Although the non-consideration of the rule of reason and divine law is formally a matter of intellectual non-specification, still it has for its efficient, or better deficient, cause the will itself. According to Thomas, "the root and source of moral wrong-doing is to be sought in the act of the will."⁽⁴⁸⁰⁾ Insofar as the intellectual non-consideration is rooted in the will, to that extent it is a voluntary non-consideration--a question of moral evil. It is essential then to analyze this most fundamental of all causes of sin, exposing thereby the ultimate defect presupposed in the principle of every defective action.

First, it should be recalled that the will is related to sin in various ways.⁽⁴⁸¹⁾ It is the direct cause of the physical act of sin, its material cause, and accidentally the cause of the deordination subjected in the sinful action as such. This accidental causality is due to the fact that the will, although it directly and primarily wills only the good physically considered or the material of the sinful action, still indirectly and secondarily it intends the very deformity inherent in the act; otherwise, there would be no question of strict culpability.⁽⁴⁸²⁾ The will, moreover, is a deficient cause of sin in not remedying the defect in the principle of its action, whose ontological basis is the non-identification of finite action with its proper rule.

It is this last type of causality, namely, the deficient causality of the will that constitutes the central problem of our entire investigation insofar as it is at the same time inherent in the will as finite cause and yet voluntary as it proceeds to choose a particular course of action. In other words, it is asked: what precisely is the nature of the defect of will presupposed in every sinful action; how is this defect voluntary; and finally, how is its voluntary character reconciled with the fact that this defect cannot itself be sinful without setting up an infinite regress in the search for an ultimate cause of sinful action. These questions constitute the greater portion of this last section of our investigation; but there will follow a brief consideration of the motive or reason accounting for the actual non-consideration of the rules of reason and divine law, although the latter concerns the psychological aspect of sinful volition.

THE NATURE OF THE DEFECT PRESUPPOSED

IN SINFUL ACTION

The inquiry into the nature of the defect presupposed in every sinful action might begin with a quotation from Thomas from his De Malo, as synthesizing the problem at hand.

The defect which is presupposed in the will before sin is neither a fault nor a punishment, but a pure negation; but it takes on the nature of fault from the fact that with such a negation it applies itself to a work⁽⁴⁸³⁾

Thomas leads us here onto the ontological level of sinful action insofar as he considers the will in a state of non-action, which non-action has about it the formality of a negation or defect. It is for this reason that many authors distinguish in the will act as it relates to sinful action `two moments': the first moment which is on the ontological level wherein the will is defective, but not yet sinful or culpable; and the second moment which is on the psychological level insofar as some type of will act is demanded if the voluntary defect is to become a culpable one.

Aquinas deals with the nature of this defect in numerous places in his corpus, always in terms of its being a mere absence or deficiency in the will and never a privation. Considered as the first ontological moment of voluntary non-consideration, this defect is not, as every privation must be, an absence of due good, but only an absence of another good. If such a defect were to be considered a privation of due good in the moral order, it would already be a type of sin, and consequently would be culpable; this would be tantamount to saying that the cause of sinful action was sin itself. If such were the case, Thomas says this sinful condition itself would demand an explanation and so on ad infinitum.⁽⁴⁸⁴⁾

This ultimate deficiency, however, on the part of the will is the source of the privation or corruption to be found in the sinful act, which is effected in the second moment of voluntary non-consideration as the will proceeds to action without its due direction. In the latter case, the deficiency becomes a privation of species, mode, and due order in human sin, whereas in angelic sin is only a privation of mode and due order since the object of its volition is simply good. The ultimate reason or cause of this privative appetition is to be found in the fact that, even before producing an evil action, the will already in some way has within itself the root of its defection by reason of the potentiality inherent in its finite nature: a being composite by nature. In the case of the angel, its potentiality is found in its being separated from its ultimate end. As Thomas says, the very flexibility of the will toward evil arises from the fact that the being is `ex nihilo.'⁽⁴⁸⁵⁾ Such nothingness is so characteristic of finite will that it provides its unique contribution to the disorder in sinful action; in other words, the negation or defect as such found in the first ontological moment of voluntary non-consideration has as its only proper effect in sinful action a negation. Due to the fact that the act should be ordered to a proper end this takes on the formality of a privation.

This somewhat subtle distinction between mere defect in the first moment of non-consideration and privation in the second moment provides the basis for Thomas' solution to one of the knottiest problems in his philosophy of moral evil.⁽⁴⁸⁶⁾ He formulates the problem by first contrasting evil in the natural and moral orders, noting that, although in the natural order evil seems to stem from some defect of power in the agent, such is not possible in the moral order. If this were the case, the presupposed defect of power would seem either to remove completely all trace of moral fault in the consequent action or at least diminish it. In other words, if one of the powers themselves of voluntary operation, specifically the will, were defective in its very being, the voluntary agent could not very well be held responsible for the evil action that proceeded therefrom. For example, if the intellect were radically defective, the defective knowledge and judgments proceeding from it would not be attributed to the person as a responsible agent: a type of ignorance incompatible with moral responsibility as would be found in mentally insane.

Thus, the ignorance implied in every sin is always a type of consequent ignorance; it is not an antecedent ignorance for that would do away with culpability. As a consequence, it follows a will act and thereby is voluntary. The same, however, cannot be said of the will as such, even though it would seem to be more applicable to this principle of moral action, according to the principle that defective action stems from a defective principle. The question then remains how this defect is voluntary, for such it must be if one is to avoid a type of natural necessitation to evil. Moreover, if it is considered voluntary, the defect then would seem to become culpable and thus there would be an endless series of sins as causes of sin.

In order to demonstrate that moral fault, the effect of the second moment of voluntary non-consideration, can have its basis in a mere defect or negation, Thomas examines in turn the four principles from which voluntary action proceeds: the thing apprehended or the object; the judgment of moral specification; the executive powers ordered or directed by the will itself; and the will as the ultimate source of all voluntary action.

The object, or thing apprehended, cannot be thought of as effecting moral fault in that its action is purely in the physical order and moves the passive faculties of apprehension precisely as their proper object. As such, no moral consideration is implied since the latter is present only through its relation to reason, which must judge its moral suitability as an end to be attained or a useful means thereto. Secondly, any defect in the apprehensive power itself, namely, the intellect, is without moral fault. If it were present, either it would completely destroy moral culpability, as with invincible ignorance, or would lessen it, as with vincible ignorance unless affected. Thirdly, the acts of the executive powers already presuppose a distinction of moral good or evil insofar as external acts do not pertain to the moral order unless they are voluntary, that is, unless they proceed from the will with knowledge of the end. In fact, the external act would have no relation to moral evil whatsoever if its defective character was realized only because of some defect that had no reference to will, for example, if some emotional or organic disturbance thwarted the execution of the will's right intention.

