like manner, to believe in Christ is good in itself, and necessary for salvation: but the will does not tend thereto, except inasmuch as it is proposed by the reason. Consequently if it be proposed by the reason as something evil, the will tends to it as to something evil: not as if it were evil in itself, but because it is evil accidentally, through the apprehension of the reason. Hence the Philosopher says (Ethic. vii, 9) that "properly speaking the incontinent man is one who does not follow right reason; but accidentally, he is also one who does not follow false reason." We must therefore conclude that, absolutely speaking, every will at variance with reason, whether right or erring, is always evil.
Iª-IIae q. 19 a. 5 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod iudicium rationis errantis licet non derivetur a Deo, tamen ratio errans iudicium suum proponit ut verum, et per consequens ut a Deo derivatum, a quo est omnis veritas.	Reply to Objection 1. Although the judgment of an erring reason is not derived from God, yet the erring reason puts forward its judgment as being true, and consequently as being derived from God, from Whom is all truth.
Iª-IIae q. 19 a. 5 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod verbum Augustini habet locum, quando cognoscitur quod inferior potestas praecipit aliquid contra praeceptum superioris potestatis. Sed si aliquis crederet quod praeceptum proconsulis esset praeceptum imperatoris, contemnendo praeceptum proconsulis, contemneret praeceptum imperatoris. Et similiter si aliquis homo cognosceret quod ratio humana dictaret aliquid contra praeceptum Dei, non teneretur rationem sequi, sed tunc ratio non totaliter esset errans. Sed quando ratio errans proponit aliquid ut praeceptum Dei, tunc idem est contemnere dictamen rationis, et Dei praeceptum.	Reply to Objection 2. The saying of Augustine holds good when it is known that the inferior authority prescribes something contrary to the command of the higher authority. But if a man were to believe the command of the proconsul to be the command of the emperor, in scorning the command of the proconsul he would scorn the command of the emperor. In like manner if a man were to know that human reason was dictating something contrary to God's commandment, he would not be bound to abide by reason: but then reason would not be entirely erroneous. But when erring reason proposes something as being commanded by God, then to scorn the dictate of reason is to scorn the commandment of God.
Iª-IIae q. 19 a. 5 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod ratio, quando apprehendit aliquid ut malum, semper apprehendit illud sub aliqua ratione mali, puta quia contrariatur divino praecepto, vel quia est scandalum, vel propter aliquid huiusmodi. Et tunc ad talem speciem malitiae reducitur talis mala voluntas.	Reply to Objection 3. Whenever reason apprehends something as evil, it apprehends it under some species of evil; for instance, as being something contrary to a divine precept, or as giving scandal, or for some such like reason. And then that evil is reduced to that species of malice.
Iª-IIae q. 19 a. 6 arg. 1 Ad sextum sic proceditur. Videtur quod voluntas concordans rationi erranti, sit bona. Sicut enim voluntas discordans a ratione tendit in id quod ratio iudicat malum; ita voluntas concordans rationi, tendit in id quod ratio iudicat bonum. Sed voluntas discordans a ratione, etiam errante, est mala. Ergo voluntas concordans rationi, etiam erranti, est bona.	Objection 1. It would seem that the will is good when it abides by erring reason. For just as the will, when at variance with the reason, tends to that which reason judges to be evil; so, when in accord with reason, it tends to what reason judges to be good. But the will is evil when it is at variance with reason, even when erring. Therefore even when it abides by erring reason, the will is good.
Iª-IIae q. 19 a. 6 arg. 2 Praeterea, voluntas concordans praecepto Dei et legi aeternae, semper est bona. Sed lex aeterna et praeceptum Dei proponitur nobis per apprehensionem rationis, etiam errantis. Ergo voluntas concordans etiam rationi erranti, est bona.	Objection 2. Further, the will is always good, when it abides by the commandment of God and the eternal law. But the eternal law and God's commandment are proposed to us by the apprehension of the reason, even when it errs. Therefore the will is good, even when it abides by erring reason.
Iª-IIae q. 19 a. 6 arg. 3 Praeterea, voluntas discordans a ratione errante, est mala. Si ergo voluntas concordans rationi erranti sit etiam mala, videtur quod omnis voluntas habentis rationem errantem, sit mala. Et sic talis homo erit perplexus, et ex necessitate peccabit, quod est inconveniens. Ergo voluntas concordans rationi erranti, est bona.	Objection 3. Further, the will is evil when it is at variance with erring reason. If, therefore, the will is evil also when it abides by erring reason, it seems that the will is always evil when in conjunction with erring reason: so that in such a case a man would be in a dilemma, and, of necessity, would sin: which is unreasonable. Therefore the will is good when it abides by erring reason.
Iª-IIae q. 19 a. 6 s. c. Sed contra, voluntas occidentium apostolos erat mala. Sed tamen concordabat rationi erranti ipsorum, secundum illud Ioan. XVI, venit hora, ut omnis qui interficit vos, arbitretur obsequium se praestare Deo. Ergo voluntas concordans rationi erranti, potest esse mala.	On the contrary, The will of those who slew the apostles was evil. And yet it was in accord with the erring reason, according to John 16:2: "The hour cometh, that whosoever killeth you, will think that he doth a service to God." Therefore the will can be evil, when it abides by erring reason.
