St. Thomas Aquinas

The Summa Theologica

(Benziger Bros. edition, 1947)
Translated by
Fathers of the English Dominican Province


Index  [<< | >>]
First Part  [<< | >>]
Question: 49  [<< | >>]


Consequenter quaeritur de causa mali. Et circa hoc quaeruntur tria.    We next inquire into the cause of evil. Concerning this there are three points of inquire:
Primo, utrum bonum possit esse causa mali.     (1) Whether good can be the cause of evil?
Secundo, utrum summum bonum, quod est Deus, sit causa mali.     (2) Whether the supreme good, God, is the cause of evil?
Tertio, utrum sit aliquod summum malum, quod sit prima causa omnium malorum.     (3) Whether there be any supreme evil, which is the first cause of all evils?


Index  [<< | >>]
First Part  [<< | >>]
Question: 49  [<< | >>]
Article: 1  [<< | >>]

Whether good can be the cause of evil?

Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod bonum non possit esse causa mali. Dicitur enim Matth. VII, non potest arbor bona malos fructus facere.   Objection 1: It would seem that good cannot be the cause of evil. For it is said (Mt. 7:18): "A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit."
Praeterea, unum contrariorum non potest esse causa alterius. Malum autem est contrarium bono. Ergo bonum non potest esse causa mali.   Objection 2: Further, one contrary cannot be the cause of another. But evil is the contrary to good. Therefore good cannot be the cause of evil.
Praeterea, effectus deficiens non procedit nisi a causa deficiente. Sed malum, si causam habeat, est effectus deficiens. Ergo habet causam deficientem. Sed omne deficiens malum est. Ergo causa mali non est nisi malum.   Objection 3: Further, a deficient effect can proceed only from a deficient cause. But evil is a deficient effect. Therefore its cause, if it has one, is deficient. But everything deficient is an evil. Therefore the cause of evil can only be evil.
Praeterea, Dionysius dicit, IV cap. de Div. Nom., quod malum non habet causam. Ergo bonum non est causa mali.   Objection 4: Further, Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv) that evil has no cause. Therefore good is not the cause of evil.
Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, contra Iulianum, non fuit omnino unde oriri posset malum, nisi ex bono.   On the contrary, Augustine says (Contra Julian. i, 9): "There is no possible source of evil except good."
Respondeo dicendum quod necesse est dicere quod omne malum aliqualiter causam habeat. Malum enim est defectus boni quod natum est et debet haberi. Quod autem aliquid deficiat a sua naturali et debita dispositione, non potest provenire nisi ex aliqua causa trahente rem extra suam dispositionem, non enim grave movetur sursum nisi ab aliquo impellente, nec agens deficit in sua actione nisi propter aliquod impedimentum. Esse autem causam non potest convenire nisi bono, quia nihil potest esse causa nisi inquantum est ens; omne autem ens, inquantum huiusmodi, bonum est.   I answer that, It must be said that every evil in some way has a cause. For evil is the absence of the good, which is natural and due to a thing. But that anything fail from its natural and due disposition can come only from some cause drawing it out of its proper disposition. For a heavy thing is not moved upwards except by some impelling force; nor does an agent fail in its action except from some impediment. But only good can be a cause; because nothing can be a cause except inasmuch as it is a being, and every being, as such, is good.
Et si consideremus speciales rationes causarum, agens et forma et finis perfectionem quandam important, quae pertinet ad rationem boni, sed et materia, inquantum est potentia ad bonum, habet rationem boni. Et quidem quod bonum sit causa mali per modum causae materialis, iam ex praemissis patet, ostensum est enim quod bonum est subiectum mali. Causam autem formalem malum non habet, sed est magis privatio formae. Et similiter nec causam finalem, sed magis est privatio ordinis ad finem debitum; non solum enim finis habet rationem boni, sed etiam utile, quod ordinatur ad finem. Causam autem per modum agentis habet malum, non autem per se, sed per accidens.    And if we consider the special kinds of causes, we see that the agent, the form, and the end, import some kind of perfection which belongs to the notion of good. Even matter, as a potentiality to good, has the nature of good. Now that good is the cause of evil by way of the material cause was shown above (Question [48], Article [3]). For it was shown that good is the subject of evil. But evil has no formal cause, rather is it a privation of form; likewise, neither has it a final cause, but rather is it a privation of order to the proper end; since not only the end has the nature of good, but also the useful, which is ordered to the end. Evil, however, has a cause by way of an agent, not directly, but accidentally.
