I. Opinion of Others

A. Statement of the Opinion

2. Here the statement is made [Bonaventure, Aquinas, Richard of Middleton]Bonaventure, Sentences 2 d.34 a.1 q.3, “One must say that it is possible to speak about evil in two ways, either about that which is bad or about bad under the idea of bad... If intention is compared to bad under the idea of bad, it can be so in two ways: either such that it intends to do this as bad simply or as bad for itself, and no one intends in this way, because nothing is desired by the will save under the idea of good simply or good for itself; or such that it intends this as bad simply but as good for itself, and in this way bad can be done by intention and is sometimes so done, though not by all but by the malicious, who, because of the corruption of their inner palate, taste bad things as good.” ⁵⁶ that it cannot, following the authority of Dionysius Divine Names ch.4, “No one acts looking to what is bad.”

B. Rejection of the Opinion

3. But against this it seems that then a created will could not tend toward an object under the idea [sc. of badness] under which the divine will cannot tend to it; for the divine will can tend toward any good subtracted from the above deformity, though not toward the accompanying idea of badness [dd.34-37 n.168]. And even if it be conceded that anything willable by one will is willable by another (because every will has an object equally common), nevertheless what is willed in ordered fashion by one will is not willed in ordered fashion by another will, because ordered willing does not come from the object alone but from the agreement of act and object about the power; for some act about some object can agree with one will and not agree with another.

4. There is another argument against this opinion, because let hatred of God be apprehended by some created intellective power that is not erring and that consequently is not showing it under the idea of good but only of evil - if a will can will this hatred the proposed conclusion is evident, because there is no goodness in this act prior to the act of willing itself; for if some goodness is assigned because of the act of willing, this is not in the object as it precedes the act but in it as it follows the act of willing. If a will cannot tend toward this shown evil save under some idea of good and not of evil, then either it simply cannot tend toward it, or reason must first have been naturally blinded - and this seems unacceptable and against the argument of Ethics 7.5.1147a24-33.In the passage referred to Aristotle is explaining how the incontinent can know and yet act against their knowledge, and he gives the case where someone has two universal propositions, ‘such things should not be tasted’ and ‘everything sweet is delightful to taste’, and one particular proposition, ‘this thing is sweet’. The incontinent man acts on the particular proposition and the second universal, not the first. But he still knows the first universal. The view Scotus is criticizing seems to require that, in the case of a will where reason is not in error but knows hatred of God is evil, either the will simply cannot hate God or, if it does hate God, reason must first have been so blinded that it no longer naturally knows that hatred of God is evil, which is absurd and contrary to Aristotle. ⁵⁷