Distinction Between Disordered, Ruling, and Ultimate Desires

The distinction between disordered, ruling, and ultimate desires is a nuanced concept in Christian theology, rooted in biblical teachings and developed through various traditions. The biblical anchor for this concept lies in the understanding of human desires and their relationship with God's will.

According to Aquinas, human acts are considered good or evil based on their objects, circumstances, and ends. The end or purpose of an act can render it morally good or bad, regardless of the object itself ^[2]. This framework allows for the distinction between different types of desires based on their objects and ultimate ends.

In Christian theology, desires are categorized into different types based on their alignment with God's will and their ultimate objectives. Disordered desires refer to those that are contrary to God's will or moral law. For instance, lust is considered a disordered desire because it involves an intense craving for pleasure that can disorder the higher powers of reason and will ^[10].

Ruling desires, on the other hand, are those that dominate an individual's actions and decisions. According to Augustine, the desire for domination can lead to vices such as cruelty and luxuriousness, highlighting the importance of distinguishing between praiseworthy and blameworthy desires ^[7].

Ultimate desires refer to the final objectives or ends that individuals pursue. In Christian theology, the ultimate end is often considered to be the glorification of God and the attainment of eternal happiness. Charles Hodge argues that happiness is the ultimate good, and benevolence, or the disposition to promote happiness, is the essence and sum of virtue ^[1].

The distinction between these types of desires is crucial in understanding human morality and the nature of sin. According to the Midrash Rabbah, every desire has a time of judgment, implying that desires are subject to moral evaluation and accountability ^[6]. The Reformed tradition, as represented by Charles Hodge, emphasizes the role of the will in determining moral actions, highlighting the importance of understanding the relationship between desires and the will ^{[4, 5]}.

In the context of eschatology, the distinction between disordered, ruling, and ultimate desires takes on significant importance. According to Aquinas, after the judgment day, there will be no further merit or demerit, implying that ultimate desires will be fixed and unchangeable ^[9]. The apostle Paul's warning against those whose "god is their appetite" highlights the dangers of disordered desires and the importance of cultivating ultimate desires that are aligned with God's will ^[8].

The early Church Fathers, such as Athanasius, saw the order and harmony in nature as evidence of God's sovereignty and wisdom, underscoring the idea that human desires should be aligned with the natural order and God's purposes ^[3].

The complexities of human desires and their relationship with God's will continue to be a subject of theological reflection across various Christian traditions, including Catholic, Reformed, and Patristic thought. Understanding the distinction between disordered, ruling, and ultimate desires remains essential for a nuanced grasp of Christian ethics and morality.

