The Prima Secundæ Partis Q. 6, A. 8 Aquinas Analysis

The Prima Secundæ Partis Q.6, A.8 Aquinas discusses whether ignorance causes involuntariness. Aquinas questions this, and he spends most or all of the eighth article explaining this concept. In the context of the text is that involuntariness is to act against one’s will, and ignorance is the lack of knowledge. Both of these terms are somewhat related. Objection two claims that sins imply ignorance and ignorance causes involuntariness. This leads to the idea that every sin is involuntary. The reply to objection two seems to work because the text provides examples of three kinds of ignorance: concomitant, consequent, and antecedent. This kinds of ignorance suggests that not every ignorance declines our knowledge and do not cause involuntariness.
Ignorance causes involuntariness; it would follow that every sin is involuntary. The reply states, if ignorance causes involuntariness, it is in so far as it deprives one of knowledge, which is a necessary condition of voluntariness.... But it is not every ignorance that deprives one of this knowledge. Ignorance can occur when one does not realize their ignorance, but their efforts to obtain the knowledge they seek are of no advantage to them. Involuntary actions are the contrary to the intended — it is usually by force. Involuntary actions can be occur two ways: caused by force or caused by ignorance. When an involuntary action happens, ignorance does excuse one from responsibility for their action. Voluntary actions are intended or by choice. Some of the voluntary actions are excusable. When a person commits a sin, he or she should take some reasonability of his or her actions. They should take their consequences for their actions. The reply for objective two tells us that not every ignorance removes our knowledge, so ignorance is not a sin. Aquinas give us three exceptions of how ignorance is not a sin that causes involuntariness. He gives us three ways that ignorance has relationships to the act of will: concomitantly, consequently, and antecedently. Since ignorance takes away our knowledge, which is required for
Basically, it is accidental. The text uses the example of the man, foe, and stag. The point is even the man has planned to murder his foe. For the reason of getting revenge, and the man kills the stag instead. This situation is accidental because the man did not mean to kill the stag. This type of ignorance is nor did evil or he sin because the situation is not murder. Consequent ignorance is a cause of action since it is supposed to happen. The agent known about what is happening, and the agent does not care to know what happen. The Prima Secundæ Partis Q.6, A.8 reply claims that ignorance is consequent. It can be two ways of voluntary acts, First, because the act of the will is brought to bear on the ignorance: as when a man wishes not to know, that he may have an excuse for sin…Secondly, ignorance is said to be voluntary, when it regards that which one can and ought to know. Consequent ignorance is known as the “affected” ignorance. The “affected” ignorance provide the knowledge to prevent a person to do their actions. . Finally, the last kind of ignorance is antecedent. Antecedent ignorance is the cause of action. If ignorance does not exist, then the action can be done. The text provided the example of the man and the “slays a passer-by”. The modern example of this can make this clearer. For example, a driver of a car at night who is responsible, yet knocks down a pedestrian.