Internal and External Acts; The Morality of Emotions

Ethics INTRODUCTION: Moral evaluations pertain to things that we do. When we think of human actions that are subject to moral appraisal, we tend to think of them as primarily consisting of outward performances or what Aquinas calls external acts. It is wrong to cheat on exams, steal, and perform torture. But restricting moral evaluations solely to our external actions leaves a whole array of human performances untouched. Along with our external acts, we also execute a number of inward performances or what Aquinas calls internal acts . We have wants, desires, form beliefs, and ultimately form intentions or will to perform external acts. All of these internal acts can be subject to moral evaluation. (This is why we confess that they have sinned against God in ‘thought, word and deed.’) In the assigned reading, Aquinas focuses on the internal act of willing . When acting voluntarily, we execute outward performances only because we will to do so. As a result, it is tempting to think that when we are morally evaluating human behaviors, we are really just evaluating internal acts, - i.e. what we want, desire, and ultimately will to do. But is this really the case? Is forming the intention to cheat on an exam just as wrong as the actual cheating? As we will see, Aquinas makes several key distinctions that will help us to answer this question. Also, suppose that that our internal acts such as our intentions and attitudes are subject to moral appraisal. Is the same true for our emotions? Are our emotions exempt from moral appraisal or are we responsible for them as well? If so, to what degree are we responsible for them? It is commonly said that we “cannot help the way we feel.” This statement implies that we are not responsible for our emotions because they are out of our control. That is, although they may be disordered, they are merely sinful, and not morally wrong, because they are not voluntary. Is this true? Do we have the requisite control over our emotions to make them proper objects of moral appraisal? In the assigned reading, Aquinas once again provides a helpful distinction that helps to explain when and why we are responsible for our emotions. He also clarifies when our emotions affect the moral goodness or badness of our actions. Jensen helps us to further think about the proper relation between our emotions and reason. ASSIGNED READING:  On Evil, Q.II, A.2, ‘Does Sin Consist Solely of the Will’s Act?’, pp. 95-100 - focus on Objections 6, and 8, the Answer , and Replies to Objections 6 and 8  Stephen Jensen, “On Reason and the Emotions” [Canvas]  On Evil, Q. III, A. 11, “Does Weakness Make Sin Less or More Serious?” (pp. 175-176) - focus on the Answer and Objections 1 & 3 REFLECTION QUESTIONS: 1) What was the most important thing that you learned from our previous class session? Why do you find this important?

The definition of evil and good and the conditions that a human act must meet in order to be the proper object of moral evaluation. 2) What is one question you have that stems from the previous class session or reading? Clarification of species. READING QUESTIONS: 1) According to Aquinas, is the person who plans a murder, but never has the opportunity to carry it out more or less to blame than the person who plans and commits a murder? Why? According to Aquinas, both the person who plans and commit the murder are equally to blame. This is because the intention to commit murder and the act of committing a murder are both considered evil. 2) According to Jensen, what is the role of reason in ethics? Reason plays a critical role in ethics, as it is the vehicle by which we as humans are able to reconcile what is good or evil in various acts. 3) Explain Jensen’s account of rationalization. Jensen states that rationalization is when you attempt to “soothe” your conscience with quasi-moral justifications. He states that rationalization is a means of deception, as you are engaging in faux-reasoning to at least give the appearance of following moral judgements. Jensen claims that rationalization has 3 steps: 1) recognizing what is truly right & wrong; 2) we desire what is wrong; and, 3) we come up with quasi-moral reasons to follow our evil desires. 4) Explain Jensen’s account of the relation between reason and emotions. Jensen states that reason is a “knowing power”—taking in the world, perceiving the way things are. Emotions are an “appetite”—they do not take in the world, but move out to it. He explains that anger is a feeling toward someone, not a judgement. He goes on to say that reason is found in humans alone, while all animals experience emotions. 5) Explain, in your own words, the argument put forth in Q. III, A. 11, Objection 1. If there is any emotion involved in committing a sin, then there is blameworthiness, making the sin greater. 6) Explain, using examples of your own, Aquinas distinction between passions (emotions) which (i) precede the will and those passions which are (ii) subsequent to the will . Passions that precede the will are those emotions that cause one to engage in an act that creates the betterment of oneself. Passions which are subsequent to the will, on the other hand, are emotions that cause detriment to the will. 7) According to Aquinas, which emotions makes sin more serious, those that precede the will or those that are consequent to it? Why? Which of these passions makes sin less serious? Why? Passions that are subsequent to the will create more serious sins as these are emotions that have the capacity to create a serious detriment to our will. Passions that precede the will have a higher chance of earning merit.