By elimination, then, Thomas concludes that the will itself must be the ultimate source of moral evil insofar as it is the formal principle of voluntary action. He remarks: "Moral fault is found primarily and principally in the act of the will only, and thus it is reasonable to say . . . that an act is moral because it is voluntary. . . . The root and source of moral wrongdoing is to be sought in the act of the will."⁽⁴⁸⁷⁾ If this were not so, one would have to conclude that the source assigned to moral evil in terms of the above mentioned sources either would not have any essential relation to moral evil, or would constitute a principle of diminution of the voluntary or moral character of the act. Or finally in the case of the external realization of the interior act it would presuppose a moral distinction, thus not constituting an essential act of moral evil.⁽⁴⁸⁸⁾

It is precisely at this point that the aforementioned dilemma becomes most serious, forcing Aquinas to seek a defect in the will at once voluntary and non-culpable. Such a defect, however, seems to contradict the very notion of culpability or even of morality itself insofar as such a defect must either be natural or voluntary; and in either case culpability would seem to be absent. If the defect were natural, then responsibility for the ensuing act would be attributed to nature and not to will; if, on the other hand, it were voluntary, that same defect would be a privation of moral goodness, a type of sinful action. In spite of this apparent contradiction, Thomas maintains that the defect must be voluntary, yet not at the time culpable.

In order to appreciate his distinction one should recall his consideration of the will as the accidental and deficient cause of evil. In this regard, when discussing the good as the accidental cause of evil, he distinguishes evil in action and evil in effect.⁽⁴⁸⁹⁾ It is only the former type of evil that is involved in the natural order or the order of effect, but only as it relates to the moral order of intellect and will. An example of this would be a person committing a sin of adultery whose entire evil is found not in its effect, that is, its natural result as an act of sexual intercourse, but in its character of moral action as related to human reason, the principle in man which judges the moral value of an object in relation to rational nature. With this in mind one may proceed to discuss Thomas' analysis regarding the nature of the defect in the will which constitutes the ultimate source of moral evil. He remarks that evil caused in action is such due to a defect of the principles of action. Specifically as regards human activity, these principles are two: the reason and the will. A defect in reason, however, without a corresponding defect of will would tend only to destroy or diminish moral fault. Thus, the defect ultimately responsible for evil action must be in the will itself. In the same article his answer to the third objection insists on the non-privative character of such a defect:

Evil has a deficient cause in voluntary things otherwise than in natural things . . . 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.⁽⁴⁹⁰⁾

Moreover, in contrasting these two types of evil, evil in action and evil in effect, Thomas makes it clear that in the case of a natural agent the pre-existing defect found in the principles giving rise to the effect is already an evil: "Hence evil never follows in the effect, unless some other evil pre-exists in the agent or in the matter."⁽⁴⁹¹⁾ However, in voluntary matters the presupposed deficiency is a mere defect, not an evil. In other words, it is not as such a privation of good, which the being or will ought to have. This defect is natural to the finite will insofar as it is a finite being: something proper to the finite will in its very nothingness as not identified with its last end. It bespeaks a fissure pervading its nature and should be overcome, if the will is to proceed according to right reason.

Still, it is not in itself a privation, nor a fault, nor a culpable defect, although it is indeed a voluntary one, meaning that it pertains to the will as such before it proceeds to act. Specifically, it is a voluntary non-subjection of the will to the rule, its ultimate end. Thomas herein distinguishes the two moments of the will mentioned above: the will as `created' will, that is, deficient cause, and will as `active principle,' namely, efficient cause under the primary motion of the first cause. The latter effects a real privation in the goodness of the act, which renders it morally evil; the former involves no act at all on the will's part, but a mere negation of action. In the De Malo Thomas notes: that "the will is the cause of sin inasmuch as it is deficient; but he compares that defect to silence or darkness because that defect is solely a negation."⁽⁴⁹²⁾

There is a difference between these two types of causality in the natural and moral orders. In the case of the natural order, the distinction is easily recognized. For example, regarding evil in action as in the case of the corruption of the form of water with the oncoming form of fire. Here, the cause of the evil is the active power of the fire corrupting the form of water, and thus returning it to the potency of matter. Such an evil is in no way attributed to any deficiency of power in either the primary or secondary causes, but only to the efficient power. Moreover, this evil is not related to the cause as the latter's proper effect, which in this case is the form of fire, caused accidentally by this proper effect. An evil in nature, on the other hand, as the proper effect of some cause is attributable to the deficient power of that cause since a defect in a proper likeness in nature presupposes a privation or evil in the active principle of the cause.

The example offered here by Thomas is the familiar one of the production of a monstrosity from deficient seed. Even in this case, however, the ultimate cause of the evil in the deficient principle is an accidental good, since such an evil is the improper effect of some action which is itself good. According to Aquinas, if the cause of the defect itself is sought, that is, of the evil of the deficient seed, one must conclude to some good which accidentally causes the evil, not to some ultimate deficient evil.

In the moral order there is a major difference which infers the ultimate causality to be a deficient one, or a defect of the active principle. The will insofar as it has dominion over its acts, and may thereby reject or accept the impulses of the lower appetites, is the cause of its evil action in both of the above ways, namely, both as accidental and deficient cause. Since in moral matters there is question only of evil in action, the ultimate source of the privation in any human act is the defect in the will and not, as in the natural order, a good. Will as good is the proximate principle of the evil or privation in the human action insofar as its tending toward a mutable good is deprived of due order to the end, and thus is said to cause evil accidentally. The ultimate source, however, of the moral evil is a mere defect in the will insofar as it does not freely choose to consider the rule whereby it should be regulated.

