Analysis Of St. Thomas Aquinas Treatise On Happiness

Superior Essays
In the Treatise on Happiness, St. Thomas Aquinas lays out his argument for the existence of an ultimate purpose to human life. He first argues that this ultimate end is applied to any one human being, followed by all human beings. An “end” is considered purpose, or that for which something exists. This argument will acknowledge all of Aquinas’s points up until he applies this ultimate end to the whole of humanity. Human beings do act towards an end, but this end cannot be considered universal. Since human beings only act towards a known purpose – and the universal end is unknown – humans can never work towards the universal end, rendering it irrelevant.
First, we must agree that humans are rational. To be rational according to Aquinas means to be a master of his or her actions through his reason and will, something exclusive to
…show more content…
If we never can know what the universal end is or how to get there, then we can never progress towards it and therefore never achieve it. It is possible to argue that since we each strive to be the best version of ourselves, this can be defined as the universal end. I find this definition as incomplete and inconsistent because it is a sweepingly broad term when in reality each person has a different “best version” in mind.
Even though this argument may make sense, Aquinas would probably have some obvious objections. First, Aquinas would argue that the universal end does not need to be achieved in order to strive towards it, or it can be achieved in some way that transcends the material world. Second, he would probably say that all our goals and desires reflect a lesser version of a greater end that we all are hoping to achieve. Lastly, it is more inspiring and motivating to say that we as humanity all strive for one end goal that unites all of us, rather than saying our lives begin and end with

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    The default belief is that there is a single reality in which knowledge exists, if a critic argues against this, he or she would be saying that there is knowledge for the contrary, which is contradictory: their claim defeats itself. For either side of the argument to be fruitful in efforts, one side would have to have objective knowledge. Disagreeing has never been a sign that there is no truth at all. For example, few doubt the existence of some overarching moral code; they may disagree on the specifics of that code without finding that as lack of any code at all. If there were no objective knowledge, there would be complete chaos; there are so many things in the grand scheme of life that are universally agreed upon.…

    • 1153 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    Hick goes as far to say that the idea of a person acting freely but always choosing the right thing is ultimately a “ ‘meaningless conjunction of words’- in this case ‘a person who is not a person’ ” (Hick 2) because the phrase in itself is not logically possible. As Hick accurately puts it, “The origin of moral evil lies forever concealed within the mystery of human freedom” (Hick…

    • 2670 Words
    • 11 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Pico believes in unlimited human potential, while Augustine believes our potential is predestined by god's will (limited). Both Augustine and Pico had to reject the main argument of each others position, in order to end up in the position that they took. In order for Pico to arrive at his position, he had to reject Augustine's main argument on original sin . Because if Pico believed in original sin, that would make humans imperfect. If you are not perfect, then your potential cannot possibly be unlimited.…

    • 833 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The grounds with for that idea is based around the idea that there is no creator or a God, this is where someone first has to really partially agree with before his other points start taking shape. I believe even someone that does not like the idea of there being no God, they can still agree with the notions proposed by Sartre. One way to do this would the idea of free will, the reason for this would be that if our essence of what a human is came before our existence, I believe the argument can be made that we can change we were already defined as with the tool of free will. Because of our free will, his ideas of our choices defining us humans can still be applied and reasoned with. The only place that it really runs into an issue would be the topic of a God planned destiny for us, then we get into the debacle of if this is true do we really have free will.…

    • 1097 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Based upon these basic principles, Nietzsche saw that at face value, there would not be absolute truths, because there would not be anything outside of one’s own experience, and reality would be limited to the finite interpretation of the human mind. With this idea, he threw out the existence of God, since he is described as an infinite and absolute being, and any other types of absolute truth that could infer out of perspective knowledge. However, Nietzsche’s view of relativism is flawed because of the fact that if a person does not understand a concept or has no current proof of something does not make it false or…

    • 772 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Hume agrees that we cannot connect our perceptions to any external objects (Hume XII:I) and goes on to argue “For here is the chief and most confounding objection to excessive scepticism, that no durable good can ever result from it” (Hume XII:II) that this kind of questioning, what he refers to as excessive scepticism, does nothing for us. Hume argues that this questioning is not something that we can base our lives on. That our morality and principles are not based on reasoning but on sentiment. (Hume XII:III) How we live our life is based on our principles and it is not within us to reason out things such as existence and morals, but that we should create these of our sentiments. And he shows that whether our external world is an ultimate reality or not, it does not matter to our actually morality and lives.…

    • 1124 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    Cosmological Argument

    • 1266 Words
    • 6 Pages

    There may be an attribute of God’s that makes his existence necessary that we simply are unaware of and cannot dismiss. The last opposing argument Cleanthes presents is him objecting that “it is absurd to seek a cause for an external succession.” This is because if we are seeking for a cause for an infinite causal chain, than we are assuming there was a cause for the external succession. If we assume there is a cause, there must have been a cause for that one as well, which cannot be possible seeing as the chain is already infinite and there was no beginning. Therefore, a causal chain simply cannot have a cause. The final argument opposing Demea’s cosmological argument is Cleanthes saying that the parts not need represent its whole.…

    • 1266 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Separateness Of Persons

    • 788 Words
    • 4 Pages

    According to Nozick this notion is flawed as “to use a person [for another’s benefit] does not sufficiently respect and take account of the fact that he is a separate person, that his is the only life he has. He does not get some overbalancing good from his sacrifice”. To put more plainly, the theory suggests that sacrificing the life of one person in order to maximise overall utility is still immoral, for that person is an individual in their own right and will not benefit from acting in this way. Utilitarianist’s fail to recognise that we are all separate beings in our own right. Instead it treats being’s as mere ‘repositories of…

    • 788 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    An a posteriori justification would have to come from experience and lead to a conclusion. Reasons for believing the uniformity of nature would either have to be an inductive or deductive argument. Deductive reasoning comes up with a conclusion based on multiple ideas are assumed true. A deductive argument will not be a good reason because no experiences will have reasons to imply anything about the future. Inductive will not work because it would make the argument circular.…

    • 808 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Lepatibilism Analysis

    • 648 Words
    • 3 Pages

    LePoidevin argues that there is no way to reconcile this relationship of God and man without adopting some form of incompatibilism, that is to say that God being the cause of everything and man having free will are mutually exclusive concepts. LePoidevin does not see any way in which man cannot have free will, thus God must not have a causal relationship with the actions of man. However, as LePoidevin argues, this makes no sense, because it does not seem possible for God to cause man to exist such that his choices are utterly uncaused by anything but himself. This contradiction thus defeats any chance the theist has of reconciling free action with the existence of God as something causal. Ross would argue, however, that LePoidevin has made a few critical assumptions that make it impossible to understand the relationship at hand.…

    • 648 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays