I hope the brethren will keep me in line if I'm mistaken here. We are drawn to what we think is good. But we are disordered in several ways. One is our will is not strong. It would be good for me to lose 30 lbs. There is considerable good in a double bacon cheeseburger. Even if I know which good is better, I may not follow through. I'm going along, and somebody whose company I enjoy says, around lunch time, "Hey! DBCB!" It's hard to say, "No, thanks, I'll watch."
Then we are not sure, clear, right about what's good. This explains some Democrats. ;-)
The unquestionable good of giving to the needy is not always better than the good of letting the needy deal with their challenges.
And when we get to matters of deep moral judgment, we're very disordered.
But classic scholastic thought is that we are always motivated by what we THINK will provide SOME 'good' even if it's the totally deranged satisfaction I (hypothetically) get from having people envy me or fear me. In that case the satisfaction is, so to speak, worth more to me than justice, charity, etc.
And Our thinking is inevitably deficient without revelation and the "infused virtues" (faith, hope, and charity). Anybody over about 18 can see that it just won't work if people have sex with whomever they want and move in an out of relationships on a whim. Well, anybody except Democrats.
But it's a matter of revelation that monogamy 'as long as you both shall live' is THE way to do sexual relationships, and it's a matter of infused charity (and other gifts) to make marriage something which sanctifies husband and wife.
I hope that gives a flavor of the thinking.
I think the language about freedom is confused because we are trying to find a word which suits God, angels, and saints. Certainly in humans "Freedom TO excellence" requires "freedom from sin, wherefore it is written "For FREEDOM Christ has set you free."
I think you will enjoy parts of Feser while it also will give a kind of primer of modern scholastic realism. But you don't need to agree with him to be punching the air and saying to your wife, "Hey listen to THIS!"
"In addition to" rather than "greater than". Got it, cool.
Then we are not sure, clear, right about what's good. This explains some Democrats. ;-) The unquestionable good of giving to the needy is not always better than the good of letting the needy deal with their challenges. ......
Ah, I see now. Thanks for the clarification. "Good" can be a very mangleable (I've got to send this to O'Reilly) word in our hands. Good enough. :)
On Jan. 1 I started my "Read the Bible in however long it takes me" program and just finished Genesis. Joseph noted the evil intent of his brothers in selling him into slavery, but that God used it for good. So, what do we call the selling? We can use the word "good" but we have to explain it.