Sources

CCEL (Reformed (Old Princeton)) “Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 2, section 39: greatest amount of happiness is for that reason good, and whatever has the opposite tendency is evil. (2.) As happiness is the only and ultimate good, benevolence, or the disposition or purpose to promote happiness, must be the essence and sum of virtue. (3.) As God is infinite, He must be infinitely benevolent, and therefore it must be his desire and purpose to produce the greatest possible amount of happiness. (4.) The universe being the work of God must be designed and adapted to secure that end, and is therefore the best possible worl”
theology (Catholic (Scholastic)) “Aquinas, Summa Theologica, First Part of the Second Part (Prima Secundae), Of the Good and Evil of Human Acts, in General, Art. 7: Article: Whether the species derived from the end is contained under the species derived from the object, as under its genus, or conversely? I answer that, The object of the external act can stand in a twofold relation to the end of the will: first, as being of itself ordained thereto; thus to fight well is of itself ordained to victory; secondly, as being ordained thereto accidentally; thus to take what belongs to another is ordained accidentally to the giving of ”
CCEL (Patristic) “Athanasius of Alexandria, Select Works and Letters, section 85: §38. The Unity of God shewn by the Harmony of the order of Nature . Since then, there is everywhere not disorder but order, proportion and not disproportion, not disarray but arrangement, and that in an order perfectly harmonious, we needs must infer and be led to perceive the Master that put together and compacted all things, and produced harmony in them. For though He be not seen with the eyes, yet from the order and harmony of things contrary it is possible to perceive their Ruler, Arranger, and King. 2. For in like manner as i”
CCEL (Reformed (Old Princeton)) “Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 2, section 55: § 2. Definition of Terms . Before proceeding to give an outline of the usual arguments in support of this doctrine, it is important to state the meaning of the words employed. No one in the least conversant with discussions of this nature can have failed to remark how much difficulty arises from the ambiguity of the terms employed, and how often men appear to differ in doctrine, when in fact they only differ in language. The Will. First, the word will itself is one of those ambiguous terms. Ii is sometimes used in a wide sense, so as to i”
CCEL (Reformed (Old Princeton)) “Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 2, section 54: without active power can do nothing, so active power without reason has no guide to direct it to any end. These two conjoined make moral liberty.” 260 260 Active Powers, Essay iv. ch. 5; Works, Edinburgh, 1849, p. 615. The old writers, in developing their doctrine of rational spontaneity were accustomed to say, the will is determined by the last judgment of the understanding. This is true or false as the language is interpreted. If by the last judgment of the understanding be meant the intellectual apprehension and conviction of the reaso”
Midrash Rabbah (Jewish (Rabbinic)) “Midrash Rabbah, Kohelet Rabbah 8:6:1: “For every desire there is a time of judgment, as the evil of man overcomes him” (Ecclesiastes 8:6). “For every desire there is a time,” and for every time there is a desire. How so? What a person desires to do in this world, he does, but there, [in the World to Come,] there is judgment and accounting.”
Schaff ANF/NPNF (Patristic) “NPNF1 Vol 2: Augustine — City of God, Christian Doctrine — CHAP. 19.--CONCERNING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TRUE GLORY AND THE DESIRE OF DOMINATION. (part 2): praiseworthy. But he who is a despiser of glory, but is greedy of domination, exceeds the beasts in the vices of cruelty and luxuriousness. Such, indeed, were certain of the Romans, who, wanting the love of esteem, wanted not the thirst for domination; and that there were many such, history testifies. But it was Nero Caesar who was the first to reach the summit, and, as it were, the citadel, of this vice; for so great was his luxuriousness, ”
Philippians (Protestant academic) “Tyndale House on Philippians 3:19: 3:19 Their god is their appetite may refer to their greed, their sensuality, or their self-interest (cp. Rom 16:18). • they brag about shameful things: This is best understood as a reference to immorality rather than to pride in being circumcised. • Eternal destruction is the ultimate judgment of God for those who reject Christ and live self-centered, sinful lives (see 2 Thes 1:8-9; cp. Phil 1:28; Matt 7:13; Rom 9:22; 1 Cor 1:18; 2 Thes 2:10; 1 Tim 6:9; 2 Pet 2:3, 13; Jude 1:10; Rev 11:18). • They are unable to see beyond this life (cp. John 12:25; 1 Jn 2:15-”
theology (Catholic (Scholastic)) “Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Supplement (Supplementum), Of the Will and Intellect of the Damned, Art. 6: Article: Whether the damned demerit? I answer that, We must draw a distinction between the damned before the judgment day and after. For all are agreed that after the judgment day there will be neither merit nor demerit. The reason for this is because merit or demerit is directed to the attainment of some further good or evil: and after the day of judgment good and evil will have reached their ultimate consummation, so that there will be no further addition to good or evil. Consequently, good”
theology (Catholic (Scholastic)) “Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Second Part of the Second Part (Secunda Secundae), Of Lust, Art. 5: Article: Whether the daughters of lust are fittingly described? I answer that, When the lower powers are strongly moved towards their objects, the result is that the higher powers are hindered and disordered in their acts. Now the effect of the vice of lust is that the lower appetite, namely the concupiscible, is most vehemently intent on its object, to wit, the object of pleasure, on account of the vehemence of the pleasure. Consequently the higher powers, namely the reason and the will, are most gr”

Ask Your Own Question