Ad cuius evidentiam, sciendum est quod aliter causatur malum in actione, et aliter in effectu. In actione quidem causatur malum propter defectum alicuius principiorum actionis, vel principalis agentis, vel instrumentalis, sicut defectus in motu animalis potest contingere vel propter debilitatem virtutis motivae, ut in pueris; vel propter solam ineptitudinem instrumenti, ut in claudis. Malum autem in re aliqua, non tamen in proprio effectu agentis, causatur quandoque ex virtute agentis; quandoque autem ex defectu ipsius, vel materiae. Ex virtute quidem vel perfectione agentis, quando ad formam intentam ab agente sequitur ex necessitate alterius formae privatio; sicut ad formam ignis sequitur privatio formae aeris vel aquae. Sicut ergo, quanto ignis fuerit perfectior in virtute, tanto perfectius imprimit formam suam, ita etiam tanto perfectius corrumpit contrarium, unde malum et corruptio aeris et aquae, est ex perfectione ignis. Sed hoc est per accidens, quia ignis non intendit privare formam aquae, sed inducere formam propriam; sed hoc faciendo, causat et illud per accidens. Sed si sit defectus in effectu proprio ignis, puta quod deficiat a calefaciendo, hoc est vel propter defectum actionis, qui redundat in defectum alicuius principii, ut dictum est; vel ex indispositione materiae, quae non recipit actionem ignis agentis. Sed et hoc ipsum quod est esse deficiens, accidit bono, cui per se competit agere. Unde verum est quod malum secundum nullum modum habet causam nisi per accidens. Sic autem bonum est causa mali.    In proof of this, we must know that evil is caused in the action otherwise than in the effect. In the action evil is caused by reason of the defect of some principle of action, either of the principal or the instrumental agent; thus the defect in the movement of an animal may happen by reason of the weakness of the motive power, as in the case of children, or by reason only of the ineptitude of the instrument, as in the lame. On the other hand, evil is caused in a thing, but not in the proper effect of the agent, sometimes by the power of the agent, sometimes by reason of a defect, either of the agent or of the matter. It is caused by reason of the power or perfection of the agent when there necessarily follows on the form intended by the agent the privation of another form; as, for instance, when on the form of fire there follows the privation of the form of air or of water. Therefore, as the more perfect the fire is in strength, so much the more perfectly does it impress its own form, so also the more perfectly does it corrupt the contrary. Hence that evil and corruption befall air and water comes from the perfection of the fire: but this is accidental; because fire does not aim at the privation of the form of water, but at the bringing in of its own form, though by doing this it also accidentally causes the other. But if there is a defect in the proper effect of the fire—as, for instance, that it fails to heat—this comes either by defect of the action, which implies the defect of some principle, as was said above, or by the indisposition of the matter, which does not receive the action of the fire, the agent. But this very fact that it is a deficient being is accidental to good to which of itself it belongs to act. Hence it is true that evil in no way has any but an accidental cause; and thus is good the cause of evil.
Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, sicut Augustinus dicit, contra Iulian., arborem malam appellat dominus voluntatem malam, et arborem bonam, voluntatem bonam. Ex voluntate autem bona non producitur actus moralis malus, cum ex ipsa voluntate bona iudicetur actus moralis bonus. Sed tamen ipse motus malae voluntatis causatur a creatura rationali, quae bona est. Et sic est causa mali.   Reply to Objection 1: As Augustine says (Contra Julian. i): "The Lord calls an evil will the evil tree, and a good will a good tree." Now, a good will does not produce a morally bad act, since it is from the good will itself that a moral act is judged to be good. Nevertheless the movement itself of an evil will is caused by the rational creature, which is good; and thus good is the cause of evil.
Ad secundum dicendum quod bonum non causat illud malum quod est sibi contrarium, sed quoddam aliud, sicut bonitas ignis causat malum aquae; et homo bonus secundum suam naturam, causat malum actum secundum morem. Et hoc ipsum per accidens est, ut dictum est. Invenitur autem quod etiam unum contrariorum causat aliud per accidens, sicut frigidum exterius ambiens calefacit, inquantum calor retrahitur ad interiora.   Reply to Objection 2: Good does not cause that evil which is contrary to itself, but some other evil: thus the goodness of the fire causes evil to the water, and man, good as to his nature, causes an act morally evil. And, as explained above (Question [19], Article [9]), this is by accident. Moreover, it does happen sometimes that one contrary causes another by accident: for instance, the exterior surrounding cold heats (the body) through the concentration of the inward heat.
Ad tertium dicendum quod malum habet causam deficientem aliter in rebus voluntariis, et naturalibus. Agens enim naturale producit effectum suum talem quale ipsum est, nisi impediatur ab aliquo extrinseco, et hoc ipsum est quidam defectus eius. Unde nunquam sequitur malum in effectu, nisi praeexistat aliquod aliud malum in agente vel materia, sicut dictum est. Sed in rebus voluntariis, defectus actionis a voluntate actu deficiente procedit, inquantum non subiicit se actu suae regulae. Qui tamen defectus non est culpa, sed sequitur culpa ex hoc quod cum tali defectu operatur.   Reply to Objection 3: Evil has a deficient cause in voluntary things otherwise than in natural things. For the natural agent produces the same kind of effect as it is itself, unless it is impeded by some exterior thing; and this amounts to some defect belonging to it. Hence evil never follows in the effect, unless some other evil pre-exists in the agent or in the matter, as was said above. But in voluntary things the defect of the action comes from the will actually deficient, inasmuch as it does not actually subject itself to its proper rule. This defect, however, is not a fault, but fault follows upon it from the fact that the will acts with this defect.
Ad quartum dicendum quod malum non habet causam per se, sed per accidens tantum, ut dictum est.   Reply to Objection 4: Evil has no direct cause, but only an accidental cause, as was said above.


Index  [<< | >>]
First Part  [<< | >>]
Question: 49  [<< | >>]
Article: 2  [<< | >>]


Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod summum bonum, quod est Deus, sit causa mali. Dicitur enim Isai. XLV, ego dominus, et non est alter Deus, formans lucem et creans tenebras, faciens pacem et creans malum. Et Amos III, si erit malum in civitate, quod dominus non fecerit.   Objection 1: It would seem that the supreme good, God, is the cause of evil. For it is said (Is. 45:5,7): "I am the Lord, and there is no other God, forming the light, and creating darkness, making peace, and creating evil." And Amos 3:6, "Shall there be evil in a city, which the Lord hath not done?"
Praeterea, effectus causae secundae reducitur in causam primam. Bonum autem est causa mali, ut dictum est. Cum igitur omnis boni causa sit Deus, ut supra ostensum est, sequitur quod etiam omne malum sit a Deo.   Objection 2: Further, the effect of the secondary cause is reduced to the first cause. But good is the cause of evil, as was said above (Article [1]). Therefore, since God is the cause of every good, as was shown above (Question [2], Article [3]; Question [6], Articles [1],4), it follows that also every evil is from God.
Praeterea, sicut dicitur in II Physic., idem est causa salutis navis, et periculi. Sed Deus est causa salutis omnium rerum. Ergo est ipse causa omnis perditionis et mali.   Objection 3: Further, as is said by the Philosopher (Phys. ii, text 30), the cause of both safety and danger of the ship is the same. But God is the cause of the safety of all things. Therefore He is the cause of all perdition and of all evil.
Sed contra est quod dicit Augustinus, in libro octoginta trium quaest., quod Deus non est auctor mali, quia non est causa tendendi ad non esse.   On the contrary, Augustine says (Questions. 83, qu. 21), that, "God is not the author of evil because He is not the cause of tending to not-being."
Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut ex dictis patet, malum quod in defectu actionis consistit, semper causatur ex defectu agentis. In Deo autem nullus defectus est, sed summa perfectio, ut supra ostensum est. Unde malum quod in defectu actionis consistit, vel quod ex defectu agentis causatur, non reducitur in Deum sicut in causam. Sed malum quod in corruptione rerum aliquarum consistit, reducitur in Deum sicut in causam.   I answer that, As appears from what was said (Article [1]), the evil which consists in the defect of action is always caused by the defect of the agent. But in God there is no defect, but the highest perfection, as was shown above (Question [4], Article [1]). Hence, the evil which consists in defect of action, or which is caused by defect of the agent, is not reduced to God as to its cause.
Et hoc patet tam in naturalibus quam in voluntariis. Dictum est enim quod aliquod agens, inquantum sua virtute producit aliquam formam ad quam sequitur corruptio et defectus, causat sua virtute illam corruptionem et defectum. Manifestum est autem quod forma quam principaliter Deus intendit in rebus creatis, est bonum ordinis universi. Ordo autem universi requirit, ut supra dictum est, quod quaedam sint quae deficere possint, et interdum deficiant. Et sic Deus, in rebus causando bonum ordinis universi, ex consequenti, et quasi per accidens, causat corruptiones rerum; secundum illud quod dicitur I Reg. II, dominus mortificat et vivificat. Sed quod dicitur Sap. I, quod Deus mortem non fecit, intelligitur quasi per se intentam. Ad ordinem autem universi pertinet etiam ordo iustitiae, qui requirit ut peccatoribus poena inferatur. Et secundum hoc, Deus est auctor mali quod est poena, non autem mali quod est culpa, ratione supra dicta.    But the evil which consists in the corruption of some things is reduced to God as the cause. And this appears as regards both natural things and voluntary things. For it was said (Article [1]) that some agent inasmuch as it produces by its power a form to which follows corruption and defect, causes by its power that corruption and defect. But it is manifest that the form which God chiefly intends in things created is the good of the order of the universe. Now, the order of the universe requires, as was said above (Question [22], Article [2], ad 2; Question [48], Article [2]), that there should be some things that can, and do sometimes, fail. And thus God, by causing in things the good of the order of the universe, consequently and as it were by accident, causes the corruptions of things, according to 1 Kgs. 2:6: "The Lord killeth and maketh alive." But when we read that "God hath not made death" (Wis. 1:13), the sense is that God does not will death for its own sake. Nevertheless the order of justice belongs to the order of the universe; and this requires that penalty should be dealt out to sinners. And so God is the author of the evil which is penalty, but not of the evil which is fault, by reason of what is said above.
Ad primum ergo dicendum quod auctoritates illae loquuntur de malo poenae, non autem de malo culpae.   Reply to Objection 1: These passages refer to the evil of penalty, and not to the evil of fault.
Ad secundum dicendum quod effectus causae secundae deficientis reducitur in causam primam non deficientem, quantum ad id quod habet entitatis et perfectionis, non autem quantum ad id quod habet de defectu. Sicut quidquid est motus in claudicatione, causatur a virtute motiva; sed quod est obliquitatis in ea, non est ex virtute motiva, sed ex curvitate cruris. Et similiter quidquid est entitatis et actionis in actione mala, reducitur in Deum sicut in causam, sed quod est ibi defectus, non causatur a Deo, sed ex causa secunda deficiente.   Reply to Objection 2: The effect of the deficient secondary cause is reduced to the first non-deficient cause as regards what it has of being and perfection, but not as regards what it has of defect; just as whatever there is of motion in the act of limping is caused by the motive power, whereas what there is of obliqueness in it does not come from the motive power, but from the curvature of the leg. And, likewise, whatever there is of being and action in a bad action, is reduced to God as the cause; whereas whatever defect is in it is not caused by God, but by the deficient secondary cause.
Ad tertium dicendum quod submersio navis attribuitur nautae ut causae, ex eo quod non agit quod requiritur ad salutem navis. Sed Deus non deficit ab agendo quod est necessarium ad salutem. Unde non est simile.   Reply to Objection 3: The sinking of a ship is attributed to the sailor as the cause, from the fact that he does not fulfil what the safety of the ship requires; but God does not fail in doing what is necessary for the safety of all. Hence there is no parity.


