9. The Unity of the Last End and Its Perfection

Subscribe in Podcast App | Download Transcript

Lecture Notes

Main Topics #

The Impossibility of Multiple Simultaneous Ultimate Ends #

• Core principle: It is impossible for one person’s will to tend toward multiple diverse things as ultimate ends at the same time (simul)
• The last end must be a perfect good that completely fulfills the creature’s desire
• A perfect good leaves nothing outside itself to be desired
• If something extraneous is required for perfection, it cannot be the last end itself

The Nature of a Perfect Good #

• Perfect good (in Latin, plenum): A good that has all its parts and fulfills the whole desire of man
• The word plenum (fullness) is taken from concrete sensible examples (a full plate, a full glass) and carries over to perfection in other domains
• Augustine defines happiness in the City of God as “a state made possible by the aggregation of all goods”
• A perfect good cannot require addition from external sources

Composition of Goods vs. Multiple Ultimate Ends #

• Key distinction: Multiple goods can be unified as components of one perfect good (not as separate ultimate ends)
• Example: A man might see perfection as composed of a beautiful wife, wealth, and power—but if any one is removed, he is no longer happy. These are parts of one unified conception of happiness, not separate ultimate ends
• Per Accidens vs. Per Se: Things not opposed to each other can both be desired, but opposition to a perfect good occurs when perfection requires something outside itself

The Will’s Freedom and Constraint #

• The objection claims: “Before the will constitutes its last end in pleasure, it can constitute its last end in something else, as in riches. Therefore it seems possible the will tends to diverse things as ultimate ends at the same time”
• Thomas’s response: The power of the will does not allow opposites to be together. If the will tends toward many disparate things as ultimate ends simultaneously, neither would be perfect, or if one were perfect, the will would seek nothing beyond it

Natural Desire and the Beginning of Willing #

• Just as reason begins from naturally known principles, the will’s process begins from naturally desired goods
• Nature tends toward one, not many
• Therefore, the beginning of all willing must tend toward something one and unified

Happiness Across Time vs. Simultaneously #

• Thomas does not deny that different men might have different ultimate ends
• Thomas does not deny that one man might have different ultimate ends successively in time (not simul)
• Example: A boy’s ultimate end might be a particular game at one period of life, then shift to interest in girls at another period
• The word simul (together, at the same time) is crucial to understanding Thomas’s position
• Simul refers primarily to simultaneous time, derived from Hama in Aristotle’s Categories, appearing before the chapter on “before and after”

The Example of Two Masters #

• Scripture states: “No one can serve two masters” (Matthew 6:24)
• Ordered to each other: You might serve two masters if they are ordered to one another, but you cannot serve two unordered masters
• Personal example: In academic life, students sometimes try to get two teachers to disagree with each other. But true allegiance cannot be given to two independent masters
• Story of Deccanic and Dion: When Berquist consulted Deccanic on a doctoral question, Deccanic replied, “Why do you bother asking me when you’ve got Dion?” refusing to be a competing master

Application to Personal Experience #

• Young people today recognize that society’s offers of happiness are incomplete—“something is missing”
• This recognition drives them to seek God
• Anecdote: A friend of Berquist’s father said to the father, “My wife and I started going back to church because we thought something was missing”
• This demonstrates Augustine’s point: nothing constituted from external goods alone can be the true last end

Key Arguments #

First Fundamental Argument: Perfection and Desire #

• Since each thing desires its own perfection
• And the last end is desired as a perfect good that completes the person
• A perfect good must leave nothing outside itself to be desired
• Therefore, if something extraneous is required for perfection, it cannot be the last end
• Conclusion: There cannot be multiple last ends for one person

Second Argument: The Power of the Will #

• The objection: The power of the will does not lose its ability to will different things before it constitutes its last end
• Response: The power of the will does not permit opposites to be together
• If the will tended toward many disparate things as last ends, neither would be perfect
• Or if one were perfect, the will would require nothing beyond it
• Therefore multiple simultaneous ultimate ends are impossible

Third Argument: Opposition to Perfect Good #

• Although many things can be taken that do not have opposition to each other, they are opposed to a perfect good
• Opposition occurs when perfection requires something outside itself
• Therefore, multiple things cannot simultaneously constitute perfect goods for the same will

Fourth Argument: The Dominance of the Last End #

• That in which one rests as his last end dominates the affection of man
• From the last end, a man takes the rules of his whole life
• Therefore, what you make your last end is effectively your god (even if not God)
• No one can serve two masters—this reflects the impossibility of two unordered ultimate ends

Important Definitions #

Ultimus (Last End) #

That which is desired for its own sake and not for the sake of anything else; the ultimate goal toward which all other desires are ordered; it must be a perfect good.

Plenum / Perfect Good #

A good that has all its parts (plenum) and completely fulfills the creature’s desire, leaving nothing outside itself to be desired.

Simul #

Together, at the same time. The Latin word indicating temporal simultaneity; crucial for understanding that Thomas denies multiple ultimate ends at the same time, not successively.

Per Accidens (Accidentally Ordered) #

Things related accidentally or incidentally; they do not have inherent opposition to each other and can both be desired.