In other words, as an accidental efficient cause the will causes the privation, which is evil simply speaking, by tending toward some good which is contrary to reason in the case of human sin or sought inordinately in the case of every type of sin. It is ultimately a deficient cause, however, insofar as in the will there is presupposed some defect before the deficient election. The metaphysical basis for this defect, as shown, is the will and its action being separated from its higher end.⁽⁴⁹³⁾ As applied specifically to evil choice, this presents us with the two moments of the will's volition or causality, both as deficient and accidental cause of evil. It is the voluntary but deficient cause of the presupposed defect in that it freely chooses, by not acting, not to remedy the ontological defect of its separation from its ultimate end by a voluntary subordination of its act to the higher rule. It is the voluntary accidental cause of the privation, which is the realization of the presupposed defect in act, by acting, that is, by tending toward a good without the regulation demanded of finite actions.

For the above reasons Thomas considers the defect to be the ultimate source of the privation which corrupts the moral act. This is contrary to the ultimate source of corruption in the natural order in that the latter has a good for its accidental cause and not a defect. Thus, as previously demonstrated, natural evil has an accidental good as its ultimate cause, whereas moral evil has a deficiency as its ultimate explanation. The former springs from the active power of the natural agent, while the latter comes from the defect of power in the voluntary agent. As Thomas puts it:

Some good is the cause of evil inasmuch as it is deficient; yet not only is good the cause of evil in this way, but even in a certain manner good inasmuch as it is not deficient is accidentally the cause of evil. But in voluntary actions the cause of evil, i.e., sin, is the defective will, but that defect, according as it is presupposed to sin, does not have the nature either of fault or punishment . . . . Nor do we need to seek a further cause of such a defect; hence there is no need to admit an infinite regression.⁽⁴⁹⁴⁾

In claiming that this defect is a mere negation or nothingness of being Thomas has implied that the defect becomes voluntary through a type of non-action on the will's part, otherwise the defect would be a privation due to the will's proceeding to act without proper subordination and direction. Such non-action requires only the finite will as its ultimate source in that, left to itself, the will cannot effect anything except a type of `non-being.' This `non-being' is ontologically grounded on the radical separation of the finite being from its ultimate end; morally it is realized through non-action in the first moment of the will's non-consideration. It is precisely this non-being that becomes in the second moment the privation corrupting the moral act.

In view of the non-active character of this deficiency Aquinas may, therefore, insist that one does not have to seek any further than the freedom of the will itself to account for the voluntary nature of the defect. Since liberty by definition involves the ability to act or not act, its non-action is as voluntary as its action: in either case the will is the responsible principle. Consequently, its non-action concerning the consideration of its ultimate rule, although a deficiency in itself, is nonetheless voluntary insofar as remains in the power of will to consider or not consider it. This strategic move enables Thomas to maintain that a mere defect of ordering is at the root of moral evil. This is voluntary but inculpable in its first moment of the will's causality; it is voluntary but culpable in its second moment when it proceeds to act without due consideration. The precise reason for this transition from mere defect to culpable privation is due to the fact that, although the will has no obligation to remedy this defect before acting, still in proceeding to act it renders the defect culpable. In other words, theoretically it could remain indefinitely in a state of non-action without incurring moral fault. Once, however, it proceeds to act, its consequent action will be deprived of a due perfection--a privation of due order. In summary Thomas writes:

This defect of ordering is voluntary, for to will or not to will lies within the power of the will itself. And it is also within its (the will's) power for reason to make an actual consideration or to abstain . . . or further to consider this or that alternative. Yet, such a defect of ordering is not a moral evil, for, if reason considers nothing, or considers any good whatever, that is still not a sin until the will inclines to an unsuitable end.⁽⁴⁹⁵⁾

THE VOLUNTARY CHARACTER OF THE DEFECT

Although the question of the voluntary nature of the above defect has at times been treated incidentally throughout our investigation, its importance warrants a broader analysis in the philosophy of Thomas. Moreover, it paves the way for discussing its correlative aspect, the culpable character when it passes over into the second moment of will.

According to Aquinas there are two aspects of voluntary `action' as related to the act of counsel, which concerns things that ought to be considered before a person acts: there is direct and indirect volition.⁽⁴⁹⁶⁾ The former is realized when the will acts as efficient cause or agent of the act produced; the latter occurs when the will is the deficient principle of non-action. The directly voluntary is to the will's second moment as the indirectly voluntary is to its first moment. A fuller discussion of direct volition will be carried out in the final section of this chapter in connection with the motive or reason of voluntary non-consideration in the second moment of volition.

Here, the indirectly voluntary will be dealt with. In this regard Thomas notes: "The term voluntary is applied not only to that on which the act of the will is brought to bear, but also to that which we have the power to do or not to do."⁽⁴⁹⁷⁾ It is to be noted that nothing in this statement implies obligation to act, but only the possibility of action. Thus, it is this notion of mere possibility that furnishes us with the important distinction for applying this aspect of the voluntary to the defect of non-action rooted in the will before it proceeds to act. By excluding any question of obligation or suitability of circumstance, the distinction necessarily excludes any notion of culpability. The will through its ontological non-identification with its ultimate end or higher good is not, as such, the cause of the ontological defect rooted in its being. Nevertheless, it becomes the voluntary principle of this defect through non-consideration of the rule to which it is by nature subordinate. In other words, although the will by nature is not actually subordinated to its higher rule due to its non-identification with the same, it becomes the voluntary cause of the non-subordination insofar as it does not act to consider this rule. In the case of humans this rule is both the rules of reason and divine law.

One might look to Thomas' Commentary on the Ethics of Aristotle to find a more specific application of the above to the question of `counsel,' as it pertains to the non-consideration of the rules of reason and divine law.⁽⁴⁹⁸⁾ Herein he reduces non-action regarding the principles of human action to the basic question as to whether or not these principles are in a person's power. Since election, counsel and the like are the principles of human acts, they are by that very fact subject to the will and their use or non-use is thereby voluntary. To consider or not to consider--the act of counsel--in the first moment of volition regards the rules which should regulate one's action. In the second moment this act of council is the rule which should regulate all lower appetites which are under the dominion of the will and as such voluntary. If this were not so, voluntary action would be by nature necessitated in regard to the order of exercise, thereby destroying freedom at its very source. Thomas writes:

For if not to act were not in our power, it would be impossible that we not act; therefore, it would be necessary for us to act, and thus to act would not be from us, but would be from necessity.⁽⁴⁹⁹⁾

It is then by emphasizing the fact that such acts of counsel, deliberation, etc., are under the power of the will to effect them or not that Thomas establishes the voluntary character of the defect of non-action, specifically, the non-consideration of the rule in the first moment of volition. In doing this he insisted that such a defect, although voluntary, is not in itself culpable or sinful. It has not yet passed over into the order of privation, which it assumes in the second moment of voluntary non-consideration of both rules, namely, reason and divine law.

