EVERY HUMAN ACT IS DONE FOR THE SAKE OF THE ULTIMATE END
by Gary L. Morella

homas Aquinas says that every human act is undertaken for some purpose with an end which has the character of the good. He echoes Aristotle who held that each human act has a particular goal (end) but there also exists an overriding ultimate end for which each human act is undertaken.

Ralph McInerny in ETHICA THOMISTICA asks what does Aristotle mean by "end" and "ultimate end?" He goes to Book One of the NICOMACHEAN ETHICS for the answers which begins with the statement that "Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and pursuit, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that which all things aim."

All human acts are teleological, done for a purpose with an end in mind. The good is the aim or end of an action where we are talking about the good for man. A problem arises in that if every human action is toward an end and if this end and good are the same, then every action as human action is good. Aristotle needed to distinguish between real and apparent goods. If he didn't, the door is wide open for the moral relativists to say that they are the final arbiters of what is good in a situational ethics context. For example, the militant homosexual lobby tells us that videos like "It's Elementary" where the youngest of children work from a premise that "there is no such thing as right or wrong," are good for society as a whole. Really? Let's look more into the difference between real and apparent goods. The key here is that Aristotle proceeds on the assumption that knowledge of the kind of agent we are will provide a criterion for distinguishing among the things we seek those that are truly perfective of us from those that are not. It does not take a Ph.D. in moral philosophy to see that we could legitimately ask, given the type of agent a homosexual activist is, is what he seeks truly perfective of mankind? The destructive nature of homosexual acts from a physical (natural) standpoint, let alone any supernatural connotations, gives a a resounding NO for an answer.

Aristotle says that if there were such an ultimate end, knowledge of it would be of the greatest usefulness. We would aim toward it with concern for it a political consideration. Lawmakers must have some end in mind when they take into account the entirety of human activity. All other ends would be subordinate to this. Aristotle says this end has a name - happiness.

The good is related to actions as their end. There are many goods as there are actions. The human good, man's chief good, as expressed by Aristotle is happiness. At the beginning of the seventh chapter of Book One of the NICOMACHEAN ETHICS, Aristotle tells us that "Human good turns out to be an activity of soul in accordance with virtue, and, if there is more than one virtue, in accordance with the best and most complete." Intellectual virtues presuppose the moral virtues with the set of virtuous actions constituting human happiness ordered in many ways. The moral virtues and the virtues of the practical intellect take precedence over those of the theoretical intellect. At this point, man's ultimate end is not some special good among others but rather is characterized by a plurality of virtuous actions.

Aquinas expands on Aristotle's ultimate "happy" end. The ultimate end is not recognized by many people but improves life when clarity about it is attained. He speaks of the "ratio boni", the character of goodness with the distinction that the formal note under which one chooses whatever he does is goodness, but the good is what is perfective or satisfying. It is necessary that a man seek whatever he does as a function of the "ratio boni". If it isn't sought as the perfect good which is THE ultimate end, it must be sought as tending toward same. The ultimate reason for seeking anything at all, per Aquinas, the "ratio boni", is shared by all human agents and, as such, there is an ultimate end which all men pursue. Aquinas cautions that all share in the desire for the ultimate end but not all men agree about it. Thus, it is not something that could enable us to discriminate between good or bad human agents. Aquinas says "Those who sin turn away from that in which the notion of the ultimate end is truly found but not from its intention which they falsely seek in other things." In my example of the militant homosexual activists, these other things are the "virtues" of sexual perversion.

We are told that the ends of particular actions, always sought as perfective of the agent, sometimes are and sometimes are not, i.e., they are such that they are falsely thought to perfect the agent. Aquinas introduces the ultimate end with a formal basis upon which to say that all men agree on it. He agrees with Aristotle that happiness is synonymous with ultimate end. He examines material candidates for happiness, fame, wealth, pleasure, etc., and finds them all deficient. He then argues, as a conclusion, that no created good can be man's ultimate end.

"The object of will ... is the universal good. Nothing can quiet it except the universal good which is found in NO creature but God alone ... Hence God alone can fulfill the will of man." God who is goodness itself, the ultimate in perfection, perfection itself, perfect in all things, Truth, Mercy, Justice, et al., God is the ONLY Being that can meet the criteria for ultimate end, i.e., that can exhaust the formality under which we desire and act. Perfect Happiness for man is found only in loving union with Goodness Itself, God. As such, it is NOT attainable in this world.

Aquinas in concerned with a higher supernatural good with which Aristotle was not acquainted. He used Aristotelian building blocks to show how man is called to a supernatural life on both sides of paradise.