Part III (Secunda Secundae) Part 85 (1/2)
Reply Obj. 2: Although virtue is essentially a perfection, it does not follow that whatever is the matter of a virtue implies perfection. For man needs to be perfected by virtues in all his parts, and this not only as regards the acts of reason, of which counsel is one, but also as regards the pa.s.sions of the sensitive appet.i.te, which are still more imperfect.
It may also be replied that human virtue is a perfection according to the mode of man, who is unable by simple insight to comprehend with certainty the truth of things, especially in matters of action which are contingent.
Reply Obj. 3: In no sinner as such is _euboulia_ to be found: since all sin is contrary to taking good counsel. For good counsel requires not only the discovery or devising of fit means for the end, but also other circ.u.mstances. Such are suitable time, so that one be neither too slow nor too quick in taking counsel, and the mode of taking counsel, so that one be firm in the counsel taken, and other like due circ.u.mstances, which sinners fail to observe when they sin. On the other hand, every virtuous man takes good counsel in those things which are directed to the end of virtue, although perhaps he does not take good counsel in other particular matters, for instance in matters of trade, or warfare, or the like.
_______________________
SECOND ARTICLE [II-II, Q. 51, Art. 2]
Whether _Euboulia_ Is a Special Virtue, Distinct from Prudence?
Objection 1: It would seem that _euboulia_ is not a distinct virtue from prudence. For, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. vi, 5), the ”prudent man is, seemingly, one who takes good counsel.” Now this belongs to _euboulia_ as stated above. Therefore _euboulia_ is not distinct from prudence.
Obj. 2: Further, human acts to which human virtues are directed, are specified chiefly by their end, as stated above (I-II, Q. 1, A. 3; Q.
18, AA. 4, 6). Now _euboulia_ and prudence are directed to the same end, as stated in _Ethic._ vi, 9, not indeed to some particular end, but to the common end of all life. Therefore _euboulia_ is not a distinct virtue from prudence.
Obj. 3: Further, in speculative sciences, research and decision belong to the same science. Therefore in like manner these belong to the same virtue in practical matters. Now research belongs to _euboulia,_ while decision belongs to prudence. There _euboulia_ is not a distinct virtue from prudence.
_On the contrary,_ Prudence is preceptive, according to _Ethic._ vi, 10. But this does not apply to _euboulia_. Therefore _euboulia_ is a distinct virtue from prudence.
_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1), virtue is properly directed to an act which it renders good; and consequently virtues must differ according to different acts, especially when there is a different kind of goodness in the acts. For, if various acts contained the same kind of goodness, they would belong to the same virtue: thus the goodness of love, desire and joy depends on the same, wherefore all these belong to the same virtue of charity.
Now acts of the reason that are ordained to action are diverse, nor have they the same kind of goodness: since it is owing to different causes that a man acquires good counsel, good judgment, or good command, inasmuch as these are sometimes separated from one another.
Consequently _euboulia_ which makes man take good counsel must needs be a distinct virtue from prudence, which makes man command well. And since counsel is directed to command as to that which is princ.i.p.al, so _euboulia_ is directed to prudence as to a princ.i.p.al virtue, without which it would be no virtue at all, even as neither are the moral virtues without prudence, nor the other virtues without charity.
Reply Obj. 1: It belongs to prudence to take good counsel by commanding it, to _euboulia_ by eliciting it.
Reply Obj. 2: Different acts are directed in different degrees to the one end which is ”a good life in general” [*Ethic. vi, 5]: for counsel comes first, judgment follows, and command comes last. The last named has an immediate relation to the last end: whereas the other two acts are related thereto remotely. Nevertheless these have certain proximate ends of their own, the end of counsel being the discovery of what has to be done, and the end of judgment, certainty.
Hence this proves not that _euboulia_ is not a distinct virtue from prudence, but that it is subordinate thereto, as a secondary to a princ.i.p.al virtue.
Reply Obj. 3: Even in speculative matters the rational science of dialectics, which is directed to research and discovery, is distinct from demonstrative science, which decides the truth.
_______________________
THIRD ARTICLE [II-II, Q. 51, Art. 3]
Whether _Synesis_ Is a Virtue?
Objection 1: It would seem that _synesis_ is not a virtue. Virtues are not in us by nature, according to _Ethic._ ii, 1. But _synesis_ is natural to some, as the Philosopher states (Ethic. vi, 11).
Therefore _synesis_ is not a virtue.
Obj. 2: Further, as stated in the same book (10), _synesis_ is nothing but ”a faculty of judging.” But judgment without command can be even in the wicked. Since then virtue is only in the good, it seems that _synesis_ is not a virtue.
Obj. 3: Further, there is never a defective command, unless there be a defective judgment, at least in a particular matter of action; for it is in this that every wicked man errs. If therefore _synesis_ be reckoned a virtue directed to good judgment, it seems that there is no need for any other virtue directed to good command: and consequently prudence would be superfluous, which is not reasonable.
Therefore _synesis_ is not a virtue.
_On the contrary,_ Judgment is more perfect than counsel. But _euboulia_, or good counsel, is a virtue. Much more, therefore, is _synesis_ a virtue, as being good judgment.
_I answer that,_ _synesis_ signifies a right judgment, not indeed about speculative matters, but about particular practical matters, about which also is prudence. Hence in Greek some, in respect of _synesis_ are said to be _synetoi,_ i.e. ”persons of sense,” or _eusynetoi,_ i.e. ”men of good sense,” just as on the other hand, those who lack this virtue are called _asynetoi,_ i.e. ”senseless.”
Now, different acts which cannot be ascribed to the same cause, must correspond to different virtues. And it is evident that goodness of counsel and goodness of judgment are not reducible to the same cause, for many can take good counsel, without having good sense so as to judge well. Even so, in speculative matters some are good at research, through their reason being quick at arguing from one thing to another (which seems to be due to a disposition of their power of imagination, which has a facility in forming phantasms), and yet such persons sometimes lack good judgment (and this is due to a defect in the intellect arising chiefly from a defective disposition of the common sense which fails to judge aright). Hence there is need, besides _euboulia_, for another virtue, which judges well, and this is called _synesis._