Articulus I
Whether Ambition Is a Sin?
Arg. 1 Objection 1
Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod ambitio non sit peccatum. Importat enim ambitio cupiditatem honoris. Honor autem de se quoddam bonum est, et maximum inter exteriora bona, unde et illi qui de honore non curant, vituperantur. Ergo ambitio non est peccatum, sed magis aliquid laudabile, secundum quod bonum laudabiliter appetitur.
It seems that ambition is not a sin. For ambition denotes the desire of honor. Now honor is in itself a good thing, and the greatest of external goods: wherefore those who care not for honor are reproved. Therefore ambition is not a sin; rather is it something deserving of praise, in so far as a good is laudably desired.
Arg. 2 Objection 2
Praeterea, quilibet absque vitio potest appetere id quod sibi debetur pro praemio. Sed honor est praemium virtutis, ut philosophus dicit, in I et VIII Ethic. Ergo ambitio honoris non est peccatum.
Further, anyone may, without sin, desire what is due to him as a reward. Now honor is the reward of virtue, as the Philosopher states (Ethic. i, 12; iv, 3; viii, 14). Therefore ambition of honor is not a sin.
Arg. 3 Objection 3
Praeterea, illud per quod homo provocatur ad bonum et revocatur a malo, non est peccatum. Sed per honorem homines provocantur ad bona facienda et mala vitanda, sicut philosophus dicit, in III Ethic., quod fortissimi videntur esse apud quos timidi sunt inhonorati, fortes autem honorati; et Tullius dicit, in libro de Tusculan. quaest., quod honor alit artes. Ergo ambitio non est peccatum.
Further, that which heartens a man to do good and disheartens him from doing evil, is not a sin. Now honor heartens men to do good and to avoid evil; thus the Philosopher says (Ethic. iii, 8) that "with the bravest men, cowards are held in dishonor, and the brave in honor": and Tully says (De Tusc. Quaest. i) that "honor fosters the arts." Therefore ambition is not a sin.
Sed contra On the contrary
Sed contra est quod dicitur I ad Cor. XIII, quod caritas non est ambitiosa, non quaerit quae sua sunt. Nihil aut repugnat caritati nisi peccatum. Ergo ambitio est peccatum.
On the contrary, It is written (1 Cor. 13:5) that "charity is not ambitious, seeketh not her own." Now nothing is contrary to charity, except sin. Therefore ambition is a sin.
Respondeo I answer that
Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, honor importat quandam reverentiam alicui exhibitam in testimonium excellentiae eius. Circa excellentiam autem hominis duo sunt attendenda. Primo quidem, quod id secundum quod homo excellit, non habet homo a seipso, sed est quasi quiddam divinum in eo. Et ideo ex hoc non debetur principaliter sibi honor, sed Deo. Secundo considerandum est quod id in quo homo excellit, datur homini a Deo ut ex eo aliis prosit. Unde intantum debet homini placere testimonium suae excellentiae quod ab aliis exhibetur, inquantum ex hoc paratur sibi via ad hoc quod aliis prosit. Tripliciter ergo appetitum honoris contingit esse inordinatum. Uno modo, per hoc quod aliquis appetit testimonium de excellentia quam non habet, quod est appetere honorem supra suam proportionem. Alio modo, per hoc quod honorem sibi cupit non referendo in Deum. Tertio modo, per hoc quod appetitus eius in ipso honore quiescit, non referens honorem ad utilitatem aliorum. Ambitio autem importat inordinatum appetitum honoris. Unde manifestum est quod ambitio semper est peccatum.
I answer that, As stated above (Q. 103, AA. 1, 2), honor denotes reverence shown to a person in witness of his excellence. Now two things have to be considered with regard to man's honor. The first is that a man has not from himself the thing in which he excels, for this is, as it were, something Divine in him, wherefore on this count honor is due principally, not to him but to God. The second point that calls for observation is that the thing in which man excels is given to him by God, that he may profit others thereby: wherefore a man ought so far to be pleased that others bear witness to his excellence, as this enables him to profit others.
Now the desire of honor may be inordinate in three ways. First, when a man desires recognition of an excellence which he has not: this is to desire more than his share of honor. Secondly, when a man desires honor for himself without referring it to God. Thirdly, when a man's appetite rests in honor itself, without referring it to the profit of others. Since then ambition denotes inordinate desire of honor, it is evident that it is always a sin.
Ad 1 Reply to Objection 1
Ad primum ergo dicendum quod appetitus boni debet regulari secundum rationem, cuius regulam si transcendat, erit vitiosus. Et hoc modo vitiosum est quod aliquis honorem appetat non secundum ordinem rationis. Vituperantur autem qui non curant de honore secundum quod ratio dictat, ut scilicet vitent ea quae sunt contraria honori.
The desire for good should be regulated according to reason, and if it exceed this rule it will be sinful. In this way it is sinful to desire honor in disaccord with the order of reason. Now those are reproved who care not for honor in accordance with reason's dictate that they should avoid what is contrary to honor.
Ad 2 Reply to Objection 2
Ad secundum dicendum quod honor non est praemium virtutis quoad ipsum virtuosum, ut scilicet hoc pro praemio expetere debeat, sed pro praemio expetit beatitudinem, quae est finis virtutis. Dicitur autem esse praemium virtutis ex parte aliorum, qui non habent aliquid maius quod virtuoso retribuant quam honorem, qui ex hoc ipso magnitudinem habet quod perhibet testimonium virtuti. Unde patet quod non est sufficiens praemium, ut dicitur in IV Ethic.
Honor is not the reward of virtue, as regards the virtuous man, in this sense that he should seek for it as his reward: since the reward he seeks is happiness, which is the end of virtue. But it is said to be the reward of virtue as regards others, who have nothing greater than honor whereby to reward the virtuous; which honor derives greatness from the very fact that it bears witness to virtue. Hence it is evident that it is not an adequate reward, as stated in Ethic. iv, 3.
Ad 3 Reply to Objection 3
Ad tertium dicendum quod sicut per appetitum honoris, quando debito modo appetitur, aliqui provocantur ad bonum et revocantur a malo; ita etiam, si inordinate appetatur, potest esse homini occasio multa mala faciendi, dum scilicet non curat qualitercumque honorem consequi possit. Unde Sallustius dicit, in Catilinario, quod gloriam, honorem et imperium bonus et ignavus aeque sibi exoptat, sed ille, scilicet bonus, vera via nititur; huic, scilicet ignavo, quia bonae artes desunt, dolis atque fallaciis contendit. Et tamen illi qui solum propter honorem vel bona faciunt vel mala vitant, non sunt virtuosi, ut patet per philosophum, in III Ethic., ubi dicit quod non sunt vere fortes qui propter honorem fortia faciunt.
Just as some are heartened to do good and disheartened from doing evil, by the desire of honor, if this be desired in due measure; so, if it be desired inordinately, it may become to man an occasion of doing many evil things, as when a man cares not by what means he obtains honor. Wherefore Sallust says (Catilin.) that "the good as well as the wicked covet honors for themselves, but the one," i.e. the good, "go about it in the right way," whereas "the other," i.e. the wicked, "through lack of the good arts, make use of deceit and falsehood." Yet they who, merely for the sake of honor, either do good or avoid evil, are not virtuous, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. iii, 8), where he says that they who do brave things for the sake of honor are not truly brave.