Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Aquinas distinguishes between loving a person's nature qua creature and approving of their will, permitting hatred of the latter in the wicked.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
In practice, a person's will and nature are inseparable; hating someone's persistent will-choices inevitably taints love of their nature.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
The distinction risks incoherence: if someone willfully corrupts their nature through vice, the nature and will become integrated aspects of one self.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Telling victims of serious wickedness to love the perpetrator's nature while hating their will may be psychologically and morally unrealistic.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
God loves all creatures as existing beings while hating sin; we should imitate this distinction between nature and will.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Hating someone's evil choices doesn't require denying their fundamental worth as a rational creature made in God's image.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
This distinction preserves both divine justice (punishment of wickedness) and divine mercy (love of human nature).
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.