Iª-IIae q. 19 a. 6 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut praemissa quaestio eadem est cum quaestione qua quaeritur utrum conscientia erronea liget; ita ista quaestio eadem est cum illa qua quaeritur utrum conscientia erronea excuset. Haec autem quaestio dependet ab eo quod supra de ignorantia dictum est. Dictum est enim supra quod ignorantia quandoque causat involuntarium, quandoque autem non. Et quia bonum et malum morale consistit in actu inquantum est voluntarius, ut ex praemissis patet; manifestum est quod illa ignorantia quae causat involuntarium, tollit rationem boni et mali moralis; non autem illa quae involuntarium non causat. Dictum est etiam supra quod ignorantia quae est aliquo modo volita, sive directe sive indirecte, non causat involuntarium. Et dico ignorantiam directe voluntariam, in quam actus voluntatis fertur, indirecte autem, propter negligentiam, ex eo quod aliquis non vult illud scire quod scire tenetur, ut supra dictum est. Si igitur ratio vel conscientia erret errore voluntario, vel directe, vel propter negligentiam, quia est error circa id quod quis scire tenetur; tunc talis error rationis vel conscientiae non excusat quin voluntas concordans rationi vel conscientiae sic erranti, sit mala. Si autem sit error qui causet involuntarium, proveniens ex ignorantia alicuius circumstantiae absque omni negligentia; tunc talis error rationis vel conscientiae excusat, ut voluntas concordans rationi erranti non sit mala. Puta, si ratio errans dicat quod homo teneatur ad uxorem alterius accedere, voluntas concordans huic rationi erranti est mala, eo quod error iste provenit ex ignorantia legis Dei, quam scire tenetur. Si autem ratio erret in hoc, quod credat aliquam mulierem submissam, esse suam uxorem, et, ea petente debitum, velit eam cognoscere; excusatur voluntas eius, ut non sit mala, quia error iste ex ignorantia circumstantiae provenit, quae excusat, et involuntarium causat.	I answer that, Whereas the previous question is the same as inquiring "whether an erring conscience binds"; so this question is the same as inquiring "whether an erring conscience excuses." Now this question depends on what has been said above about ignorance. For it was said (6, 8) that ignorance sometimes causes an act to be involuntary, and sometimes not. And since moral good and evil consist in action in so far as it is voluntary, as was stated above (Article 2); it is evident that when ignorance causes an act to be involuntary, it takes away the character of moral good and evil; but not, when it does not cause the act to be involuntary. Again, it has been stated above (Question 6, Article 8) that when ignorance is in any way willed, either directly or indirectly, it does not cause the act to be involuntary. And I call that ignorance "directly" voluntary, to which the act of the will tends: and that, "indirectly" voluntary, which is due to negligence, by reason of a man not wishing to know what he ought to know, as stated above (Question 6, Article 8). If then reason or conscience err with an error that is voluntary, either directly, or through negligence, so that one errs about what one ought to know; then such an error of reason or conscience does not excuse the will, that abides by that erring reason or conscience, from being evil. But if the error arise from ignorance of some circumstance, and without any negligence, so that it cause the act to be involuntary, then that error of reason or conscience excuses the will, that abides by that erring reason, from being evil. For instance, if erring reason tell a man that he should go to another man's wife, the will that abides by that erring reason is evil; since this error arises from ignorance of the Divine Law, which he is bound to know. But if a man's reason, errs in mistaking another for his wife, and if he wish to give her her right when she asks for it, his will is excused from being evil: because this error arises from ignorance of a circumstance, which ignorance excuses, and causes the act to be involuntary.
Iª-IIae q. 19 a. 6 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, sicut Dionysius dicit in IV cap. de Div. Nom., bonum causatur ex integra causa, malum autem ex singularibus defectibus. Et ideo ad hoc quod dicatur malum id in quod fertur voluntas, sufficit sive quod secundum suam naturam sit malum, sive quod apprehendatur ut malum. Sed ad hoc quod sit bonum, requiritur quod utroque modo sit bonum.	Reply to Objection 1. As Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv), "good results from the entire cause, evil from each particular defect." Consequently in order that the thing to which the will tends be called evil, it suffices, either that it be evil in itself, or that it be apprehended as evil. But in order for it to be good, it must be good in both ways.
Iª-IIae q. 19 a. 6 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod lex aeterna errare non potest, sed ratio humana potest errare. Et ideo voluntas concordans rationi humanae non semper est recta, nec semper est concordans legis aeternae.	Reply to Objection 2. The eternal law cannot err, but human reason can. Consequently the will that abides by human reason, is not always right, nor is it always in accord with the eternal law.
Iª-IIae q. 19 a. 6 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut in syllogisticis, uno inconvenienti dato, necesse est alia sequi; ita in moralibus, uno inconvenienti posito, ex necessitate alia sequuntur. Sicut, supposito quod aliquis quaerat inanem gloriam, sive propter inanem gloriam faciat quod facere tenetur, sive dimittat, peccabit. Nec tamen est perplexus, quia potest intentionem malam dimittere. Et similiter, supposito errore rationis vel conscientiae qui procedit ex ignorantia non excusante, necesse est quod sequatur malum in voluntate. Nec tamen est homo perplexus, quia potest ab errore recedere, cum ignorantia sit vincibilis et voluntaria.	Reply to Objection 3. Just as in syllogistic arguments, granted one absurdity, others must needs follow; so in moral matters, given one absurdity, others must follow too. Thus suppose a man to seek vainglory, he will sin, whether he does his duty for vainglory or whether he omit to do it. Nor is he in a dilemma about the matter: because he can put aside his evil intention. In like manner, suppose a man's reason or conscience to err through inexcusable ignorance, then evil must needs result in the will. Nor is this man in a dilemma: because he can lay aside his error, since his ignorance is vincible and voluntary.
