In this blog post, we will examine Augustine’s philosophical perspective that humans can achieve true happiness and justice through the love of God.
Augustine’s Path to Happiness
Augustine defines ethics as the study of the highest good. The highest good is the standard that determines how we should act; it is a good that is an end in itself, not a means to another end. According to Augustine, reaching this highest good leads to happiness.
So, what is the happiness Augustine speaks of? Augustine defines happiness as love—specifically, love for what one loves, which includes all forms of desire and longing. What we love is what we desire, and we strive to obtain it. He argues that by attaining this love, we can reach happiness. Furthermore, Augustine asserts that to be truly happy, we must love what is good, and he identifies “God” as the supreme good. He goes beyond the views of earlier pagan philosophers to assert that true happiness can only be attained by meeting God in the afterlife. According to Augustine, we must love “God,” a being superior to ourselves, and only the Christian faith can guarantee eternal happiness for both the soul and the body to all human beings.
Augustine expressed this happiness using the biblical term “beatitude.” This refers to the state of happiness experienced by a virtuous person, meaning that one becomes one with God, and an individual’s needs and desires are completely fulfilled. This happiness felt by a virtuous person can be seen as stemming from spiritual virtue, as the Stoics also argued. However, while the Stoics argued that humans could draw closer to happiness through virtue alone, Augustine maintained that human ability alone is insufficient; one must welcome God through faith to approach happiness.
Augustine did not view “virtue” itself as the highest good. Virtue arises when the soul loves something beyond itself, and the highest good must not be subject to extinction by human will. Therefore, he holds that such a being is none other than “God,” and that “God” alone corresponds to the good. He states, “Virtue is nothing other than perfect love of God.”
By loving God, who is superior and transcendent to us, we can draw near to God and ultimately attain happiness. The “God” of whom Augustine speaks is, unlike the material world that comes into being and ceases to exist, perfect, eternally existent, and the perfect good. Augustine’s path to happiness consists in knowing and loving the perfectly good that we are capable of loving.
It is said that love for God takes four forms. First, “temperance is the love that preserves oneself in a sound state for God’s sake and does not fall into corruption.” Second, “courage is a love that willingly endures anything for God’s sake.” Third, “the virtue of justice is a love that serves God alone and, in doing so, governs all others well.” Finally, “prudence is a love that discerns well what aids and what hinders the path toward God.”
Furthermore, Augustine believed that humans cannot love God unless they love themselves. The reason is that those who journey toward the highest and truest good naturally develop an appropriate love for themselves along the way. Similarly, loving one’s neighbor as oneself is an effort to ensure that others may also pursue the highest good alongside oneself. Love for God serves as a moral principle.
Augustine’s Concept of Evil
Augustine’s experience of evil stemmed from the sexual desires he felt as he grew up. These desires continued to plague him from his youth throughout his life as a Christian. He believed he found satisfaction only when he transcended these physical desires, attained self-awareness and truth, and experienced tranquility. Later, Augustine encountered Manichaeism, which taught that the universe is caught in a conflict between darkness and light. This conflict manifests within humans as well: light seeks salvation and purification, while darkness seeks to swallow the light through physical desires. Among these desires, he considered sexual desire to be the most insidious, as it hinders the light from radiating from the body and prevents it from spreading to the heavens. Therefore, he believed that good and evil desires stemmed from opposing forces within the human soul and will. Manichaeism defined evil as the inexhaustible power of an evil deity that had always existed in the material world; consequently, it argued that humans need not bear responsibility for the evil deeds they commit. The reasoning was that darkness, which humans cannot control, compels them to commit evil. This dualism failed to provide a sufficient answer to Augustine’s problem of evil. Manichaean doctrine portrayed Light as a force of good that was nonetheless passive and powerless, which caused Augustine even greater difficulty. To explain why evil exists even though an omniscient and omnipotent God rules the world, he viewed good and evil as distinct material entities engaged in a struggle against one another. He believed that God, as the Creator, must possess the will and ability to uproot evil and cut off its branches, and must be capable of transforming evil into good. This view can be seen as challenging the very concept of God’s omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence.
Later, after reading Plotinus’s works, Augustine came to accept the view that evil, as described by Plotinus, is not a substance but a lack of the good. He understood evil as the loss or deficiency of the perfection or nature that natural things must inherently possess.
If evil existed as a substance, it would raise the problem that responsibility for it could fall on God, the Creator. In response, Augustine argued that while God, the Creator, originally created the world as good, the phenomenon of evil arose due to deficiencies caused by the natural tendency of creatures to return to nothingness. Therefore, he asserted that there was no reason to attribute responsibility for evil to God, thereby rejecting the claim that evil is an independently existing substance.
Augustine’s Sexual Ethics
Augustine follows the Christian tradition that physical sexual relations between a man and a woman should occur only after marriage, and that their purpose must be procreation. However, while some Christians view marriage as a fall, Augustine holds a different perspective. He sees marriage as part of God’s plan and as a true good.
Augustine distinguishes between sexuality in its pre-fall state and its post-fall state. He believed that offspring are not produced through the enjoyment of sexual pleasure but are born out of a companionate relationship. He thought that sexual union does not arise from sexual desire but is merely an act carried out in accordance with the will. He argued that while such sexual acts are not entirely free from lust, they are also not controlled by it. Based on the premise that human self-control can regulate the body’s involuntary functions, he argues that while humans after the Fall cannot suppress desire, those before the Fall were fully capable of doing so. Augustine viewed sexual relations themselves as not inherently shameful; rather, he believed that shame arises when men and women engage in sexual relations without regard for their personal dignity. He stated that such involuntary, lust-driven sexual relations are the cause of shame.
