Aquinas differentiates the different types of good, and what he defines as evil. He says the most universal type of goodness is the idea that everything is good as everything is a being, which is a type of metaphysical goodness, but that this goodness is only relevant in a certain way, and this is called secundum quid. The differentiation for Aquinas is the simpliciter, which is what is proper to it, and if something is lacking the good of what is proper to it, then it is evil. It’s a very complex theory, but Hughes uses obscure metaphors to explain it. For example, saying an Ethiopian is white is not strictly and literarily true because they have black skin, but it could be argued that it is true due to the fact that they have white teeth. It’s a different way of looking at anything, but in this instance, it pushes you to …show more content…
I figured human beings around the globe has good and evil within them, but how they chose to define this good or evil is what defines them as a person. For example, Adolf Hitler would be considered evil for his mass murder as the German leader of the Nazi party, while Mother Theresa would be considered good for devoting her life to helping the poor, the sick, the helpless and the