Iª-IIae q. 19 a. 7 arg. 1 Ad septimum sic proceditur. Videtur quod bonitas voluntatis non dependeat ex intentione finis. Dictum est enim supra quod bonitas voluntatis dependet ex solo obiecto. Sed in his quae sunt ad finem, aliud est obiectum voluntatis, et aliud finis intentus. Ergo in talibus bonitas voluntatis non dependet ab intentione finis.	Objection 1. It would seem that the goodness of the will does not depend on the intention of the end. For it has been stated above (Article 2) that the goodness of the will depends on the object alone. But as regards the means, the object of the will is one thing, and the end intended is another. Therefore in such matters the goodness of the will does not depend on the intention of the end.
Iª-IIae q. 19 a. 7 arg. 2 Praeterea, velle servare mandatum Dei, pertinet ad voluntatem bonam. Sed hoc potest referri ad malum finem, scilicet ad finem inanis gloriae, vel cupiditatis, dum aliquis vult obedire Deo propter temporalia consequenda. Ergo bonitas voluntatis non dependet ab intentione finis.	Objection 2. Further, to wish to keep God's commandment, belongs to a good will. But this can be referred to an evil end, for instance, to vainglory or covetousness, by willing to obey God for the sake of temporal gain. Therefore the goodness of the will does not depend on the intention of the end.
Iª-IIae q. 19 a. 7 arg. 3 Praeterea, bonum et malum, sicut diversificant voluntatem, ita diversificant finem. Sed malitia voluntatis non dependet a malitia finis intenti, qui enim vult furari ut det eleemosynam, voluntatem malam habet, licet intendat finem bonum. Ergo etiam bonitas voluntatis non dependet a bonitate finis intenti.	Objection 3. Further, just as good and evil diversify the will, so do they diversify the end. But malice of the will does not depend on the malice of the end intended; since a man who wills to steal in order to give alms, has an evil will, although he intends a good end. Therefore neither does the goodness of the will depend on the goodness of the end intended.
Iª-IIae q. 19 a. 7 s. c. Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, IX Confess., quod intentio remuneratur a Deo. Sed ex eo aliquid remuneratur a Deo, quia est bonum. Ergo bonitas voluntatis ex intentione finis dependet.	On the contrary, Augustine says (Confess. ix, 3) that God rewards the intention. But God rewards a thing because it is good. Therefore the goodness of the will depends on the intention of the end.
Iª-IIae q. 19 a. 7 co. Respondeo dicendum quod intentio dupliciter se potest habere ad voluntatem, uno modo, ut praecedens; alio modo, ut concomitans. Praecedit quidem causaliter intentio voluntatem, quando aliquid volumus propter intentionem alicuius finis. Et tunc ordo ad finem consideratur ut ratio quaedam bonitatis ipsius voliti, puta cum aliquis vult ieiunare propter Deum, habet enim ieiunium rationem boni ex hoc ipso quod fit propter Deum. Unde, cum bonitas voluntatis dependeat a bonitate voliti, ut supra dictum est, necesse est quod dependeat ex intentione finis. Consequitur autem intentio voluntatem, quando accedit voluntati praeexistenti, puta si aliquis velit aliquid facere, et postea referat illud in Deum. Et tunc primae voluntatis bonitas non dependet ex intentione sequenti, nisi quatenus reiteratur actus voluntatis cum sequenti intentione.	I answer that, The intention may stand in a twofold relation to the act of the will; first, as preceding it, secondly as following [Leonine edn.: 'accompanying'] it. The intention precedes the act of the will causally, when we will something because we intend a certain end. And then the order to the end is considered as the reason of the goodness of the thing willed: for instance, when a man wills to fast for God's sake; because the act of fasting is specifically good from the very fact that it is done for God's sake. Wherefore, since the goodness of the will depends on the goodness of the thing willed, as stated above (1,2), it must, of necessity, depend on the intention of the end. On the other hand, intention follows the act of the will, when it is added to a preceding act of the will; for instance, a man may will to do something, and may afterwards refer it to God. And then the goodness of the previous act of the will does not depend on the subsequent intention, except in so far as that act is repeated with the subsequent intention.
Iª-IIae q. 19 a. 7 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, quando intentio est causa volendi, ordo ad finem accipitur ut quaedam ratio bonitatis in obiecto, ut dictum est.	Reply to Objection 1. When the intention is the cause of the act of willing, the order to the end is considered as the reason of the goodness of the object, as stated above.
Iª-IIae q. 19 a. 7 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod voluntas non potest dici bona, si sit intentio mala causa volendi. Qui enim vult dare eleemosynam propter inanem gloriam consequendam, vult id quod de se est bonum, sub ratione mali, et ideo, prout est volitum ab ipso, est malum. Unde voluntas eius est mala. Sed si intentio sit consequens, tunc voluntas potuit esse bona, et per intentionem sequentem non depravatur ille actus voluntatis qui praecessit, sed actus voluntatis qui iteratur.	Reply to Objection 2. The act of the will cannot be said to be good, if an evil intention is the cause of willing. For when a man wills to give an alms for the sake of vainglory, he wills that which is good in itself, under a species of evil; and therefore, as willed by him, it is evil. Wherefore his will is evil. If, however, the intention is subsequent to the act of the will, then the latter may be good: and the intention does not spoil that act of the will which preceded, but that which is repeated.
