1a 2ae q6 a8: Whether ignorance causes involuntariness? Yes.

Ignorantia habet causare involuntarium ea ratione qua privat cognitionem, quae praeexigitur ad voluntarium, ut supra dictum est, quia non quaelibet ignorantia huiusmodi cognitionem privat.

If ignorance causes involuntariness, it is insofar as its formal aspect deprives one of knowledge, which is a necessary condition of voluntariness, as was declared above (q6 a1), because it is not every ignorance that deprives one of this knowledge.

Et ideo sciendum quod ignorantia tripliciter se habet ad actum voluntatis, uno modo, concomitanter; alio modo, consequenter; tertio modo, antecedenter.

Accordingly, we must take note that ignorance has a threefold relationship to the act of the will: in one way, "concomitantly"; in another, "consequently"; in a third way, "antecedently."

Damascenus et philosophus dicunt, quod "involuntarium quoddam est per ignorantiam".

Damascene (De Fide Orth. ii, 24) and the Philosopher (Ethic. iii, 1) say that "what is done through ignorance is involuntary."

1a 2ae q6 a7: Whether concupiscence causes involuntariness? No.

Concupiscentia non causat involuntarium, sed magis facit aliquid voluntarium, quia dicitur aliquid voluntarium ex eo quod voluntas in id fertur.

Concupiscence does not cause involuntariness, but on the contrary makes something to be voluntary, because a thing is said to be voluntary, from the fact that the will is moved to it.

Per concupiscentiam autem voluntas inclinatur ad volendum id quod concupiscitur.

Concupiscence inclines the will to desire the object of concupiscence.

Nam incontinens concupiscentiae agit contra id quod prius proponebat, non autem contra id quod nunc vult; sed timidus agit contra id quod etiam nunc secundum se vult.

The man who yields to concupiscence acts counter to that which he purposed at first, but not counter to that which he desires now; whereas the timid man acts counter to that which in itself he desires now.

1a 2ae q6 a6: Whether fear causes involuntariness simply? No.

Sic autem hoc quod fit per metum, est voluntarium, inquantum scilicet est hic et nunc, prout scilicet in hoc casu est impedimentum maioris mali quod timebatur, sicut proiectio mercium in mare fit voluntarium tempore tempestatis, propter timorem periculi. Unde manifestum est quod simpliciter voluntarium est. Unde et competit ei ratio voluntarii, quia principium eius est intra.

And that which is done through fear is voluntary, inasmuch as it is here and now, that is to say, insofar as, under the circumstances, it hinders a greater evil which was feared; thus the throwing of the cargo into the sea becomes voluntary during the storm, through fear of the danger: wherefore it is clear that it is voluntary simply. And hence it is that what is done out of fear has the formal aspect of the voluntary, because its principle is within.

Sed quod accipiatur id quod per metum fit, ut extra hunc casum existens, prout repugnat voluntati, hoc non est nisi secundum considerationem tantum. Et ideo est involuntarium secundum quid, idest prout consideratur extra hunc casum existens.

But if we consider what is done through fear, as outside this particular case, and inasmuch as it is repugnant to the will, this is merely a consideration of the mind. And consequently what is done through fear is involuntary, considered in that respect, that is to say, outside the actual circumstances of the case.

Sicut philosophus dicit in III Ethic., et idem dicit Gregorius Nyssenus in libro suo de homine, huiusmodi quae per metum aguntur, "mixta sunt ex voluntario et involuntario". Id enim quod per metum agitur, in se consideratum, non est voluntarium, sed fit voluntarium in casu, scilicet ad vitandum malum quod timetur.

As the Philosopher says (Ethic. iii) and likewise Gregory of Nyssa in his book on Man (Nemesius, De Nat. Hom. xxx), such things are done through fear "are of a mixed character," being partly voluntary and partly involuntary. For that which is done through fear, considered in itself, is not voluntary; but it becomes voluntary in this particular case, in order, namely, to avoid the evil feared.

Sed si quis recte consideret, magis sunt huiusmodi voluntaria quam involuntaria, sunt enim voluntaria simpliciter, involuntaria autem secundum quid. Unumquodque enim simpliciter esse dicitur secundum quod est in actu, secundum autem quod est in sola apprehensione, non est simpliciter, sed secundum quid.

But if the matter be considered aright, such things are voluntary rather than involuntary; for they are voluntary simply, but involuntary in a certain respect. For a thing is said to be simply, according as it is in act; but according as it is only in apprehension, it is not simply, but in a certain respect.

Patet ergo quod in eo quod per vim agitur, voluntas interior nihil agit, sed in eo quod per metum agitur, voluntas aliquid agit.

It is clear therefore that in what is done from compulsion, the will does nothing inwardly; whereas in what is done through fear, the will does something.

1a 2ae q6 a5: Whether violence causes involuntariness? Yes.

Violentia directe opponitur voluntario, sicut etiam et naturali, quia commune est voluntario et naturali quod utrumque sit a principio intrinseco, violentum autem est a principio extrinseco.

Violence is directly opposed to the voluntary, as likewise to the natural, because the voluntary and the natural have this in common, that both are from an intrinsic principle, whereas violence is from an extrinsic principle.

Quantum igitur ad actum qui est immediate ipsius voluntatis, ut supra dictum est, violentia voluntati inferri non potest, unde talem actum violentia involuntarium facere non potest. Sed quantum ad actum imperatum, voluntas potest pati violentiam. Et quantum ad hunc actum, violentia involuntarium facit.

As to the act which proceeds immediately from the will, violence cannot be done to the will, as stated above (q6 a4): wherefore violence cannot make that act involuntary. But as to the commanded act, the will can suffer violence: and consequently in this respect violence causes involuntariness.

Philosophus et Damascenus dicunt, quod "aliquid est involuntarium per violentiam".

The Philosopher (Ethic. iii, 1) and Damascene (De Fide Orth. ii, 24) say that "things done under compulsion are involuntary."

1a 2ae q6 a4: Whether violence can be done to the will? No.

Voluntas non potest cogi ad agendum quia actus voluntatis nihil est aliud quam inclinatio quaedam procedens ab interiori principio cognoscente, sed quod est coactum vel violentum, est ab exteriori principio; unde contra rationem ipsius actus voluntatis est, quod sit coactus vel violentus.

The will cannot be compelled to act because the act of the will is nothing else than an inclination proceeding from the interior principle of knowledge, whereas what is compelled or violent is from an exterior principle; consequently it is contrary to the formal aspect of the will's own act, that it should be subject to compulsion and violence.

Duplex est actus voluntatis, unus quidem qui est eius immediate, velut ab ipsa elicitus, scilicet velle; alius autem est actus voluntatis a voluntate imperatus, et mediante alia potentia exercitus, ut ambulare et loqui, qui a voluntate imperantur mediante potentia motiva.

The act of the will is twofold: one is its immediate act, as it were, elicited by it, namely, "to wish"; the other is an act of the will commanded by it, and put into execution by means of some other power, such as "to walk" and "to speak," which are commanded by the will to be executed by means of the motive power.

Quantum igitur ad actus a voluntate imperatos, voluntas violentiam pati potest, inquantum per violentiam exteriora membra impediri possunt ne imperium voluntatis exequantur. Sed quantum ad ipsum proprium actum voluntatis, non potest ei violentia inferri.

As regards the commanded acts of the will, then, the will can suffer violence, insofar as violence can prevent the exterior members from executing the will's command. But as to the will's own proper act, violence cannot be done to the will.

Deus, qui est potentior quam voluntas humana, potest voluntatem humanam movere; secundum illud Prov. XXI, "cor regis in manu Dei est, et quocumque voluerit, vertet illud". Sed si hoc esset per violentiam, iam non esset cum actu voluntatis, nec ipsa voluntas moveretur, sed aliquid contra voluntatem.

God Who is more powerful than the human will, can move the will of man, according to Proverbs 21:1: "The heart of the king is in the hand of the Lord; whithersoever He will He shall turn it." But if this were by compulsion, it would no longer be by an act of the will, nor would the will itself be moved, but something else against the will.

1a 2ae q6 a3: Whether there can be voluntariness without any act? Yes.

Sicut agere et velle est voluntarium, ita et non agere et non velle, quia voluntas, volendo et agendo, potest impedire hoc quod est non velle et non agere, et aliquando debet; hoc quod est non velle et non agere, imputatur ei, quasi ab ipsa existens.

Just as to act and to will are voluntary, so also are not to act and not to will, because the will by willing and acting, is able, and sometimes ought, to hinder not-willing and not-acting; this not-willing and not-acting is imputed to, as though proceeding from, the will.

Et sic voluntarium potest esse absque actu, quandoque quidem absque actu exteriori, cum actu interiori, sicut cum vult non agere; aliquando autem et absque actu interiori, sicut cum non vult.

And thus it is that we can have the voluntary without an act; sometimes without outward act, but with an interior act; for instance, when one wills not to act; and sometimes without even an interior act, as when one does not will to act.

Eo modo requiritur ad voluntarium actus cognitionis, sicut et actus voluntatis; ut scilicet sit in potestate alicuius considerare et velle et agere. Et tunc sicut non velle et non agere, cum tempus fuerit, est voluntarium, ita etiam non considerare.

Voluntariness requires an act of knowledge in the same way as it requires an act of will; namely, in order that it be in one's power to consider, to wish and to act. And then, just as not to wish, and not to act, when it is time to wish and to act, is voluntary, so is it voluntary not to consider.

1a 2ae q6 a2: Whether there is anything voluntary in irrational animals? Yes.

Soli rationali naturae competit voluntarium secundum rationem perfectam, sed secundum rationem imperfectam, competit etiam brutis animalibus, quia imperfectam cognitionem finis sequitur voluntarium secundum rationem imperfectam, prout scilicet apprehendens finem non deliberat, sed subito movetur in ipsum.

The voluntary in its perfection belongs to none but the rational nature, whereas the imperfect voluntary is within the competency of even irrational animals because imperfect knowledge of the end leads to the imperfect voluntary, inasmuch as the agent apprehends the end, but does not deliberate, and is moved to the end at once.

Voluntas nominat rationalem appetitum, et ideo non potest esse in his quae ratione carent. Voluntarium autem denominative dicitur a voluntate, et potest trahi ad ea in quibus est aliqua participatio voluntatis, secundum aliquam convenientiam ad voluntatem. Et hoc modo voluntarium attribuitur animalibus brutis, inquantum scilicet per cognitionem aliquam moventur in finem.

The will is the name of the rational appetite; and consequently it cannot be in things devoid of reason. But the word "voluntary" is derived from "voluntas" [will], and can be extended to those things in which there is some participation of will, by way of likeness thereto. It is thus that voluntary action is attributed to irrational animals, in so far as they are moved to an end, through some kind of knowledge.

Perfecta quidem finis cognitio est quando non solum apprehenditur res quae est finis sed etiam cognoscitur ratio finis, et proportio eius quod ordinatur in finem ad ipsum. Et talis cognitio finis competit soli rationali naturae.

Perfect knowledge of the end consists in not only apprehending the thing which is the end, but also in knowing it under the aspect of end, and the relationship of the means to that end. And such knowledge belongs to none but the rational nature.

Imperfecta autem cognitio finis est quae in sola finis apprehensione consistit, sine hoc quod cognoscatur ratio finis, et proportio actus ad finem. Et talis cognitio finis invenitur in brutis animalibus, per sensum et aestimationem naturalem.

But imperfect knowledge of the end consists in mere apprehension of the end, without knowing it under the aspect of end, or the relationship of an act to the end. Such knowledge of the end is exercised by irrational animals, through their senses and their natural estimative power.