Some objections. How would St. Thomas respond?
1. St. Thomas says that "the object of the will is an end and a good" (Question One, First Article). Well, I don't think St. Thomas ever heard of a little thing we call "free will." Human beings are free to choose good or evil-and some people do chose evil. Therefore St. Thomas is wrong that the object of the will is a good.
Reply: St. Thomas defines "good" simply as "end," that is "goal," or "purpose." We can't make a choice (between two or more things) unless there is some reason-purpose-goal-we have in mind that we want to accomplish, and every one of those is understood by us as "good for us." That does not mean it is actually good for us, just that we think it is.
2. St. Thomas says that we all have an "ultimate end" for everything
we do. Well I am not conscious of having any "ultimate end" for my
actions. In fact, I do things for many different reasons-money, pleasure, so
people will like me, just for no reason at all. Therefore, St. Thomas is wrong
that we all have an "ultimate end."
Reply: St. Thomas is trying to see if there is a natural or given end for human life. This is a separate question from wondering if (or why) people are or are not conscious of this ultimate end. Later he attributes disagreement of the ultimate end of life to immorality (disordered affections-see Article One, Question Seven. Which raises a good question: would all upright people agree about the question of the ultimate end?) In any case, he isn't trying to argue that everyone is aware of this, or that everyone would automatically agree.
3. St. Thomas' view that everything we do is for the sake of some "ultimate end" makes life sound pretty miserable and overly structured. Can we never take a break of have a vacation from seeking this "ultimate end"? It just isn't realistic to suggest that life is this long series of connected purposes. So he simply must be wrong about this.
Reply: This is a confusion about what St. Thomas says. Of course we can take a break. But we take a break and relax because this is something good, for us, that is needed in order to achieve our complete happiness. St Thomas says "One need not always be considering the ultimate end when desiring or doing something. In fact, the force of the first intention, which is in view of the ultimate end, remains in the desiring of anything even though one is not actually considering the ultimate end, just as when going somewhere we do not have to think of the end at every step" (Question 1, Article 6, Reply to 3).
4. St. Thomas says that everyone has one "ultimate end" in life. But can't people change their minds about what they want out of life? Early in life, a person might choose money as their "ultimate end," later it might be raising their kids, and after that it might be success at their job. So it looks like we can have several different ultimate ends, and St. Thomas is wrong about the matter.
Reply: I think St. Thomas would agree that people can change their minds about what they think the ultimate end is. What St. Thomas actually says is that no one can have two ultimate ends simultaneously-at the same time.
5. St. Thomas says that "the most complete good absolutely must be what one with well-disposed affections desires for his ultimate end" (Question One, Seventh Article). But who is this person with "well-disposed affections"? St. Thomas never says. He never even proves that there could be such a person. So this argument does not work.
Reply: The argument is simply that the good absolutely is what a person with well-disposed affections would want, just as the delightful absolutely is what one with best taste likes. There doesn't have to be such a person in order for this argument to be strong.
6. I have a friend who we will call "Bill." Bill does everything for money. He eats, sleeps, and talks money. He even says that he does everything for money. But St. Thomas says that money cannot be an end of someone's life, but only a means. Who is St. Thomas to say that my friend Bill is a liar?
Reply: Being a liar depends on whether you are saying things that you in fact think are false. No one is saying this about Bill. We can wonder whether Bill's assessment of his life is correct independently of the question of whether Bill believes that his assessment of life is true. After all, like the rest of us, Bill is not infallible, and what he thinks is true ain't necessarily so!
7. St. Thomas says that human happiness must a "complete good." But it's enough for me to have a little money, a few good friends, a small house, and the simpler pleasures of life. I don't need much. I don't need a "complete good." So St. Thomas must be wrong about that too.
Reply: Don't think about the complete good as something more than it has to be. If you have few needs and wants, then (you believe that) your complete good is just that. (Whether you are correct about this is another question.)
8. St. Thomas says "man's happiness consists in God alone" (Question 2, Eighth Article). By "happiness," St. Thomas means our "complete good." But some people don't believe in God. Therefore it would follow that they don't have a "complete good." But this would contradict what St. Thomas supposedly proved in Question One, in the Fourth and Fifth Articles. So if St. Thomas is right about everyone having a "complete good," then it doesn't have to be God; or if he is right about it being God, then everyone doesn't have to have a "complete good." Either way, St. Thomas is wrong about something!
Reply: If some people don't believe in God, and they
mean they don't believe that God exists, then all that follows from this is
that some people believe that the complete good of human life does not exist.
It doesn't follow that they don't have a complete good, nor that God is not
actually their complete good, nor that St. Thomas' argument is not a persuasive
one. There is no contradiction here. Now if these people are correct, and God
does not exist, and Thomas is correct, and God is the only thing that could
satisfy human life, then it would follow that human life can never be satisfying.
That would be a very miserable thing, but not something that is automatically
contradictory.