Iª-IIae q. 19 a. 7 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut iam dictum est, malum contingit ex singularibus defectibus, bonum vero ex tota et integra causa. Unde sive voluntas sit eius quod est secundum se malum, etiam sub ratione boni; sive sit boni sub ratione mali; semper voluntas erit mala. Sed ad hoc quod sit voluntas bona, requiritur quod sit boni sub ratione boni; idest quod velit bonum, et propter bonum.	Reply to Objection 3. As we have already stated (06, ad 1), "evil results from each particular defect, but good from the whole and entire cause." Hence, whether the will tend to what is evil in itself, even under the species of good; or to the good under the species of evil, it will be evil in either case. But in order for the will to be good, it must tend to the good under the species of good; in other words, it must will the good for the sake of the good.
Iª-IIae q. 19 a. 8 arg. 1 Ad octavum sic proceditur. Videtur quod quantitas bonitatis in voluntate, dependeat ex quantitate bonitatis in intentione. Quia super illud Matth. XII, bonus homo de thesauro bono cordis sui profert bona, dicit Glossa, tantum boni quis facit, quantum intendit. Sed intentio non solum dat bonitatem actui exteriori, sed etiam voluntati, ut dictum est. Ergo tantum aliquis habet bonam voluntatem, quantum intendit.	Objection 1. It would seem that the degree of goodness in the will depends on the degree of good in the intention. Because on Matthew 12:35, "A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good," a gloss says: "A man does as much good as he intends." But the intention gives goodness not only to the external action, but also to the act of the will, as stated above (Article 7). Therefore the goodness of a man's will is according to the goodness of his intention.
Iª-IIae q. 19 a. 8 arg. 2 Praeterea, augmentata causa, augmentatur effectus. Sed intentionis bonitas est causa bonae voluntatis. Ergo quantum quis intendit de bono, tantum voluntas est bona.	Objection 2. Further, if you add to the cause, you add to the effect. But the goodness of the intention is the cause of the good will. Therefore a man's will is good, according as his intention is good.
Iª-IIae q. 19 a. 8 arg. 3 Praeterea, in malis quantum aliquis intendit, tantum peccat, si enim aliquis proiiciens lapidem, intenderet facere homicidium, reus esset homicidii. Ergo, pari ratione, in bonis tantum est bona voluntas, quantum aliquis bonum intendit.	Objection 3. Further, in evil actions, a man sins in proportion to his intention: for if a man were to throw a stone with a murderous intention, he would be guilty of murder. Therefore, for the same reason, in good actions, the will is good in proportion to the good intended.
Iª-IIae q. 19 a. 8 s. c. Sed contra, potest esse intentio bona, et voluntas mala. Ergo, pari ratione, potest esse intentio magis bona, et voluntas minus bona.	On the contrary, The intention can be good, while the will is evil. Therefore, for the same reason, the intention can be better, and the will less good.
Iª-IIae q. 19 a. 8 co. Respondeo dicendum quod circa actum et intentionem finis, duplex quantitas potest considerari, una ex parte obiecti, quia vult maius bonum, vel agit; alia ex intensione actus, quia intense vult vel agit, quod est maius ex parte agentis. Si igitur loquamur de quantitate utriusque quantum ad obiectum, manifestum est quod quantitas actus non sequitur quantitatem intentionis. Quod quidem ex parte actus exterioris, contingere potest dupliciter. Uno modo, quia obiectum quod ordinatur ad finem intentum, non est proportionatum fini illi, sicut si quis daret decem libras, non posset consequi suam intentionem, si intenderet emere rem valentem centum libras. Alio modo, propter impedimenta quae supervenire possunt circa exteriorem actum, quae non est in potestate nostra removere, puta, aliquis intendit ire usque Romam, et occurrunt ei impedimenta, quod non potest hoc facere. Sed ex parte interioris actus voluntatis, non est nisi uno modo, quia interiores actus voluntatis sunt in potestate nostra, non autem exteriores actus. Sed voluntas potest velle aliquod obiectum non proportionatum fini intento, et sic voluntas quae fertur in illud obiectum absolute consideratum, non est tantum bona, quantum est intentio. Sed quia etiam ipsa intentio quodammodo pertinet ad actum voluntatis, inquantum scilicet est ratio eius; propter hoc redundat quantitas bonae intentionis in voluntatem, inquantum scilicet voluntas vult aliquod bonum magnum ut finem, licet illud per quod vult consequi tantum bonum, non sit dignum illo bono. Si vero consideretur quantitas intentionis et actus secundum intensionem utriusque, sic intensio intentionis redundat in actum interiorem et exteriorem voluntatis, quia ipsa intentio quodammodo se habet formaliter ad utrumque, ut ex supra dictis patet. Licet materialiter, intentione existente intensa, possit esse actus interior vel exterior non ita intensus, materialiter loquendo, puta cum aliquis non ita intense vult medicinam sumere, sicut vult sanitatem. Tamen hoc ipsum quod est intense intendere sanitatem, redundat formaliter in hoc quod est intense velle medicinam. Sed tamen hoc est considerandum, quod intensio actus interioris vel exterioris potest referri ad intentionem ut obiectum, puta cum aliquis intendit intense velle, vel aliquid intense operari. Et tamen non propter hoc intense vult vel operatur, quia quantitatem boni intenti non sequitur bonitas actus interioris vel exterioris, ut dictum est. Et inde est quod non quantum aliquis intendit mereri, meretur, quia quantitas meriti consistit in intensione actus, ut infra dicetur.	