Issue: Identifying the Good Nowadays
Just reading the first few paragraphs of Chapter 7, we see that Karol is trying to focus on the issue at hand. He believes that the problem plaguing man nowadays (but even at the dawn of humanity) is trying to identify the good.
He categorizes 3 types of good: honestum (just), utile (useful) and delectabile (pleasurable).
Owing to Catholic tradition, the just good would be the best. This is because we know from our Catechism that the effects of original sin can easily skew our perception of what is useful and what is pleasurable. Of course, original sin can pervert our judgment and may actually tell us that this is just while in fact it may not be. But the perversion will work its way from the bottom, namely from what is useful and/or what is pleasurable.
The pleasurable good is not evil as long as it is also a just good. In similar vein, a useful good is not evil provided it is a just good. Of course, wouldn't it be nice to make sure that the just good is both useful and pleasurable?
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
We might have experienced arguments from certain people that since we're free, we can do whatever we want. Well, technically, this is true. What complicates the analysis, however, is that fact that any human act (and thus, having an ethical dimension) would have personal consequences. By 'personal', I mean this will have an effect on the one who committed that act and those around him, either directly or indirectly. These people tend to forget / ignore that these consequences are important and that we cannot divorce them from any ethical analysis.
I'm reminded of the metaphysical concept of causality. There are 4 categories of causality: proximate cause, formal cause, material cause and final cause. The proximate and final cause can be boxed together on the basis of a time element. Catholic doctrine would tell us that the final cause is always God. Formal cause and material cause can be boxed together on the basis of the object itself.
Why did I bring up the idea of causality? It's because act (esse, as opposed to potency) will always have these 4 causes, which includes the final cause. If people would try to ignore or remove the final cause, somehow the act ceases to be a true being or the act is diminished in terms of its dignity. I guess such acts are less human if the subject is unable to determine the final cause of those acts.
He categorizes 3 types of good: honestum (just), utile (useful) and delectabile (pleasurable).
One may ask: What's the best?
Owing to Catholic tradition, the just good would be the best. This is because we know from our Catechism that the effects of original sin can easily skew our perception of what is useful and what is pleasurable. Of course, original sin can pervert our judgment and may actually tell us that this is just while in fact it may not be. But the perversion will work its way from the bottom, namely from what is useful and/or what is pleasurable.
One may ask: Is it evil to aim the pleasurable good?
The pleasurable good is not evil as long as it is also a just good. In similar vein, a useful good is not evil provided it is a just good. Of course, wouldn't it be nice to make sure that the just good is both useful and pleasurable?
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
We might have experienced arguments from certain people that since we're free, we can do whatever we want. Well, technically, this is true. What complicates the analysis, however, is that fact that any human act (and thus, having an ethical dimension) would have personal consequences. By 'personal', I mean this will have an effect on the one who committed that act and those around him, either directly or indirectly. These people tend to forget / ignore that these consequences are important and that we cannot divorce them from any ethical analysis.
I'm reminded of the metaphysical concept of causality. There are 4 categories of causality: proximate cause, formal cause, material cause and final cause. The proximate and final cause can be boxed together on the basis of a time element. Catholic doctrine would tell us that the final cause is always God. Formal cause and material cause can be boxed together on the basis of the object itself.
Why did I bring up the idea of causality? It's because act (esse, as opposed to potency) will always have these 4 causes, which includes the final cause. If people would try to ignore or remove the final cause, somehow the act ceases to be a true being or the act is diminished in terms of its dignity. I guess such acts are less human if the subject is unable to determine the final cause of those acts.
posted by Chipi Buenafe at
12:43 PM
3 Comments:
ahh...causality..:) reminds me of the french dude in The Matrix. Well, if only we could always have the just good that is both useful and pleasurable. unfortunately, life doesnt always make it so easy.
By
Anonymous, at 11:01 PM
i know this is bad (i forgot what i learned in philo) but could you define the differences between the three types of good?
By
Anonymous, at 12:20 PM
The three types of good have been differentiated by John Paul II, although the difference is not mutual exclusive, which makes it hard to describe the differences.
For one, a just good can be useful and can be pleasurable. However, the danger is really on looking at either useful and pleasurable exclusively.
Another item to note would be that useful and pleasurable can mean one and the same thing, which dilutes the distinction of the three types. We can find this in "Love and Responsibility" where John Paul II distinguishes the two meanings of the verb "to use", one on utility and the other on pleasure.
By
Chipi Buenafe, at 12:15 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home