Index  [<< | >>]
First Part  [<< | >>]
Question: 49  [<< | >>]
Article: 3  [<< | >>]


Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod sit unum summum malum, quod sit causa omnis mali. Contrariorum enim effectuum contrariae sunt causae. Sed in rebus invenitur contrarietas, secundum illud Eccli. XXXIII, contra malum bonum est, et contra vitam mors; sic et contra virum iustum peccator. Ergo sunt contraria principia, unum boni, et aliud mali.   Objection 1: It would seem that there is one supreme evil which is the cause of every evil. For contrary effects have contrary causes. But contrariety is found in things, according to Ecclus. 33:15: "Good is set against evil, and life against death; so also is the sinner against a just man." Therefore there are many contrary principles, one of good, the other of evil.
Praeterea, si unum contrariorum est in rerum natura, et reliquum, ut dicitur in II de caelo et mundo. Sed summum bonum est in rerum natura, quod est causa omnis boni, ut supra ostensum est. Ergo est et summum malum ei oppositum, causa omnis mali.   Objection 2: Further, if one contrary is in nature, so is the other. But the supreme good is in nature, and is the cause of every good, as was shown above (Question [2], Article [3]; Question [6], Articles [2],4). Therefore, also, there is a supreme evil opposed to it as the cause of every evil.
Praeterea, sicut in rebus invenitur bonum et melius, ita malum et peius. Sed bonum et melius dicuntur per respectum ad optimum. Ergo malum et peius dicuntur per respectum ad aliquod summum malum.   Objection 3: Further, as we find good and better things, so we find evil and worse. But good and better are so considered in relation to what is best. Therefore evil and worse are so considered in relation to some supreme evil.
Praeterea, omne quod est per participationem, reducitur ad illud quod est per essentiam. Sed res quae sunt malae apud nos, non sunt malae per essentiam, sed per participationem. Ergo est invenire aliquod summum malum per essentiam, quod est causa omnis mali.   Objection 4: Further, everything participated is reduced to what is essential. But things which are evil among us are evil not essentially, but by participation. Therefore we must seek for some supreme essential evil, which is the cause of every evil.
Praeterea, omne quod est per accidens, reducitur ad illud quod est per se. Sed bonum est causa mali per accidens. Ergo oportet ponere aliquod summum malum, quod sit causa malorum per se. Neque potest dici quod malum non habeat causam per se, sed per accidens tantum, quia sequeretur quod malum non esset ut in pluribus, sed ut in paucioribus.   Objection 5: Further, whatever is accidental is reduced to that which is "per se." But good is the accidental cause of evil. Therefore, we must suppose some supreme evil which is the "per se" cause of evils. Nor can it be said that evil has no "per se" cause, but only an accidental cause; for it would then follow that evil would not exist in the many, but only in the few.
Praeterea, malum effectus reducitur ad malum causae, quia effectus deficiens est a causa deficiente, sicut supra dictum est. Sed hoc non est procedere in infinitum. Ergo oportet ponere unum primum malum, quod sit causa omnis mali.   Objection 6: Further, the evil of the effect is reduced to the evil of the cause; because the deficient effect comes from the deficient cause, as was said above (Articles [1],2). But we cannot proceed to infinity in this matter. Therefore, we must suppose one first evil as the cause of every evil.
Sed contra est quod summum bonum est causa omnis entis, ut supra ostensum est. Ergo non potest esse aliquod principium ei oppositum, quod sit causa malorum.   On the contrary, The supreme good is the cause of every being, as was shown above (Question [2], Article [3]; Question [6], Article [4]). Therefore there cannot be any principle opposed to it as the cause of evils.
Respondeo dicendum quod ex praedictis patet non esse unum primum principium malorum, sicut est unum primum principium bonorum.   I answer that, It appears from what precedes that there is no one first principle of evil, as there is one first principle of good.
