Vol. XXXVIII / 1 - Studia Moralia

190 JOSEPH TORCHIA
But to what extent does such a characterization of the soul’s
proper relation toward lesser things commit Augustine to a utilitarian
position? In addressing this particular question, we must
clarify precisely what he means by uti in this context. When
Augustine speaks in terms of “using” what one ought to use, he
specifies the boundaries of the soul’s proper affection toward
lower corporeal natures. From this standpoint, it would be
immoral to invest anything other than God with the status of an
ultimate concern. Such an inordinate love or “enjoyment” of
created things would amount to serving the creature rather than
the Creator, and thereby, violating what Augustine understands
as the rule of perfect religion. But this does not mean that the
goodness of such things depends upon their contribution to a
greater good alone. In contrast to the Stoics (who only impart a
moral significance to things to the extent that they are useful or
beneficial to us), Augustine never denies the inherent value of
created goods. In Augustinian terms, then, the distinction
between “enjoyment” (frui) and “use” (uti) establishes a guideline
for loving or desiring things in light of their ontological status.
Conclusion
Once viewed in terms of the scheme of creation, nothing
(however humble its status) can be “written off” or casually
dismissed as morally insignificant. Indeed, even non-believers
could easily be repelled by the Stoics’ characterization of some
of the most fundamental human goods as adiaphora. The claim,
for example, that one’s physical well-being does not really matter
clashes with the dictates of simple common sense. How can
one meaningfully deny the importance of life, health, and the
promotion of what is necessary for our very survival? Yet, it
would appear that the notion of a morally neutral category is
one which now finds a wide following. In respect to the natural
world, support for this notion is evident in the wholesale and
often arbitrary destruction of an environment and animal life
assumed to be at the “disposal” of humans. More drastically, it
is revealed in the thorough devaluation of the human body and
everything connected with it. In a contemporary setting, this