THE CULPABLE CHARACTER OF THE NON-ACTION

Aquinas specifically applies the notion of the voluntary and the act of counsel to the order of reason and divine law in yet another article of the De Malo wherein he explains the basis for isolating the precise formality distinguishing the merely voluntary from the non-consideration of the rule of morality. Therein he says that what exactly is required to constitute a sin as a sin, and what is thus required to constitute the cause of sin. The former distinction, as has been shown, is the non-conformity to or recession from the rule or measure to which an act should be subjected in the natural, artistic and moral orders. From this distinction it may be concluded that, simply speaking by considering sin as sin, it is possible that there be a type of sin, namely, non-action in relation to an affirmative precept or rule, which requires no action to constitute it. In other words, there is the possibility of a mere sin of omission, a voluntary non-action which in view of particular circumstances ought to have been performed.

Within the broader framework of Thomas' philosophy it might be said that man is in a sense naturally prone to evil insofar as his being is separated from its ultimate end, his knowledge is fallible in deducing precepts from the natural and/or divine law, and his passions are capable of clouding, and even at times overcoming, his reason. This is a corollary of the more general principle cited throughout this investigation, namely, that fallible beings will at times fail. Nor is this inherent fallibility, which Aquinas at this point recognizes as "simply speaking the possibility of a mere sin of omission," to be understood as a kind of weakness on the part of the first cause to remedy: this is not a perfect world and imperfections, even in the moral order, will at times occur. The question of remedying all such imperfections is not only metaphysically impossible, but in the long run not desirable. It would be like the old conundrum of whether `God can make a square circle' or a kind of comic travesty like Voltaire's caricature of Leibniz's perfect world. In any event, Thomas has brought us to the threshold of the mystery of evil without attempting to cross over into humanly unnavigable waters.

If the latter of the two distinctions explained above, namely, the cause of sin, it need be said that some act is required even in the case of a sin of omission. In other words, if anyone does not do what he ought to do or does not consider what he ought to consider, there is required some cause to account for this omission. This cause must be an intrinsic one, if the omission is to have the formality of sin, for otherwise, the omission would not be said to proceed from a responsible agent. In view of these distinctions Aquinas concludes that "for an omission to be a sin the omission must be caused by a voluntary act."⁽⁵⁰⁰⁾

As mentioned above, this is the crux of the problem in relation to the voluntary character of the non-consideration of the rule, that is, the voluntary defect presupposed in every sin, whether it is to be related to a sin of omission or commission. Thomas, however, does not leave us without some recourse in facing this thorny dilemma: he distinguishes between something being directly or indirectly voluntary. The directly voluntary is an act of the will which tends toward some appetible good by the direct intention of the agent, while the indirectly or accidentally voluntary is a type of non-action and as such is beyond the intention of the agent.

As applied to a sin of omission, which is the formality pertinent to voluntary non-consideration of the rule presupposed in every sin, the directly voluntary act is not directed to the omission as such, since the object of the will is good and not a privation. It is directed rather to something positive with a foreknowledge of the consequent omission incurred by such an act. The example offered by Thomas in this passage is that of a person willing to play a game, although he foresees that due to this he will miss church when he ought be in attendance. As regards the indirectly or accidentally voluntary, there is not required, simply speaking, an advertence to what one is held to do or to consider; in other words, it is not required that the consequent omission be foreseen. The example given here by Aquinas is that of a person so occupied with some particular endeavor that it does not come to his mind that he ought to be doing such and such. Thomas concludes: "It makes no difference in regard to this whether the voluntary act, which is directly or indirectly the cause of the omission, is simultaneous with the omission itself or even precedes it."⁽⁵⁰¹⁾ In the usual parameters of ethical responsibility such inadvertence is culpable only if the person ought to have foreseen or attended to the omission. This would be the case in treating a patient for a doctor who ought to have realized that by not giving a particular medication the patient surely would not survive. In the case of the non-consideration of the rules of reason and divine law this inadvertence entails such culpability, even in the first moment of volition.

This last remark by Thomas indicates that there are two possible situations with regard to voluntary non-consideration or non-action relevant to the sin of omission. One involves a non-consideration or non-action as simultaneously realized in the sin of commission itself, sin or culpable omission on the psychological level; there the privation caused by the omission is consequent to the conversion to the good on the part of the appetite. The other is on the ontological level and regards a voluntary non-consideration preceding the actual sinful omission. In this instance the non-action, although voluntary, is not as such culpable, since it is to be found in the first moment of the will prior to any actual tendency toward a good without due direction by its rule. As will be shown, it becomes culpable only if the omission, that is, non-action, ought not to have been allowed.

In the answer to a second objection in this same article Thomas distinguishes these two moments of voluntary non-action or omission in terms of `power' and `act'. He writes:

A thing is said to be voluntary not only because it falls under the act of the will, but also because it falls under the power of the will. For in this way even the very not-willing is called voluntary because the will has the power to will and not to will, and likewise to do and not to do.⁽⁵⁰²⁾

In other words, the area of mere possibility in the order of exercise as a source of voluntariness from the area of actuality in the order of specification. The latter type always presupposes action, which if unregulated is culpably evil, whereas the former presupposes only voluntary non-action or omission, prescinding for whether it is culpable or not. This voluntariness, namely, that concerning only the voluntary character of omission as related to moral evil, is found in the first or ontological moment of non-consideration of the rules. This is inherent and natural to the human condition. In contrast, the other type of voluntariness concerning actual omission as related to moral evil pertains to the second moment of non-consideration. Here the will proceeds to act by tending toward a particular good without the direction of its rule. It is in this arena that responsible and/or culpable human action occurs.

Thomas thus has distinguished the question of the culpable nature of the sin of omission from the causality involved in omission itself. In so doing, he has provided himself with a means for resolving the problem of the voluntary, although non-culpable, omission presupposed in every sin. Viewed abstractly, an omission is rooted in the power of the will and may be accounted for in terms of the non-use of that power. This, however, does not imply whether the non-use is culpable or not. That will depend on whether the use, or, in the case of moral evil, the consideration of the rule, is demanded at this precise moment. If it were, then the omission passes over into the second moment of non-consideration on the psychological level, and as such is culpable. If not, then the omission is still regarded in relation to the first moment of non-consideration on the ontological level. and as such is only voluntary in character.

