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's privation theory (Summa Theologiae I, Q.48) holds that blindness is evil in a human but not in a stone, because sight belongs to human nature.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
The theory arbitrarily privileges biological capacities over other natural properties, making the boundaries of 'nature' unclear.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If evil requires deviation from nature, humans with congenital blindness never had sight to lose, so blindness wouldn't be evil for them.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Pain and suffering accompany blindness regardless of whether sight belongs to one's nature, suggesting evil has a basis independent of privation.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Evil is the absence of a good that should naturally be present in a thing given its essential nature and function.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Humans naturally possess sight as part of their characteristic capacities; stones do not have this natural orientation.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Blindness prevents humans from fulfilling their natural ends, but deprivation requires a prior capacity to be deprived of.
?
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.