aquinas' theory of action
...se, it could be good that he is alive, good because he is seeking a better life for his family and so on. No action is bad in it’s fullest sense for it must be good for it to exist in the first place, so activity can be good or bad in so far as to what extent it has taken into account rationality on a universal level. Bad acts by power of an incomplete good; for where there is no good there is no existent and nothing able to act, and where the good is complete there will be no bad. So the action caused is also an incomplete good. Good in part but as a whole bad. So for the activity to be for it to take all into account and not for it to take place without a rational reasonable consideration. The object is what the act is and what the act ends up being. An activity is existent yet the principle of an activity can differ. So the asylum seeker is asylum seeking which is an action with an object, an objective. The objective of an activity can change the actions kind because it is the principle behind the activity. There could be numerous objectives for the asylum seeker, for instance; Seeking asylum in a country where he and his family could be safe from threat upon their well being, or seeking asylum because he had heard that it could be done and he was in the vicinity of a country offering asylum. These two different principles can change the meaning of the action. There principles could be good, in that they are seeking protection from a threat and the present world order of Nations allows them to have the opportunity of protection. Or bad in that they the principle behind the action is not to seek protection, but to see what it would be like to live in another country under asylum. They are seeking asylum either rationally or irrationally depending on what their objective is. This object therefore, according to Aquinas, also contributes to the act being good or bad. We call action good when it is such as to cause a good effect, so that what makes action good is it’s very proportion to it’s effect. The circumstances of an act are separate to the action itself, yet still belong to the act. After all the circumstances for a asylum seeker are bound to the conditions in which the act is taking place and help in establishing if the act is justified, making it good or bad. If a well to do business man from a well off country was to seek asylum in another country, circumstance would contribute to making the act irrational to both himself and the people who perceive the act. When the activity and object of an act occur they do so in the knowledge that our acts define what we are and what we are define our acts. So circumstances although they lie outside the action in the sense of not specifying what it is can be relative to the act and contributes to making it more intelligible. Although circumstance does not necessarily define the act it remains a characteristic of the act. If the goal of asylum seekers is to escape threat upon their well-being (as they are entitled to under law of the United Nations) and to seek protection in a new Nation, Then their goal is good. Aquinas says that if the goal is relative and proportionate to the object then it is good. Something is good when it’s suits it’s form and bad where it goes against what its form is ordained towards. So the act of asylum seeking is good if the action fits the goal i.e. Seeking asylum in a Nation where he/she could be protected, to become protected and gain asylum in that Nation....