Insofar as the obligation is concerned, it should here be recalled that Thomas insists that the rational creature has an obligation to remedy this defect, which is rooted in its action as unidentified with its last end, only when it proceeds to act. Theoretically, a fallible being might remain indefinitely in a state of non-action, but practically being moves to action as a kind of transcendental necessity: action is a transcendental aspect of being. In other words, a fallible intellectual being theoretically is indifferent to good or evil. Practically speaking, however, in its action it carries with it its inherent defectibility, and thus it often chooses as end or means mutable objects in conflict with the rule of reason and divine law.

Thomas brings out the non-culpable character of omission considered in itself in this same article: "The fault may be caused by some act, which sometimes is a fault, as when sin is the cause of sin, but sometimes is not a fault."⁽⁵⁰³⁾ In saying this he maintains that the ultimate source of sinful action need not be sought in terms of a culpable cause or fault, but only in terms of a voluntary cause. This voluntary cause might be the mere non-action of the power of the will to do or not to do, to consider or not to consider that which it can. This last word "can" affords the key to the solution of the problem, since, if the "can" becomes an "ought," the omission is culpable and passes over to the area of the second moment of non-consideration.

In employing this key we see that voluntary non-consideration of the moral law is by definition an omission of act or consideration. Whether it is merely voluntary or culpable depends upon the divisions and distinctions afforded by Thomas, which make room for a type of omission which has as its cause a voluntary non-action, prescinding from culpability as such. And finally, by relating the question of the sin of omission to the area of positive or affirmative precept, he finds a type of voluntary omission which is not culpable, since it is not at that moment voluntary. This is based upon the principle that affirmative precepts are always binding, but not in every instance.⁽⁵⁰⁴⁾ Viewed from another aspect, the question remains as to what formality brings about the transition from first to second moment of non-consideration.

It has been repeatedly noted that Aquinas insists on the distinction between mere defect of will and privation in act in order to demonstrate that in the first moment the defect is voluntary but inculpable. He has done this, it seems, to safeguard his philosophy of moral evil from possible contradictions and errors. We shall consider two such possibilities. Firstly, there is the fact that, unless he did take pains in making these distinctions, sin would be the ultimate root of sin, which root would have to be accounted for in terms of a positive cause, since sin is not a mere negation but a privative act. Secondly, there is the fact that this would render the will radically vicious infecting all its appetitions.

Still, it might be asked in what precise manner does the merely defective non-consideration become sinful, that is, privative non-consideration. Although the distinction between first and second moments is a starting point in answering this question, the precise cause of the transition from one to another has not been fully explored. Psychologically considered, the question was answered when the positive character of sinful action was explicated, insofar as sin is no mere negation or defect, but a privation of due goodness resulting from inordinate appetition. Ontologically considered, the transition occurred when the will proceeded to act without subordinating itself to its proper rule(s). But what effects this transition?

Let us suppose that a person here and now in the first moment of non-consideration has no obligation to act; hence, his non-consideration is merely a defect and not a privation or culpable defect. In this moment it might be said, he is not obligated to consider the rule of reason any more than the sculptor is obliged always to have the chisel in his hand or the painter a brush. The `obligation' to do so in order to prevent his artifact from being defective occurs precisely when he decides to execute his design. So with a person in regard to moral action; there is question of a static moment when the circumstances do not warrant a decision to act or not to act. Now let it be supposed that such circumstances are present and are so recognized by the person that he finds himself in a concrete and dynamic situation demanding an immediate consideration of the rules to which his forthcoming action or non-action is subject. Thomas provides a classic example:

But we must take note that the cause of what follows from want of action is not always the agent as not acting; but only then when the agent can and ought to act. For if the helmsman were unable to steer the ship or if the ship's helm be not entrusted to him, the sinking of the ship would not be set down to him, although it might be due to his absences from the helm.⁽⁵⁰⁵⁾

From the above the following might be inferred: first, there is here a matter of the second moment of voluntary non-consideration. If this were not the case, this passage would contradict what has been explained about Aquinas' insistence on the voluntary but non-culpable character of non-action in the first moment of non-consideration. Second, the reason given for this is the `concrete and dynamic' situation wherein the captain finds himself. In other words, the circumstances have warranted an actual consideration of the rules of reason and divine law. Third, a further stipulation has been added to that of voluntary in terms of the `oughtness' of the envisioned action in contradistinction to the mere possibility implicit in the voluntary first moment. This `oughtness' will render the non-action of the deficient cause not merely defective, but privative non-action. It is then the relation of this non-action on the part of the will to the concrete circumstances appreciated by the agent that brings about the transition from the first to the second moments when the agent decides not to act or not to consider, although the circumstances demand it. At that moment his will proceeds to act (an act of omission) without the direction of its rule.

In the texts cited thus far from the Summa Contra Gentes and the De Malo Thomas has judged the non-consideration of the rules of reason and divine law to become sinful and culpable at the moment when the agent disposes himself to act positively, that is, when he in some way decides to act or not act in a given situation.⁽⁵⁰⁶⁾ If the action contemplated is merely optional, then the non-consideration becomes culpable only at the moment of an actual election of the evil. In such a case, it is not necessary to act, but if one acts, he must do so according to the dictates of these rules. It is at that precise moment that the consideration becomes obligation. If, however, the action contemplated is seen as obligatory in the sense that the person so situated, as is the captain in the example, recognizes that this particular action comes under the dictates of universal law or that his lower appetition must be subordinated to reason, then the consideration of these rules become in a sense obligatory at that very moment.

The reason for this is that in the case of the concrete circumstances demanding immediate action, there is a type of election previous to the envisioned election of the good itself in terms of the act of omission to consider these rules. That election occurs at the moment when the person decides in spite of his knowledge of the obligation not to act; in other words, the election is what ethicians call strictly a `sin of omission.' Thus, the problem of the culpable character of the voluntary non-consideration or non-action in regard to the rule of morality must be explained within the context of Thomas' teaching on the sin of omission. In the previous section the latter was considered only in terms of its providing a basis for the voluntary cause of non-consideration; now it must be dealt with in terms of the culpable character of such non-consideration or non-action.

