This issue of Medieval Philosophy and Theology is atypical in that it contains a single work by a single philosopher and scholar. Norman Kretzmann, the author of the work here presented, was one of the founders of this journal and served as the chair of its editorial board from the journal’s inception until his untimely death in 1998. His intimate association with Medieval Philosophy and Theology and his dedication to its mission makes the journal an entirely appropriate vehicle for the publication of the work that filled the last year of his life.

Aristotle earns the distinction of having put forward the first comprehensive philosophical theory of justice. After the end of the antique world, St. Thomas Aquinas was the first philosopher and theologian to return to Aristotle’s theory of the just. Not only did he do so with the requisite systematic precision; he also developed a new philosophical interpretation of justice. In the present article I shall outline, with the brevity expected of me here, the fundamentals of Aristotle’s theory of justice. This will be followed by a summary of the core aspects of Aquinas’s notion of justice, whose grounding in normative reason will be identified in Aquinas’s treatise on law and political theory, and explicated accordingly.

1. The Aims of the Book

This book is the third in a series of three volumes. In 1997 and 1999, Oxford’s Clarendon Press published my books The Metaphysics of Theism and The Metaphysics of Creation, which are related, respectively, to Books I and II of Thomas Aquinas’s Summa contra gentiles (SCG) as this book is to Book III.1

This article is part of a larger project defending a version of divine command theory in ethics. What I am interested in from Scotus is that he combines such a theory with a view that grounds ethics in nature, especially human nature. In order to understand this combination, we need to start with his view of the two affections. Scotus takes from Anselm the idea that humans have in their will two basic affections (or intellectual appetites), what he calls the affection for advantage (affectio commodi) and the affection for justice (affectio justitiae). All acts of the will, on this view, stem from one affection or the other. Behind Anselm is Augustine's insistence, which Scotus alre refers to frequently, that God is to be enjoyed and not used (even though entering into God's love is our greatest happiness), and everything else is to be used and not enjoyed.

I. INTRODUCTION

Ever since Muslim thinkers came into contact with Greek Philosophy and science in the seventh century, the relation between Islamic philosophy and theology has been an uneasy one. Muslim philosophers often felt compelled to defend their philosophical activities against the suspicions and attacks of the theologians, and some developed considerable energy and effort to the harmonization of philosophy and religion on some fundamental points.

1. Thoroughgoing Teleology

Aquinas concludes his introductory chapter by announcing that his first task in Book III, a task to which he devotes sixty-two chapters, is to investigate “God himself in so far as he is the end of all things” (1.1867b). That compressed description of a very big topic is likely to arouse some misgivings. Why should we think that absolutely all things do have ends or goals? Even if we’re given good reasons to think that they do, why should we think that all those ends or goals converge in a single end for all things? And even if we should be convinced of that, why should we think that that single universal end must be identified (somehow) as God himself?

I. INTRODUCTION: THE PROBLEM

Akrasia (or, weakness of the will), often defined as “the moral state of agents who act against their better judgment”—a definition first given by Aristotle in the Nicomachean Ethics, depicts one of the most human of predicaments.Risto Sarrinen, Weakness of the Will in Medieval Thought: From Augustine to Buridan (New York: E. J. Brill, 1994), p. 1. Similar definitions can be found in, e.g., Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics VII, 1045b10–15; Donald Davidson, “How is Weakness of the Will Possible?” in Moral Concepts, ed. J. Feinberg (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1970) p. 93; William Charlton, Weakness of Will (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1988), p. 1. We know what we ought to do, and we try. But, for one reason or other, we sometimes choose to act contrary to our better judgment.Being influenced by Socratic reasoning, some philosophers have argued that, in principle, one cannot freely and intentionally choose to act against one’s better judgment, if (1) one rationally judges what is best for oneself, (2) one prefers to act according to one’s rational judgment, and (3) one is free to make one’s own choice. See, e.g., Davidson, “How is Weakness,” pp. 93–113; and R. M. Hare, Freedom and Reason (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1963), pp. 78–79. Despite the logical difficulty, many believe that weakness of the will is a fact.

1. The Badness Thesis

‘Badness’ is not a good word. It sounds faintly infantile, perhaps especially now, at the end of the twentieth century. Still, ‘imperfection’ and its bland companions are too broad to serve all the purposes of this investigation, while ‘evil,’ ‘wickedness,’ ‘immorality,’ ‘sinfulness,’ and the like are even more clearly too narrow. ‘Malum’ is almost the only word Aquinas uses, adjectivally or as a nominalized adjective, for the central notion in III.4–15, a series of chapters that has sometimes been called a treatise de malo.101 And ‘bad’ and ‘badness’ are the only English words that strike me as coming close to playing all the roles Aquinas assigns to ‘malum.’ With that semi-satisfactory bit of terminological equipment we can start an investigation of his treatise on badness.

Thomas Aquinas is commonly thought to hold that human beings will happiness and do so necessarily. This is taken to mean first that human beings are not able to will misery for the sake of misery and therefore not capable of pursuing misery for its own sake. Secondly, everything that human beings do will they will for the sake of happiness, and since human beings are moved to act on the basis of what they will, all of their actions are performed for the sake of happiness. This claim is subject to doubt because it seems to many to be false on empirical grounds. Often, people choose things that they know and are willing to admit do not make them happy. Often, people choose things without even thinking about their happiness. Aquinas’s theory must deal adequately with such apparent counterexamples. But his account faces an objection of a different nature, an objection raised by John Duns Scotus.

1. Reorientation

At the end of Book III’s first, introductory chapter, Aquinas divides his projected investigation of divine providence into three big topics, the first of which he characterizes as having to do with “God himself in so far as he is the end of all things,” God’s omega-aspect (1.1867b).197 Since III.64 is unmistakably the beginning of Aquinas’s investigation of the second big topic, God’s universal governance, it looks offhand as if he intends to devote chapters 2–63 to his treatment of God as the universal goal.198 In the first two of those chapters Aquinas does carry out a general investigation of the nature of agents, actions, and ends that makes an altogether appropriate preamble to a consideration of his thesis that God is (somehow) the unique, universal, ultimate goal of the actions of created agents.199 However, as we’ve just seen, Aquinas’s chapters 4 through 15 constitute a treatise on badness. God is mentioned only briefly in the twelve chapters that make up the treatise, and it’s unclear how, if at all, Aquinas intends his analysis of badness to contribute to his consideration of God as goal.200 So, setting aside the uncertainly relevant treatise on badness, it seems right to say that Aquinas’s investigation of God’s omega-aspect occupies not III.2–63 but just III.2–3 and 16–63.201 Within that latter series of chapters, he devotes III.16–24 to God as the goal of created things generally, the topic of this chapter, and III.25–63 to God as the ultimate goal of human beings specifically.