Primo quidem, quia primum principium bonorum est per essentiam bonum, ut supra ostensum est. Nihil autem potest esse per suam essentiam malum, ostensum est enim quod omne ens, inquantum est ens, bonum est; et quod malum non est nisi in bono ut in subiecto.    First, indeed, because the first principle of good is essentially good, as was shown above (Question [6], Articles [3],4). But nothing can be essentially bad. For it was shown above that every being, as such, is good (Question [5], Article [3]); and that evil can exist only in good as in its subject (Question [48], Article [3]).
Secundo, quia primum bonorum principium est summum et perfectum bonum, quod praehabet in se omnem bonitatem, ut supra ostensum est. Summum autem malum esse non potest, quia, sicut ostensum est, etsi malum semper diminuat bonum, nunquam tamen illud potest totaliter consumere; et sic, semper remanente bono, non potest esse aliquid integre et perfecte malum. Propter quod philosophus dicit, in IV Ethic., quod si malum integrum sit, seipsum destruet, quia destructo omni bono (quod requiritur ad integritatem mali), subtrahitur etiam ipsum malum, cuius subiectum est bonum.    Secondly, because the first principle of good is the highest and perfect good which pre-contains in itself all goodness, as shown above (Question [6], Article [2]). But there cannot be a supreme evil; because, as was shown above (Question [48], Article [4]), although evil always lessens good, yet it never wholly consumes it; and thus, while good ever remains, nothing can be wholly and perfectly bad. Therefore, the Philosopher says (Ethic. iv, 5) that "if the wholly evil could be, it would destroy itself"; because all good being destroyed (which it need be for something to be wholly evil), evil itself would be taken away, since its subject is good.
Tertio, quia ratio mali repugnat rationi primi principii. Tum quia omne malum causatur ex bono, ut supra ostensum est. Tum quia malum non potest esse causa nisi per accidens, et sic non potest esse prima causa, quia causa per accidens est posterior ea quae est per se, ut patet in II Physic.    Thirdly, because the very nature of evil is against the idea of a first principle; both because every evil is caused by good, as was shown above (Article [1]), and because evil can be only an accidental cause, and thus it cannot be the first cause, for the accidental cause is subsequent to the direct cause.
Qui autem posuerunt duo prima principia, unum bonum et alterum malum, ex eadem radice in hunc errorem inciderunt, ex qua et aliae extraneae positiones antiquorum ortum habuerunt, quia scilicet non consideraverunt causam universalem totius entis, sed particulares tantum causas particularium effectuum. Propter hoc enim, si aliquid invenerunt esse nocivum alicui rei per virtutem suae naturae, aestimaverunt naturam illius rei esse malam, puta si quis dicat naturam ignis esse malam, quia combussit domum alicuius pauperis. Iudicium autem de bonitate alicuius rei non est accipiendum secundum ordinem ad aliquid particulare; sed secundum seipsum, et secundum ordinem ad totum universum, in quo quaelibet res suum locum ordinatissime tenet, ut ex dictis patet.    Those, however, who upheld two first principles, one good and the other evil, fell into this error from the same cause, whence also arose other strange notions of the ancients; namely, because they failed to consider the universal cause of all being, and considered only the particular causes of particular effects. For on that account, if they found a thing hurtful to something by the power of its own nature, they thought that the very nature of that thing was evil; as, for instance, if one should say that the nature of fire was evil because it burnt the house of a poor man. The judgment, however, of the goodness of anything does not depend upon its order to any particular thing, but rather upon what it is in itself, and on its order to the whole universe, wherein every part has its own perfectly ordered place, as was said above (Question [47], Article [2], ad 1).