In the Summa Theologica Aquinas discusses whether there can be a sin without any act whatsoever.⁽⁵⁰⁷⁾ His answer distinguishes between the sin of omission looked at in its essential notion and that looked at in the concrete. If one were to consider only the formality constituting it, namely, the essential note of not acting, then it would follow that it could be said that a sin of omission need not involve any act either interior or exterior, but only a voluntary and inculpable cause. As an example of this, Thomas envisions a person who is obliged to be at church at a certain hour, but who does not think about going or not going at all. Subjectively considered in terms of the concrete situation there is no sin involved since he does not even think of his obligation. However, abstractly considered, it is a sin of omission, that is, it is the non-doing of something one ought to do.

But this is the point at issue, and provides Aquinas with bases for making a necessary distinction in such sins. As explained above, it distinguishes the type of culpability preceding an actual election of evil, or in this example, the physical non-action of not going to church. His argument runs as follows. If the sin of omission be taken with regard to the causes and occasions of the omission, that is, if the sin be considered in its concrete circumstances, then it is necessary to conclude that in every sin of omission there is involved some act, at least an interior act on the part of the agent who proceeds to act without due consideration of those things which he ought to consider. In such circumstances he does have an obligation to remedy this defect, that is, to remove such a cause or occasion.

As applied to the question of the voluntary non-consideration of the moral law, it may be said that as soon as the circumstances are recognized by the agent the obligation to consider the moral law occurs. For otherwise the non-consideration or non-action in the first moment becomes a privation in his decision not to consider the same. It is culpable insofar as the person in this concrete situation both is able and ought to do so. The act in such non-consideration is an act of omission; in other words, as Thomas says, it is a sin of omission in that "this not-willing and not-acting is imputed to, as though proceeding from, the will."⁽⁵⁰⁸⁾

He applies this doctrine of sin by omission specifically to non-consideration of the moral law in the Summa Theologica⁽⁵⁰⁹⁾ where he states that just as it is voluntary not to will and not to act, "cum tempus fuerit," so it is also "not to consider."⁽⁵¹⁰⁾ The obligation to consider the moral law is always binding, but not at every moment, which is true of every affirmative precept: in ethical terms "semper sed non ad semper." Aquinas discusses this in his De Malo remarking that, although one is always obliged to honor his parents, still the actual obligation is realized only "tempore debito."⁽⁵¹¹⁾ So it is concerning the moral law when it dictates in a positive manner. In the case of "due time" regarding the consideration of moral law, this would be the second moment of volition, that is, when the will, in spite of the urgency of circumstances as presented to it by reason, proceeds to act without such consideration.

Hence, there is a twofold aspect to sinful action, namely, the will through a sin of omission failing to do that which it can and ought to do, and the will proceeding to act without such direction. The first of these aspects implies the privation of due order as such while the second the sinful conversion to a mutable good; the one is a sin of omission, the other that of commission respectively. It might be concluded that the precise formality rendering a mere defect a privation, that is, effecting the transition from the first to the second moment of non-consideration is found in this sinful omission whereby the will fails in a concrete situation to do that which it can and ought to do.

THE REASON OR MOTIVE FOR THE SINFUL

NON-CONSIDERATION OF THE RULE OF MORALITY

As has been consistently maintained, Thomas insists that the voluntary non-consideration of the moral law does not force us to look beyond free will itself to explain its being the voluntary cause of moral evil insofar as it indirectly wills not to act and/or not to consider its proper rules. In abstracto this is inculpable, but in concreto it is sinful. Thus, in order to explain non-consideration or non-action resulting from indirect volition it is not necessary to establish any direct causal influence involving a communication of being or a modification thereof. This is true in both the first and second moments of voluntary non-consideration, if one should prescind from the material concrete act wherein the latter is subjected. In other words, as non-consideration, the non-subordination of the will to proper rule is the same in both instances, although in the second moment the mere negation or defect becomes a privation due to the fact that this act ought to be regulated by its proper rule. However, even this privation as a privation does not require a positive influx of being on the part of its cause, but only a voluntary non-action or non-consideration. Hence, its culpable nature comes from the fact that it is a `formal removal' of due perfection which the act ought to have. This has been explained previously as a precision afforded by Cajetan when explaining the positive character of sin.⁽⁵¹²⁾

One might still inquire as to what exactly psychologically moves the will to consider or not consider its proper rules; in other words, why does the will choose an objectively sinful course of action or an object prohibited by the precepts of moral law. First of all, the consideration or non-consideration is not an explicit judgment distinct from the evaluative practical judgment concerning the object to be chosen here and now by the will. This was discussed at length in terms of the practical syllogism involved in such non-consideration. As such, this question concerning the motive or reason for the actual consideration or non-consideration resolves around the psychology of free choice in terms of a motive sufficient to move the will from a state of potency to act in regard to the concrete object to be chosen. Here our investigation centers on two causalities involved in free election, namely, the orders of exercise and specification, which is to say, efficient and formal causality and their relations to the two moments of voluntary non-consideration. Presupposing that one is dealing here with the actual consideration or non-consideration, it concerns only the second moment of volition and only the privative character as rendering a moral act culpable in its appetition of a particular good.

When Thomas says that liberty is the sufficient cause of the non-consideration of the rule of morality and that one need not seek a further cause of this free act, he is speaking of non-consideration as such in the order of efficient causality, or in the case of moral evil what has been designated the order of deficient causality. It is to be recalled that in this order of efficient or deficient causality the will, according to Aquinas, can be determined only by itself. Neither the intellect, nor the sense, nor any exterior cause except the first cause, can move the will to act or not act.⁽⁵¹³⁾ As regards, the efficient movement of the will there is required a primary influx of being on the part of the first cause to reduce the will initially from a state of potency to act. But this initial and ongoing causality may be viewed as the general and/or ordinary influx of being from the first to all secondary causes in the universe of created activity; it is not the instrumental causality regarded in more specific secondary action. Also such an ongoing influence in no way destroys the freedom of moral action, rather it is a necessary prerequisite for that freedom. For deficient causality on the part of the will as regards moral evil, there is not required even this positive influx from the primary cause, since there is no `action' on the part of the will, but only non-action or non-consideration.

In the order of specification the emphasis shifts to the intellect as moving the will in choosing a particular good through the intellect's specifying the most suitable object to be chosen here and now. This specification, as has been said, is arrived at only in terms of the disposition of the whole individual. Thus, the will may be said to move the intellect to specify the object most suitable to the present dispositions of the subject of which the will is the principal faculty of appetition. It is in this order of specification that the question of why the will does or does not actually consider its proper rules will be decided in terms of motive for its action or non-action. This is due to the fact that the intellect in specifying a particular object as the good here and now to be chosen is obliged to consider the rules of reason and divine law.