I answer that, In regard to both the act, and the intention of the end, we may consider a twofold quantity: one, on the part of the object, by reason of a man willing or doing a good that is greater; the other, taken from the intensity of the act, according as a man wills or acts intensely; and this is more on the part of the agent. If then we speak of these respective quantities from the point of view of the object, it is evident that the quantity in the act does not depend on the quantity in the intention. With regard to the external act this may happen in two ways. First, through the object that is ordained to the intended end not being proportionate to that end; for instance, if a man were to give ten pounds, he could not realize his intention, if he intended to buy a thing worth a hundred pounds. Secondly, on account of the obstacles that may supervene in regard to the exterior action, which obstacles we are unable to remove: for instance, a man intends to go to Rome, and encounters obstacles, which prevent him from going. On the other hand, with regard to the interior act of the will, this happens in only one way: because the interior acts of the will are in our power, whereas the external actions are not. But the will can will an object that is not proportionate to the intended end: and thus the will that tends to that object considered absolutely, is not so good as the intention. Yet because the intention also belongs, in a way, to the act of the will, inasmuch, to wit, as it is the reason thereof; it comes to pass that the quantity of goodness in the intention redounds upon the act of the will; that is to say, in so far as the will wills some great good for an end, although that by which it wills to gain so great a good, is not proportionate to that good. But if we consider the quantity in the intention and in the act, according to their respective intensity, then the intensity of the intention redounds upon the interior act and the exterior act of the will: since the intention stands in relation to them as a kind of form, as is clear from what has been said above (12, 4; 18, 6). And yet considered materially, while the intention is intense, the interior or exterior act may be not so intense, materially speaking: for instance, when a man does not will with as much intensity to take medicine as he wills to regain health. Nevertheless the very fact of intending health intensely, redounds, as a formal principle, upon the intense volition of medicine. We must observe, however, that the intensity of the interior or exterior act, may be referred to the intention as its object: as when a man intends to will intensely, or to do something intensely. And yet it does not follow that he wills or acts intensely; because the quantity of goodness in the interior or exterior act does not depend on the quantity of the good intended, as is shown above. And hence it is that a man does not merit as much as he intends to merit: because the quantity of merit is measured by the intensity of the act, as we shall show later on (20, 04; 114, 4).
Iª-IIae q. 19 a. 8 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Glossa illa loquitur quantum ad reputationem Dei, qui praecipue considerat intentionem finis. Unde alia Glossa dicit ibidem quod thesaurus cordis intentio est, ex qua Deus iudicat opera. Bonitas enim intentionis, ut dictum est, redundat quodammodo in bonitatem voluntatis, quae facit etiam exteriorem actum meritorium apud Deum.	Reply to Objection 1. This gloss speaks of good as in the estimation of God, Who considers principally the intention of the end. Wherefore another gloss says on the same passage that "the treasure of the heart is the intention, according to which God judges our works." For the goodness of the intention, as stated above, redounds, so to speak, upon the goodness of the will, which makes even the external act to be meritorious in God's sight.
Iª-IIae q. 19 a. 8 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod bonitas intentionis non est tota causa bonae voluntatis. Unde ratio non sequitur.	Reply to Objection 2. The goodness of the intention is not the whole cause of a good will. Hence the argument does not prove.
Iª-IIae q. 19 a. 8 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod sola malitia intentionis sufficit ad malitiam voluntatis, et ideo etiam quantum mala est intentio, tantum mala est voluntas. Sed non est eadem ratio de bonitate, ut dictum est.	Reply to Objection 3. The mere malice of the intention suffices to make the will evil: and therefore too, the will is as evil as the intention is evil. But the same reasoning does not apply to goodness, as stated above (ad 2).
Iª-IIae q. 19 a. 9 arg. 1 Ad nonum sic proceditur. Videtur quod bonitas voluntatis humanae non dependeat ex conformitate voluntatis divinae. Impossibile est enim voluntatem hominis conformari voluntati divinae, ut patet per id quod dicitur Isaiae LV, sicut exaltantur caeli a terra, ita exaltatae sunt viae meae a viis vestris, et cogitationes meae a cogitationibus vestris. Si ergo ad bonitatem voluntatis requireretur conformitas ad divinam voluntatem, sequeretur quod impossibile esset hominis voluntatem esse bonam. Quod est inconveniens.	Objection 1. It would seem that the goodness of the human will does not depend on its conformity to the Divine will. Because it is impossible for man's will to be conformed to the Divine will; as appears from the word of Isaiah 55:9: "As the heavens are exalted above the earth, so are My ways exalted above your ways, and My thoughts above your thoughts." If therefore goodness of the will depended on its conformity to the Divine will, it would follow that it is impossible for man's will to be good. Which is inadmissible.
Iª-IIae q. 19 a. 9 arg. 2 Praeterea, sicut voluntas nostra derivatur a voluntate divina, ita scientia nostra derivatur a scientia divina. Sed non requiritur ad scientiam nostram quod sit conformis scientiae divinae, multa enim Deus scit quae nos ignoramus. Ergo non requiritur quod voluntas nostra sit conformis voluntati divinae.	Objection 2. Further, just as our wills arise from the Divine will, so does our knowledge flow from the Divine knowledge. But our knowledge does not require to be conformed to God's knowledge; since God knows many things that we know not. Therefore there is no need for our will to be conformed to the Divine will.