Sex after the Fall is related to the shame felt by Adam and Eve. What Adam and Eve sought to cover was not simply their nakedness; their genitals did not cause the shame. What caused the shame was the fact that their sexual nature had disobeyed, and that their sexuality—which should have followed the rational will—had ignored it and violated the order. This does not mean that the essence itself is evil, but rather that evil arises from the disorder caused by the lack of the human soul’s capacity.
Meanwhile, Augustine argues that socially respectable marriage and Christian marriage eliminate the shame associated with sexual intercourse. He views marriage as honorable, believing it leads to good without falling into evil. Regarding the goodness of marriage, Augustine stated, “There are three aspects to this: first, the bearing of children; second, the confirmation of love; and third, the sense of unity through union.” According to Augustine’s explanation, the first aspect is procreation, that is, the bearing of children; the second is faith, fidelity, loyalty, and love—or the confirmation of love; and the last is the union through vows or the sacrament. Augustine, particularly through the second point, described marriage as a means of restraining or remedying sin. This can be interpreted as God having established the institution of marriage to protect and control humanity in its fallen state. Augustine’s view that marriage is a remedy for sin aligns with the Christian understanding that human life is destined for salvation, while regarding this remedy as secondary.
Augustine’s Ethics of War
Augustine fundamentally holds a theory of just war. He views war as evil, but believes that a just war is waged when it is fought to prevent a greater evil. War exists to pursue peace. Regarding a state’s engagement in war, Augustine states that participation is necessary if it is undertaken to defend the state and punish grave injustice.
Furthermore, Augustine confers religious authority upon war. When issues regarding war arise, he argues that the war becomes just because God commanded it. Referring to Moses, he states through divine authority, “What he demonstrated in the war waged by God’s command was not cruelty but obedience.” Here, God’s command appears to justify the war.
Augustine emphasized punishment for the evils of war. “Generally, when force is required for punishment, good people may wage war for the sake of obedience to God or by virtue of some legitimate authority.” In saying this, he viewed the violence that inevitably occurs in war not as a means of self-defense, but as an act carried out under legitimate authority and as an effort at punishment.
Meanwhile, Augustine viewed war as a form of religious education and was influenced by the Old Testament, which presents both perspectives of divine power and the execution of judgment. He stated that war rebukes human pride and fosters humility, and when waged in obedience to God, it is a just war. He saw this as a process that tests human endurance and tempers the soul, ultimately leading to blessings. This perspective does not view war simply as an evil act, but rather as a means of correcting human attitudes from a spiritual viewpoint.
Furthermore, Augustine clearly stated, “Those who wage war in accordance with God’s authority are not subject to blame, nor should those who know that God never makes wrongful demands be subject to blame.” God’s authority guarantees that when we act righteously, our actions are just.
He argues that since war destroys an evil that must be eradicated, is carried out with good motives, and ensures righteous governance, it is a sign of God’s mercy. The key point in Augustine’s theory of just war is not whether the act is violent or not, but fundamentally whether inclinations and desires possess a righteous internal order and whether moral order is maintained. If such moral order exists, it serves as the basis for justifying violence. This understanding is closely aligned with the epistemological and ethical characteristics of the New Testament.
Augustine’s Political Ethics
Augustine develops his political philosophy through a dualistic analytical framework of the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Man. His Kingdom of God is a realm that follows Christian teachings. In contrast, the earthly Kingdom of Man is a realm tainted by human greed. In this regard, Augustine asserts that political authority is necessary. This is because humans are born with an evil nature, and politics is required to control it. Augustine describes politics as a relationship of domination and submission, arguing that even good people who believe in God require appropriate control. This represents a realist political perspective.
Augustine addressed “love” from a social perspective. He believed that in a world governed by the eternal law, authorities—such as husbands, parents, masters, and rulers—could exist. However, he stated that they should not merely wield power but must also care for those under their command, including children and slaves, with love. This is because he believed that if the natural order is disrupted, either restraint or punishment would follow. Augustine’s eternal law is divine reason or the will of God; it maintains the natural order and punishes elements that disrupt it. He believed that a person with an evil will could not keep the eternal law of love for God and love for one’s neighbor. Furthermore, Augustine acknowledged slavery and explained and justified it in the context of his time. While he did not explicitly condemn the sacrifices caused by slavery, he justified its inception and continuation through the rules of war. Augustine was able to justify slavery because he viewed it as subject to moral commands or the eternal law.
Augustine explains that the people are subject to customs and laws, and that the general consent of society is obedience to the ruler. He viewed such a republic as one in which the ruler serves as the center, uniting the people. He was also aware that political leaders used religion to deceive the people and sought to possess their subjects. However, he viewed the attempts by politicians to maintain a balance by rewarding the people with appropriate actions as a kind of social contract.
Meanwhile, Augustine, citing Cicero’s definition of a republic, argued that “if the republic is the common good of the people, and if the people possess knowledge of righteousness derived from a sense of justice, then without justice there can be neither people nor community, and the republic itself cannot exist.” On this point, he criticizes Rome for no longer being a republic. His point is that no matter how great an empire Rome may be, a country without justice cannot be a republic. Here, justice is interpreted in a Platonic sense as justice itself or the Idea of Justice, and all temporal things must be judged to determine whether they are just.
Augustine’s political ethics allows for diverse approaches that bridge Christian norms and political insight; it can be viewed as an understanding of human sin and a reflection on the connection between real life and Christianity.
