No Man Can Desire Evil

How can we say two things at the same time as Catholics: No man can desire evil, and sin is where man chooses and desires evil?

Previously I shared this syllogism to demonstrate that no man can desire evil. I explained the importance of the anthropological conclusions of it along with the metaphysical ones. To summarize – all things have some good as their end, and man desires only that which is good.  To desire anything outside of the good is beyond man’s capacity or freedom. Please revisit this syllogism to see why that is the case:

Major Premise  All evil is a privation

Minor Premise  No man can desire privation

Conclusion   No man can desire evil

(FORM II Syllogism – AEE)

Let us say it in a different way: if evil is a privation, then evil has no being, since privation means the absence of being. Thus to say that a man desires evil as though it were something having an essence is impossible.  

There are two ways we can understand that it is impossible for man to desire evil:  

1) subjectively and 2) objectively.

Let us examine the first through the words of St. Thomas Aquinas:

“There is no problem from the fact that some men desire evil. For they desire evil only under the aspect of good, that is, insofar as they think it good. Hence their intention primarily aims at the good and only incidentally touches on the evil.”  (Commentary on Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, Book I, Lecture I, pp 10)

Lets unpack this – because it will help us to better understand the spiritual life.

Here what is being said, essentially is that man cannot desire evil as subjectively perceived as evil. So if we are to call a moral act “evil” the person nonetheless perceives that evil as something good.  Think of the Garden, where Eve, after dialoguing with the serpent, eventually finds the fruit “desirable.” Aquinas uses two terms to help us differentiate between what is morally true and what is a mere matter of perception: apparent-good and real-good. When a person perceives an evil act as desirable it’s because they have come to some inner-judgment that the evil is in fact good.  

This type of inner-judgment can occur in two particular ways: innocent ignorance and chosen ignorance. In regard to the latter, another term for chosen ignorance is “rationalization.” This type of ignorance is where the intellect’s perceptions of reality have been twisted or left deficient by way of a voluntary choice. Consider the biblical example of Eve who after voluntarily “listening” to the serpent looks at the forbidden tree and finds it “desirable.” For something to be desirable it must be perceived as good for one’s self. Here is an example of sin, whereby her manipulation involved her voluntary choice in allowing herself to be manipulated.

The second way we can speak about the impossibility of desiring evil per se is objectively speaking. To Aquinas, the notion of “privation” was a good development that helps us better understand what is actually happening when a person chooses something sinful. Listen to Aquinas to get an idea of his thinking:

“The same consideration also makes it clear that evil cannot be desired, and that it can only do something in virtue of the good connected with it. For only perfection and end are desirable; and the principle of action is form. However, since a particular perfection or form involves the privation of some other perfection of form, it can happen accidentally that privation or evil is desired and is the principle of some action-not insofar as it is evil, but because of the good connected with it, like a musician who constructs a house not insofar as he is a musician, but insofar as he is a builder.” (Opuscula Treatise I, Compendium, Chapter 117)

It’s important to note that the example offered at the end of his quote does not give rise to an illustration of evil, but rather what is accidental. If a musician builds a house, that characteristic of the person has little to do with their activity as a builder. In the same way, when a person chooses something evil, their intention has little to do with the evil, but is rather directed towards some specific good. 

Let me give you a more concrete example: if a person seeks illicit sexual activity, they are perhaps preoccupied with the “effects” of sexual activity rather than the immoral activity that generates such effects.  As Aquinas states elsewhere, pleasure is meant to be a subsequent effect to doing the good, but is not to be sought as an end in itself.  Under this example then we can establish that those who seek the “good of pleasure” do so at the exclusion (privation) of a virtuous relationship. The person does not seek the wrong of “using” another for its own sake, but rather uses that person for the sake of some good.

Returning to Aquinas’ point:  “…it is clear that evil cannot be desired, and that it can only do something in virtue of the god connected with it.”  St. John Paul II implied that the problem with pornography wasn’t so much that it showed “too much” but rather that it didn’t reveal the person, but rather suppressed the dignity of that person. Thus, St. John Paul was not against nude-art, in fact he restored much of it within the Sistine Chapel from previous puritan-like mindsets.  

How do we apply this to our spiritual life? First, we must acknowledge that every time we desire something considered “sinful” that objectively there is a part of us that is attracted to something good.  This is important because it helps us avoid inordinate shame which would wrongly assert that we have a “sin-nature” or that we are “totally deprived of the good.” Such an attitude leads to seeing ourselves as evil per se (in essence). If this is the case, then our understanding of being ‘true to ourselves’ will either involve a total donation of ourselves to waywardness or we will see growth in virtue as a matter of doing violence to ourselves, destroying ourselves as such. In reality, we must acknowledge the good we desire as good – for instance, if you desire sexual intimacy and pleasure you should say: “The desires of sexual intimacy are created by God and are good.” But don’t stop there:  “And these pleasures are meant to flow out of the greater good that comes from a righteous act of self-giving love.”  

Second, we become weary of our own discernment process insofar as we recognize our complacency and habit of self-deception. Much of our thinking and discerning on moral matters can remain unconscious because we have not yet developed the interior life, where our conscience is meant to enthrone the Logos. In such a case, we are spiritually like a dead thing that is pushed about by the current of passion, and sociological values/norms. An inner awakening, and perhaps the truest meaning of being “woke” involves the capacity to know when we are deceiving ourselves (rationalizing).

Third, we can put to rest, finally, the erroneous defense mechanism people use to avoid going deeper, in a spirit of seeking spiritual growth: “I’m a good person.” It is true we can point towards our nature which in all acts our intention is ordered towards something good – however we cannot take credit for this as though it were a voluntary act of our will. This is something determined in our nature, and not something we can choose or merit any reward for.  Passively it may suggest an erroneous view of other human beings who desire evil-as-evil, which is impossible and excessively demeaning towards other fellow sinners. Just because we look towards an evil act and only intend by way of desire a certain good, does not communicate anything but demerit, if such an act is voluntary.

Finally, some words of caution, pastorally. When we encounter victims of atrocious acts of evil, while it remains philosophically true that no man can desire evil – as – evil, without nuancing and full explanation this can be internalized as a defense of the sinner. Although, as clearly shown above, that is not the case, however, offering a philosophical explanation as such would likely not be prudent.  It’s true that we want to orient that person towards the possibility of mercy and forgiveness (without neglecting justice) while at the same time not endorsing an exaggerated version of the perpetrator’s moral corruption that would prevent such forgiveness and lead to revenge. Listening to such a victim, one must certainly validate the evil that has taken place, and acknowledge explicitly the wrongness of what was done. Without this validation it is often difficult for the mind to move towards forgiveness and mercy.

Photo: Tom Pumford, Unsplash / PD-US