Similiter etiam, quia invenerunt duorum particularium effectuum contrariorum duas causas particulares contrarias, nesciverunt reducere causas particulares contrarias in causam universalem communem. Et ideo usque ad prima principia contrarietatem in causis esse iudicaverunt. Sed cum omnia contraria conveniant in uno communi, necesse est in eis, supra causas contrarias proprias, inveniri unam causam communem, sicut supra qualitates contrarias elementorum invenitur virtus corporis caelestis. Et similiter supra omnia quae quocumque modo sunt, invenitur unum primum principium essendi, ut supra ostensum est.    Likewise, because they found two contrary particular causes of two contrary particular effects, they did not know how to reduce these contrary particular causes to the universal common cause; and therefore they extended the contrariety of causes even to the first principles. But since all contraries agree in something common, it is necessary to search for one common cause for them above their own contrary proper causes; as above the contrary qualities of the elements exists the power of a heavenly body; and above all things that exist, no matter how, there exists one first principle of being, as was shown above (Question [2], Article [3]).
Ad primum ergo dicendum quod contraria conveniunt in genere uno, et etiam conveniunt in ratione essendi. Et ideo, licet habeant causas particulares contrarias, tamen oportet devenire ad unam primam causam communem.   Reply to Objection 1: Contraries agree in one genus, and they also agree in the nature of being; and therefore, although they have contrary particular cause, nevertheless we must come at last to one first common cause.
Ad secundum dicendum quod privatio et habitus nata sunt fieri circa idem. Subiectum autem privationis est ens in potentia, ut dictum est. Unde, cum malum sit privatio boni, ut ex dictis patet, illi bono opponitur cui adiungitur potentia, non autem summo bono, quod est actus purus.   Reply to Objection 2: Privation and habit belong naturally to the same subject. Now the subject of privation is a being in potentiality, as was said above (Question [48], Article [3]). Hence, since evil is privation of good, as appears from what was said above (Question [48], Articles [1], 2,3), it is opposed to that good which has some potentiality, but not to the supreme good, who is pure act.
Ad tertium dicendum quod unumquodque intenditur secundum propriam rationem. Sicut autem forma est perfectio quaedam, ita privatio est quaedam remotio. Unde omnis forma et perfectio et bonum per accessum ad terminum perfectum intenditur, privatio autem et malum per recessum a termino. Unde non dicitur malum et peius per accessum ad summum malum, sicut dicitur bonum et melius per accessum ad summum bonum.   Reply to Objection 3: Increase in intensity is in proportion to the nature of a thing. And as the form is a perfection, so privation removes a perfection. Hence every form, perfection, and good is intensified by approach to the perfect term; but privation and evil by receding from that term. Hence a thing is not said to be evil and worse, by reason of access to the supreme evil, in the same way as it is said to be good and better, by reason of access to the supreme good.
Ad quartum dicendum quod nullum ens dicitur malum per participationem, sed per privationem participationis. Unde non oportet fieri reductionem ad aliquid quod sit per essentiam malum.   Reply to Objection 4: No being is called evil by participation, but by privation of participation. Hence it is not necessary to reduce it to any essential evil.
Ad quintum dicendum quod malum non potest habere causam nisi per accidens, ut supra ostensum est. Unde impossibile est fieri reductionem ad aliquid quod sit per se causa mali. Quod autem dicitur, quod malum est ut in pluribus, simpliciter falsum est. Nam generabilia et corruptibilia, in quibus solum contingit esse malum naturae, sunt modica pars totius universi. Et iterum in unaquaque specie defectus naturae accidit ut in paucioribus. In solis autem hominibus malum videtur esse ut in pluribus, quia bonum hominis secundum sensum non est hominis inquantum homo, idest secundum rationem; plures autem sequuntur sensum quam rationem.   Reply to Objection 5: Evil can only have an accidental cause, as was shown above (Article [1]). Hence reduction to any 'per se' cause of evil is impossible. And to say that evil is in the greater number is simply false. For things which are generated and corrupted, in which alone can there be natural evil, are the smaller part of the whole universe. And again, in every species the defect of nature is in the smaller number. In man alone does evil appear as in the greater number; because the good of man as regards the senses is not the good of man as man—that is, in regard to reason; and more men seek good in regard to the senses than good according to reason.
Ad sextum dicendum quod in causis mali non est procedere in infinitum, sed est reducere omnia mala in aliquam causam bonam, ex qua sequitur malum per accidens.   Reply to Objection 6: In the causes of evil we do not proceed to infinity, but reduce all evils to some good cause, whence evil follows accidentally.