Per Se (Essentially Ordered) #

Things related essentially; if one is removed, the others cease to function; demonstrates the necessity of an ultimate terminus.

Examples & Illustrations #

The Candy-to-Love Progression #

• A child’s ultimate end might be candy early in life
• As the child grows, the ultimate end shifts to romantic love (like Romeo and Juliet)
• Later, it might shift to wealth or power
• These are not simultaneous ultimate ends, but successive ones
• The story of the boy who got to eat all the candy he wanted on his birthday: he ate so much he got sick and learned his lesson

The Rich Heiress Scenario #

• A wealthy woman might ask a suitor: “Do you love me or my money?”
• This highlights that wealth and the girl cannot both be the ultimate end
• If wealth is the ultimate end, the girl is instrumental; if the girl is the ultimate end, wealth is irrelevant
• One of them must be the last end; they cannot be co-equal ultimate ends

Academic Allegiance and Two Masters #

• Students in academic settings sometimes try to get two teachers disagreeing to relieve pressure
• Some students attach themselves to one teacher, others to another
• But genuine philosophical allegiance cannot be split between two independent masters
• Personal example: Berquist asking Deccanic about an equivocal/analogous names problem—Deccanic refused to answer because Dion was his advisor, showing that Dion was the master

The Cuisine Club Story #

• Warren Murray joined a cuisine/cooking club expecting good food
• At the annual dinner, he discovered the director was agitated about minor ingredient sourcing problems
• For this person, perfecting culinary technique had become the ultimate end
• The agitation over ingredients revealed what truly dominated his affection
• Murray quit because this was not his ultimate end

Tea and Stereo Expertise #

• Tea experts boiling water for exactly 2.5 or 4 minutes and 10 seconds with specific temperatures
• Berquist admits he cannot tell the difference and does not see this as his ultimate end
• A friend remarked about ultra-expensive stereos: “The only one that can tell the difference is a dog”
• Practical wisdom involves recognizing which goods are worth pursuing as part of one’s ultimate end

Shakespeare’s Vision: “One Feast, One House, One Mutual Happiness” #

• From Two Gentlemen of Verona
• Captures the unity of happiness: not separate goods (feast, house) but their integration into one mutual happiness
• Berquist notes this is a beautiful description of heaven itself
• Heaven is often spoken of metaphorically as marriage (citing Hosea: “I have espoused you in faith”), with consummation in seeing God face to face
• The Psalms (especially Psalm 44, which Thomas calls an epithalamion or wedding song) echo this mystical union

Questions Addressed #

Can one person have multiple ultimate ends at the same time? #

Resolution: No. Thomas explicitly denies this because a perfect good must leave nothing outside itself to be desired. If multiple disparate things were pursued as ultimate ends simultaneously, neither would be perfect, or if one were perfect, the will would not pursue another.

Is it possible to have different ultimate ends at different times? #

Resolution: Yes. Thomas does not deny this. The key word is simul (at the same time). A person may have one ultimate end in youth (pleasure), another in maturity (wisdom), another in old age (virtue)—but not multiple simultaneous ultimate ends.

Can two things both be part of the ultimate end? #

Resolution: Yes, if they are unified under one conception of perfect good. Example: A man might see his perfection as composed of wife, wealth, and power—these are parts of his unified vision of happiness, not separate ultimate ends. The removal of any part reveals it was part of the whole, not an independent ultimate end.

What happens when something is claimed as the ultimate end but requires external perfection? #

Resolution: It cannot be the true ultimate end. If perfection requires something extraneous, then that extraneous thing is what is truly desired, making it, not the original thing, the ultimate end. This is why consumer society’s promises fail—happiness is always “one purchase away.”

How does the dominance of the last end work in practice? #

Resolution: That in which one rests as his last end dominates the affection and rules of his entire life. What you make your ultimate end becomes, in effect, your “god” (Philippians 3: “Whose god is their belly”). This is why serving two unordered masters is impossible—the ultimate end determines all choices.

Notable Quotes #

“Happiness is always one purchase away. So they convince you… to buy things you don’t need, money you don’t have.” - Duane Berquist, opening the lecture with reference to Father Hardin’s observation

“Nothing too much” - The Seven Wise Men of ancient Greece

“But can you love God too much? Or what, know God too much? No, he’s always more.” - Duane Berquist, exploring the difference between loving God and other goods

“The good, according to its definition, is diffusive of itself.” - Dionysius (cited in earlier contextual material)

“No one is able to serve two masters.” - Matthew 6:24 (cited by Thomas and Berquist)

“Whose God is their belly.” - Philippians 3 (cited by Thomas regarding those who make pleasure their last end)

“One feast, one house, one mutual happiness.” - William Shakespeare, Two Gentlemen of Verona (cited by Berquist as the best line describing heaven)

“The end of the good… is not that it passes away so as to be no more, but that it is perfected so as to be complete.” - Augustine, City of God Book XIX (cited by Thomas and explained by Berquist)

“If you see me departing from Thomas, you say, well, you’re not going to follow me, right? You’re on your own. If you follow me departing from Thomas, then I’m your master, right?” - Duane Berquist, on not serving two masters in philosophy