Thomas explicates these mutual orders of causality in respect to the actual consideration or non-consideration of the rule of morality in his De Malo. There he argues that just as in other things there must be some first principle of proper acts, so there must be such a principle in rational beings.⁽⁵¹⁴⁾ In them this active or moving principle is twofold, namely, intellect and will. The first principles in nature and in humans are similar insofar as in both orders the active principle is the form, which is always the principle of action, and from it follow natural inclinations toward their respective proper objects. Still in terms of the mode of this natural or consequent inclination there is a difference. In the natural order these inclinations are necessary and determined to particular actions. They always center on some particular good which must be sought if conformable to the appetition of the natural being at the moment of sensible apprehension. In contrast, in the moral order the form in question is intellectual; hence its consequent inclination as found in the rational appetite is not necessitated or determined. The reason for this lies in the fact that the intellect apprehends its object in an immaterial way, thus enabling it to compare the object to its immaterial notion of goodness itself. Thereby it sees both desirable and undesirable aspects in the object. In this way the will in conjunction with the immaterial intellect is never necessitated by any one particular good. Thomas says that the immaterial form is one "under which many can be comprehended. Hence since acts are concerned with singulars, among which there is none that is equal to the potentiality of the universal, the inclination of the will remains indeterminately related to many."⁽⁵¹⁵⁾

His next point regarding these mutual causalities is that the potencies in question are moved in two different orders: the order of exercise, which looks to the subject, and the order of specification, which looks to the object. In the natural order the specification of a power by its object is rooted in the necessity of its form insofar as this form being material is limited to a particular sensible array of proper objects, for example, food, sex, pleasure and the like. Therefore, the exercise of act in the natural order also is necessitated. As soon as this particular sensible object is sensibly known as satisfying the dispositions of this natural being, it necessarily is sought. In other words, although the non-intellectual agent acts for an end, its first principle of motion is a material form determined in its inclinations. Thus, its exercise of act is determined by the end proposed by the necessitating cause.

In the moral order, however, this is not the case. There the object of the intellect, which is apprehended immaterially, is the first principle of the motion of the will in the order of formal causality, insofar as it specifies a particular good as the most suitable good here and now to be chosen. However, due to its immaterial apprehension any number of aspects of such objects may be considered. Such a presentation of objects is not necessitated by a determined form or determined inclinations. They are specified as goods to be chosen only under the influence of the immaterial apprehension of goodness by the intellect. Consequently, the appetition of the will is equally non-necessitated; it is free as regards the order of exercise or act insofar as the rational power is left free to act or not act.

If, therefore, one should consider the motions of the powers of the soul on the part of the object specifying the act, the first principle of motion is from the intellect. It is in this way that the apprehended good is said to move the will itself. If one consider, however, the motion of the powers of the soul as regards the exercise of act, the first principle of motion is the will itself. For only the power which looks to the end can move the power concerned with the means thereto. It is thus that the will is said to move itself in terms of the end desired, and the intellect in terms of determining the means and all the lower powers in the execution of choice.

As applied to the question of the consideration or non-consideration of the rule of morality, it may be concluded that the will can move the intellect to consider the latter in its act of practical judgment insofar as it moves it to choose an object which is in accord with the universal principles of morality possessed by the intellect. Such pertains to the order of exercise insofar as the will can moves the intellect to take counsel or not of those things which it ought to consider. The will, however, moves the intellect to consider only those things which correspond to its present inclinations; in this way right reason is said to depend upon right appetite. Consequently, the intellect considers or specifies as the good to be chosen only that good which the will wills it to specify. In the order of exercise, therefore, it may be seen that the will freely moves the intellect to consider or not consider the rule of morality, that is, to specify as the good to be chosen an object in conformity with the moral law or one not so conformed.

Since the will is not always willing to move the intellect to counsel, it is necessary that the will itself be moved to this by some external principle. This is the primary cause in the philosophy of Aquinas, who writes:

what first moves the will and the intellect is something above the will and the intellect, namely God, Who since He moves all things according to the nature of the movable things, . . . also moves the will according to its condition, i.e., its nature, not as of necessity but as indeterminately relating to many.⁽⁵¹⁶⁾

Thomas considers, therefore, the ultimate cause of the actual consideration of the rule of morality in the order of exercise to be the first cause. In other words, if the will is to move the intellect to consider those things which it ought to consider, namely, the rules of reason and divine law, in its specification of a particular good to be chosen by the will, this motion must proceed initially from the first cause. However, such primary influence is not needed in regard to the non-consideration of these rules, since that is a matter of non-action, voluntary in the will's first moment and culpable in its second moment as it proceeds to act without due consideration. This non-action or non-consideration, as has been said, is in both instances traceable to the defect of the will and not to its action as such. Therefore, as non-action or non-consideration, it requires no causal influence from the primary cause. The finite will alone is its ultimate causal explanation.

The question as to why the will does not actually consider these rules narrows itself down to a matter pertaining to the order of specification and not to that of exercise. In other words, the actual non-consideration of such is explained only in terms of the motive for the will's direct volition. Here three things should be kept in mind: first, the defect found in the second moment of appetition is a voluntary culpable privation since it is rooted in an act. This act ought to be good according to species, mode, and order, but here is deprived of this. Second, the species of an evil act is determined not by this privation, but by a positive tendency of the will toward a particular good which one way or another is contrary to its proper rules. As such it is the conversive element in the act and the material element; it looks to the good sought and not to the privation of order in the appetition. The latter is the aversive element or the formal element in the evil act. This is never sought as such, but is willed only indirectly as a consequence of directly voluntary volition. Third, this tendency toward the good, insofar as it is act, demands an active cause. But the privation rooted in and consequent to this appetition, not being act but the absence of due perfection, does not demand any causality apart from the deficient will. If it is asked what precisely causes the actual non-consideration of the rule of morality, the answer must be found in why the will positively moves toward a particular good; this pertains to the order of specification. It is a question "of the motion of the will on the part of the object determining" the appetition in the order of formal causality. In this same article Thomas assigns three sources to account for the motive power of the object or for the motion of the will on the part of the object.⁽⁵¹⁷⁾ The first is the predominance of one thing's perceived value over another. This is an object moving the will according to reason insofar as it presupposes a reasonable and objective evaluation of the object proposed. Although such reasoning might involve invincible ignorance, the appetition would still be in terms of right disposition with a proper end. The second source of moral specification is the fact that reason often considers only one particular circumstance or at times none at all. This frequently happens due to some occasion within or without the subject which momentarily turns his attention to a particular aspect apart from a consideration of others. Still, the will remains the voluntary cause of this non-consideration insofar as it is within its power to consider these other particulars and/or circumstances. The third source of moral specification is by far the most important and far reaching and concerns the disposition of the subject willing. What has been said about the first and second sources does not in any way exclude the subject, but the latter as such is not their main focus. Since the disposition of the willing subject previously has been analyzed at length, it will be discussed now only as a primary source helping to explain why a person chooses one object over another even though he knows it to be contrary to the rule of reason and divine law.