Iª-IIae q. 19 a. 9 arg. 3 Praeterea, voluntas est actionis principium. Sed actio nostra non potest conformari actioni divinae. Ergo nec voluntas voluntati.	Objection 3. Further, the will is a principle of action. But our action cannot be conformed to God's. Therefore neither can our will be conformed to His.
Iª-IIae q. 19 a. 9 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicitur Matth. XXVI, non sicut ego volo, sed sicut tu vis, quod dicit quia rectum vult esse hominem, et ad Deum dirigi, ut Augustinus exponit in Enchirid. Rectitudo autem voluntatis est bonitas eius. Ergo bonitas voluntatis dependet ex conformitate ad voluntatem divinam.	On the contrary, It is written (Matthew 26:39): "Not as I will, but as Thou wilt": which words He said, because "He wishes man to be upright and to tend to God," as Augustine expounds in the Enchiridion [Enarr. in Ps. 32, serm. i.]. But the rectitude of the will is its goodness. Therefore the goodness of the will depends on its conformity to the Divine will.
Iª-IIae q. 19 a. 9 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, bonitas voluntatis dependet ex intentione finis. Finis autem ultimus voluntatis humanae est summum bonum, quod est Deus, ut supra dictum est. Requiritur ergo ad bonitatem humanae voluntatis, quod ordinetur ad summum bonum, quod est Deus. Hoc autem bonum primo quidem et per se comparatur ad voluntatem divinam ut obiectum proprium eius. Illud autem quod est primum in quolibet genere, est mensura et ratio omnium quae sunt illius generis. Unumquodque autem rectum et bonum est, inquantum attingit ad propriam mensuram. Ergo ad hoc quod voluntas hominis sit bona, requiritur quod conformetur voluntati divinae.	I answer that, As stated above (Article 7), the goodness of the will depends on the intention of the end. Now the last end of the human will is the Sovereign Good, namely, God, as stated above (1, 8; 3, 1). Therefore the goodness of the human will requires it to be ordained to the Sovereign Good, that is, to God. Now this Good is primarily and essentially compared to the Divine will, as its proper object. Again, that which is first in any genus is the measure and rule of all that belongs to that genus. Moreover, everything attains to rectitude and goodness, in so far as it is in accord with its proper measure. Therefore, in order that man's will be good it needs to be conformed to the Divine will.
Iª-IIae q. 19 a. 9 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod voluntas hominis non potest conformari voluntati divinae per aequiparantiam, sed per imitationem. Et similiter conformatur scientia hominis scientiae divinae, inquantum cognoscit verum. Et actio hominis actioni divinae, inquantum est agenti conveniens. Et hoc per imitationem, non autem per aequiparantiam.	Reply to Objection 1. The human will cannot be conformed to the will of God so as to equal it, but only so as to imitate it. In like manner human knowledge is conformed to the Divine knowledge, in so far as it knows truth: and human action is conformed to the Divine, in so far as it is becoming to the agent: and this by way of imitation, not by way of equality.
Iª-IIae q. 19 a. 9 ad 2 Unde patet solutio ad secundum, et ad tertium argumentum.	From the above may be gathered the replies to the Second and Third Objections.
Iª-IIae q. 19 a. 10 arg. 1 Ad decimum sic proceditur. Videtur quod voluntas hominis non debeat semper conformari divinae voluntati in volito. Non enim possumus velle quod ignoramus, bonum enim apprehensum est obiectum voluntatis. Sed quid Deus velit, ignoramus in plurimis. Ergo non potest humana voluntas divinae voluntati conformari in volito.	Objection 1. It would seem that the human will need not always be conformed to the Divine will, as regards the thing willed. For we cannot will what we know not: since the apprehended good is the object of the will. But in many things we know not what God wills. Therefore the human will cannot be conformed to the Divine will as to the thing willed.
Iª-IIae q. 19 a. 10 arg. 2 Praeterea, Deus vult damnare aliquem, quem praescit in mortali peccato moriturum. Si ergo homo teneretur conformare voluntatem suam divinae voluntati in volito, sequeretur quod homo teneretur velle suam damnationem. Quod est inconveniens.	Objection 2. Further, God wills to damn the man whom He foresees about to die in mortal sin. If therefore man were bound to conform his will to the Divine will, in the point of the thing willed, it would follow that a man is bound to will his own damnation. Which is inadmissible.
Iª-IIae q. 19 a. 10 arg. 3 Praeterea, nullus tenetur velle aliquid quod est contra pietatem. Sed si homo vellet illud quod Deus vult, hoc esset quandoque contra pietatem, puta, cum Deus vult mori patrem alicuius, si filius hoc idem vellet, contra pietatem esset. Ergo non tenetur homo conformare voluntatem suam voluntati divinae in volito.	Objection 3. Further, no one is bound to will what is against filial piety. But if man were to will what God wills, this would sometimes be contrary to filial piety: for instance, when God wills the death of a father: if his son were to will it also, it would be against filial piety. Therefore man is not bound to conform his will to the Divine will, as to the thing willed.
Iª-IIae q. 19 a. 10 s. c. 1 Sed contra est quia super illud Psalmi XXXII, rectos decet collaudatio, dicit Glossa, rectum cor habet qui vult quod Deus vult. Sed quilibet tenetur habere rectum cor. Ergo quilibet tenetur velle quod Deus vult.	On the contrary, (1) On Psalm 32:1, "Praise becometh the upright," a gloss says: "That man has an upright heart, who wills what God wills." But everyone is bound to have an upright heart. Therefore everyone is bound to will what God wills.