Such dispositions cannot be said to necessitate the will in its choice of a particular good as is the case in irrational appetition, since the principle of action in rational beings involve the two orders of nature and reason. As stated, a particular good in the rational order finds no necessary counterpart in its principles of action which would necessitate human appetition, as would be the case for the natural instincts in the irrational kingdom. As immaterially apprehended, the sensible object is dematerialized and made apt for comparison with the notion of goodness as such. In this way these apprehensions correspond adequately to no particular dispositions, especially that of the will itself, which through reason is open to goodness itself. Commenting on the power of the will over such dispositions Thomas writes:

If then the disposition by which a thing seems good and befitting to a person is natural and not subject to the will, the will chooses it naturally and necessarily . . . . But if the disposition be such as is not natural but subject to the will, as when someone is so disposed by habit or passion that something seems either good or bad to him under this particular aspect, the will is not moved of necessity.⁽⁵¹⁸⁾

He concludes his remarks by assigning why this is true to reason, on the one hand, but leaving it within the power of the will to remove such dispositions: "The will . . . has the power to remove this disposition so that the thing does not seem so to him."⁽⁵¹⁹⁾ This latter ability to remove the disposition is in the order of exercise while that of reason's judging it to be desirable is in the order of specification. In other words, Aquinas is not alleging that while constituted in this disposition a person will choose something contrary to his disposition, but only that he can do so insofar as he can remove the disposition itself.

When this source of moral specification is related to the matter of the actual non-consideration of the rule of morality, one is dealing with the choice of a good considered in a composite sense. That is, if the factors for the choice are present or presupposed, the choice of this good will be made. Although the will retains its power to alter such factors, it does not actually do so because its dispositions are otherwise at the moment or, in the case of ingrained habits continually.

Although at first glance this proneness to will what is most suitable to the subject's dispositions might appear as a kind of determination similar to the inclinations of irrational beings, upon careful analysis this is seen not to be the case. First, unlike the latter inclinations, a person's dispositions have been, for the most part, freely acquired. Others, such as those determined by one's genes, mix, so to speak, into the whole complex of human emotions, habits, desires, physical characteristics, etc., prior to and concomitant with a person's willing any particular end or means.

Secondly, what would be the alternative, if free choice were considered as though it took place apart from, or even contrary to, such dispositions? If this were the case, a person's free choices would be arbitrary and totally unpredictable; moreover, such choices would be totally out of character, and as such, irrational. Any psychological attempt to explain human behavior without espousing a kind of behaviorism must come down on the side of Thomas' analysis of the human condition. On the part of the individual willing, self-analysis is certainly a tricky business; hence, it is beyond human knowledge to fathom the depths even of one's own being. In Aquinas' psychology contextualized within the framework of his metaphysics, human freedom remains a mystery whose only proviso is the ineffable knowledge of the first cause.

It is not necessary, therefore, to conclude from anything previously stated that the will, or rather the human person through his will, must always choose the particular good corresponding to its concrete present conditions, or that one could not act against such dispositions. It is always within one's power to throw another log on the fire, so to speak, thus changing the complex of his personality. But in this mutual intermingling of the rational, emotional, etc., with the person's will, it may be said that unless another factor is placed in the mix, he will not choose a particular object contrary to his present situation. Metaphysically, this demonstrates the difference along with the mutuality of the two orders in question: the order of specification and the order of exercise. To argue otherwise would involve an illicit transition from the one order to the other, that is, from what the will is moved by reason to choose based on its dispositions, to what the will is capable of doing concerning its removing or altering such dispositions. In other words, it confuses the will considered in a composite sense with the will considered in a divided sense.

This distinction affords another basis for interpreting Thomas' complex thought wherein he maintains that the will `will' act according to its present dispositions, but that at the same time it `could' act otherwise in the order of exercise, either by not choosing to act or by removing/altering the dispositions.⁽⁵²⁰⁾ Such a change of disposition may take place at any moment by reevaluating the object in terms of the first two sources of moral specification cited by Thomas. In this regard he comments on the distinction between the actual or factual choice of a particular good as corresponding to the subject's present disposition and his power to remove/alter such dispositions:

The will is not moved from necessity because it is able to remove this disposition, so that something does not appear thus to it, as when someone quiets the ire in himself, so that he does not judge something as an ireful man (would).⁽⁵²¹⁾

In light of the above Aquinas concludes his analysis of these two orders of causality, noting that the will may be said to be necessitated on the part of the object or in the order of specification. This is due to a particular object's actually being seen through the practical judgment of the intellect as corresponding totally or adequately to the subject's present condition. On the other hand, the will can never be said to be necessitated in the order of exercise, since it always retains the power to act or not to act, to consider or not consider any particular good at all. It is then in this latter order that the question of voluntary non-consideration is ultimately resolved, and not in the order of specification. The latter accounts for the positive action of the will insofar as it chooses suitable and commensurate objects. In the moral order this entails the consideration or non-consideration of the rules of morality.

In the order of exercise, then, we find the formality of freedom when the will in a divided sense is viewed as able to act or not act, to consider or not consider. It is in this order that Thomas would argue that only the causality of the first cause accounts for the reduction of the will's potency for acting according to the rule of morality. The will itself, as finite and separated from its ultimate end, is sufficient explanation for its non-consideration, but as such this non-consideration is a mere defect. Only when it actually moves to act, that is, when this defect becomes a privation, does the need to consider primary causality come into play. This, however, is in the order of exercise without direct appeal to the order of specification regarding which particular object will be chosen. The source of that choice lies hidden in the deep recesses of the individual human psyche.