Iª-IIae q. 19 a. 10 s. c. 2 Praeterea, forma voluntatis est ex obiecto sicut et cuiuslibet actus. Si ergo tenetur homo conformare voluntatem suam voluntati divinae, sequitur quod teneatur conformare in volito.	(2) Moreover, the will takes its form from the object, as does every act. If therefore man is bound to conform his will to the Divine will, it follows that he is bound to conform it, as to the thing willed.
Iª-IIae q. 19 a. 10 s. c. 3 Praeterea, repugnantia voluntatum consistit in hoc, quod homines diversa volunt. Sed quicumque habet voluntatem repugnantem divinae voluntati, habet malam voluntatem. Ergo quicumque non conformat voluntatem suam voluntati divinae in volito, habet malam voluntatem.	(3) Moreover, opposition of wills arises from men willing different things. But whoever has a will in opposition to the Divine will, has an evil will. Therefore whoever does not conform his will to the Divine will, as to the thing willed, has an evil will.
Iª-IIae q. 19 a. 10 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut ex praedictis patet, voluntas fertur in suum obiectum secundum quod a ratione proponitur. Contingit autem aliquid a ratione considerari diversimode, ita quod sub una ratione est bonum, et secundum aliam rationem non bonum. Et ideo voluntas alicuius, si velit illud esse, secundum quod habet rationem boni, est bona, et voluntas alterius, si velit illud idem non esse, secundum quod habet rationem mali, erit voluntas etiam bona. Sicut iudex habet bonam voluntatem, dum vult occisionem latronis, quia iusta est, voluntas autem alterius, puta uxoris vel filii, qui non vult occidi ipsum, inquantum est secundum naturam mala occisio, est etiam bona. Cum autem voluntas sequatur apprehensionem rationis vel intellectus, secundum quod ratio boni apprehensi fuerit communior, secundum hoc et voluntas fertur in bonum communius. Sicut patet in exemplo proposito, nam iudex habet curam boni communis, quod est iustitia, et ideo vult occisionem latronis, quae habet rationem boni secundum relationem ad statum communem; uxor autem latronis considerare habet bonum privatum familiae, et secundum hoc vult maritum latronem non occidi. Bonum autem totius universi est id quod est apprehensum a Deo, qui est universi factor et gubernator, unde quidquid vult, vult sub ratione boni communis, quod est sua bonitas, quae est bonum totius universi. Apprehensio autem creaturae, secundum suam naturam, est alicuius boni particularis proportionati suae naturae. Contingit autem aliquid esse bonum secundum rationem particularem, quod non est bonum secundum rationem universalem, aut e converso, ut dictum est. Et ideo contingit quod aliqua voluntas est bona volens aliquid secundum rationem particularem consideratum, quod tamen Deus non vult secundum rationem universalem, et e converso. Et inde est etiam quod possunt diversae voluntates diversorum hominum circa opposita esse bonae, prout sub diversis rationibus particularibus volunt hoc esse vel non esse. Non est autem recta voluntas alicuius hominis volentis aliquod bonum particulare, nisi referat illud in bonum commune sicut in finem, cum etiam naturalis appetitus cuiuslibet partis ordinetur in bonum commune totius. Ex fine autem sumitur quasi formalis ratio volendi illud quod ad finem ordinatur. Unde ad hoc quod aliquis recta voluntate velit aliquod particulare bonum, oportet quod illud particulare bonum sit volitum materialiter, bonum autem commune divinum sit volitum formaliter. Voluntas igitur humana tenetur conformari divinae voluntati in volito formaliter, tenetur enim velle bonum divinum et commune, sed non materialiter, ratione iam dicta. Sed tamen quantum ad utrumque, aliquo modo voluntas humana conformatur voluntati divinae. Quia secundum quod conformatur voluntati divinae in communi ratione voliti, conformatur ei in fine ultimo. Secundum autem quod non conformatur ei in volito materialiter, conformatur ei secundum rationem causae efficientis, quia hanc propriam inclinationem consequentem naturam, vel apprehensionem particularem huius rei, habet res a Deo sicut a causa effectiva. Unde consuevit dici quod conformatur, quantum ad hoc, voluntas hominis voluntati divinae, quia vult hoc quod Deus vult eum velle. Est et alius modus conformitatis secundum rationem causae formalis, ut scilicet homo velit aliquid ex caritate, sicut Deus vult. Et ista etiam conformitas reducitur ad conformitatem formalem quae attenditur ex ordine ad ultimum finem, quod est proprium obiectum caritatis.	I answer that, As is evident from what has been said above (3,5), the will tends to its object, according as it is proposed by the reason. Now a thing may be considered in various ways by the reason, so as to appear good from one point of view, and not good from another point of view. And therefore if a man's will wills a thing to be, according as it appears to be good, his will is good: and the will of another man, who wills that thing not to be, according as it appears evil, is also good. Thus a judge has a good will, in willing a thief to be put to death, because this is just: while the will of another--e.g. the thief's wife or son, who wishes him not to be put to death, inasmuch as killing is a natural evil, is also good. Now since the will follows the apprehension of the reason or intellect; the more universal the aspect of the apprehended good, the more universal the good to which the will tends. This is evident in the example given above: because the judge has care of the common good, which is justice, and therefore he wishes the thief's death, which has the aspect of good in relation to the common estate; whereas the thief's wife has to consider the private, the good of the family, and from this point of view she wishes her husband, the thief, not to be put to death. Now the good of the whole universe is that which is apprehended by God, Who is the Maker and Governor of all things: hence whatever He wills, He wills it under the aspect of the common good; this is His own Goodness, which is the good of the whole universe. On the other hand, the apprehension of a creature, according to its nature, is of some particular good, proportionate to that nature. Now a thing may happen to be good under a particular aspect, and yet not good under a universal aspect, or vice versa, as stated above. And therefore it comes to pass that a certain will is good from willing something considered under a particular aspect, which thing God wills not, under a universal aspect, and vice versa. And hence too it is, that various wills of various men can be good in respect of opposite things, for as much as, under various aspects, they wish a particular thing to be or not to be. But a man's will is not right in willing a particular good, unless he refer it to the common good as an end: since even the natural appetite of each part is ordained to the common good of the whole. Now it is the end that supplies the formal reason, as it were, of willing whatever is directed to the end. Consequently, in order that a man will some particular good with a right will, he must will that particular good materially, and the Divine and universal good, formally. Therefore the human will is bound to be conformed to the Divine will, as to that which is willed formally, for it is bound to will the Divine and universal good; but not as to that which is willed materially, for the reason given above. At the same time in both these respects, the human will is conformed to the Divine, in a certain degree. Because inasmuch as it is conformed to the Divine will in the common aspect of the thing willed, it is conformed thereto in the point of the last end. While, inasmuch as it is not conformed to the Divine will in the thing willed materially, it is conformed to that will considered as efficient cause; since the proper inclination consequent to nature, or to the particular apprehension of some particular thing, comes to a thing from God as its efficient cause. Hence it is customary to say that a man's will, in this respect, is conformed to the Divine will, because it wills what God wishes him to will. There is yet another kind of conformity in respect of the formal cause, consisting in man's willing something from charity, as God wills it. And this conformity is also reduced to the formal conformity, that is in respect of the last end, which is the proper object of charity.
Iª-IIae q. 19 a. 10 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod volitum divinum, secundum rationem communem, quale sit, scire possumus. Scimus enim quod Deus quidquid vult, vult sub ratione boni. Et ideo quicumque vult aliquid sub quacumque ratione boni, habet voluntatem conformem voluntati divinae, quantum ad rationem voliti. Sed in particulari nescimus quid Deus velit. Et quantum ad hoc, non tenemur conformare voluntatem nostram divinae voluntati. In statu tamen gloriae, omnes videbunt in singulis quae volent, ordinem eorum ad id quod Deus circa hoc vult. Et ideo non solum formaliter, sed materialiter in omnibus suam voluntatem Deo conformabunt.	Reply to Objection 1. We can know in a general way what God wills. For we know that whatever God wills, He wills it under the aspect of good. Consequently whoever wills a thing under any aspect of good, has a will conformed to the Divine will, as to the reason of the thing willed. But we know not what God wills in particular: and in this respect we are not bound to conform our will to the Divine will. But in the state of glory, every one will see in each thing that he wills, the relation of that thing to what God wills in that particular matter.
Iª-IIae q. 19 a. 10 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod Deus non vult damnationem alicuius sub ratione damnationis, nec mortem alicuius inquantum est mors, quia ipse vult omnes homines salvos fieri, sed vult ista sub ratione iustitiae. Unde sufficit circa talia quod homo velit iustitiam Dei, et ordinem naturae servari.	Reply to Objection 2. God does not will the damnation of a man, considered precisely as damnation, nor a man's death, considered precisely as death, because, "He wills all men to be saved" (1 Timothy 2:4); but He wills such things under the aspect of justice. Wherefore in regard to such things it suffices for man to will the upholding of God's justice and of the natural order.
Iª-IIae q. 19 a. 10 ad 3 Unde patet solutio ad tertium.	Wherefore the reply to the Third Objection is evident.
Iª-IIae q. 19 a. 10 ad 4 Ad primum vero quod in contrarium obiiciebatur, dicendum quod magis vult quod Deus vult, qui conformat voluntatem suam voluntati divinae quantum ad rationem voliti, quam qui conformat quantum ad ipsam rem volitam, quia voluntas principalius fertur in finem, quam in id quod est ad finem.	To the first argument advanced in a contrary sense, it should be said that a man who conforms his will to God's, in the aspect of reason of the thing willed, wills what God wills, more than the man, who conforms his will to God's, in the point of the very thing willed; because the will tends more to the end, than to that which is on account of the end.
Iª-IIae q. 19 a. 10 ad 5 Ad secundum dicendum quod species et forma actus magis attenditur secundum rationem obiecti, quam secundum id quod est materiale in obiecto.	To the second, it must be replied that the species and form of an act are taken from the object considered formally, rather than from the object considered materially.
Iª-IIae q. 19 a. 10 ad 6 Ad tertium dicendum quod non est repugnantia voluntatum, quando aliqui diversa volunt non secundum eandem rationem. Sed si sub una ratione esset aliquid ab uno volitum, quod alius nollet, hoc induceret repugnantiam voluntatum. Quod tamen non est in proposito.	To the third, it must be said that there is no opposition of wills when several people desire different things, but not under the same aspect: but there is opposition of wills, when under one and the same aspect, one man wills a thing which another wills not. But there is no question of this here.