This blog post examines Augustine’s philosophical perspective that humans can achieve true happiness and justice by loving God.
Augustine’s Path to Happiness
Augustine defines ethics as the inquiry into the highest good. The highest good is the standard that dictates how we should act; it is the good that is an end in itself, not merely a means to another purpose. According to Augustine, attaining this highest good leads to happiness.
So, what exactly is the happiness Augustine speaks of? Augustine defines happiness as loving what one desires—love encompassing all forms of desire and longing. What we love is what we desire, and we strive to obtain it. He argues that attaining this love leads to happiness. Furthermore, Augustine contends that to be truly happy, we must love what is good, presenting ‘God’ as the supreme and highest good. He goes beyond the views of earlier pagan philosophers, stating that true happiness can only be attained when we meet God in the afterlife. According to Augustine, we must love ‘God,’ a being superior to us, and only Christian faith can guarantee eternal happiness for all humans, both in soul and body.
Augustine expressed this happiness using the biblical concept of ‘beatitude’. This signifies the state of happiness felt by the virtuous person, meaning the complete fulfillment of an individual’s needs and desires through becoming one with God. This happiness felt by the virtuous person can be seen as stemming from spiritual virtue, as also asserted by the Stoics. However, while the Stoics argued that virtue alone could bring humans closer to happiness, Augustine maintained that human ability alone is insufficient; one must receive God through faith to approach happiness.
Augustine believed that ‘virtue’ itself cannot be 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, such a thing can only be ‘God,’ and only ‘God’ corresponds to the good. He states, “Virtue is nothing other than perfect love of God.”
By loving God, who is superior and more excellent than ourselves, we can draw near to God and ultimately attain happiness. The ‘God’ Augustine speaks of is perfect and eternally existent, unlike the material world that comes into being or ceases to exist, and is the perfect good. Augustine’s path to happiness is to know and love the perfectly good thing we can love.
Love for God is said to take four forms. First, “temperance is love that keeps oneself sound and uncorrupted for God’s sake.” Second, “courage is love that willingly endures all things for God’s sake.” Third, “the virtue of justice is love that serves God alone and thereby governs all others well.” Finally, “prudence is love that discerns what aids and what hinders the path toward God.”
Furthermore, Augustine believed that humans cannot love God unless they first love themselves. The reason is that those journeying toward the highest true good naturally cultivate appropriate self-love along the way. Similarly, loving one’s neighbor as oneself is an effort to care for them so they may pursue the highest good together. Love for God serves as the moral principle.
Augustine’s Concept of Evil
Augustine’s experience of evil stemmed from the sexual desires he felt growing up. This desire continued to trouble him throughout his youth and his life as a Christian. He saw satisfaction in transcending these physical desires, possessing self and truth, and feeling tranquility. Later, Augustine encountered Manichaeism, which taught that the universe was caught in a conflict between darkness and light. This conflict also manifested within humans: light sought salvation and purification, while darkness, embodied by physical desires, sought to swallow the light. Among these, sexual desire was considered the most cunning, as it obstructed the light emanating from the body, preventing it from spreading to the heavens. Thus, he saw good and evil desires as stemming from opposing souls and wills within humans. Manichaeism defined evil as the ineradicable power of an evil god inherent in the material world, arguing that humans therefore bore no responsibility for their own evil deeds. After all, it was the darkness beyond human control that compelled them to commit evil. This dualism failed to fully resolve Augustine’s problem of evil. Manichaean doctrine rendered the light as a good force yet passive and impotent, causing Augustine even greater difficulty. To explain why evil exists despite an omnipotent God ruling the world, he viewed good and evil as distinct material entities engaged in conflict. He believed the Creator God must possess the will and power to uproot evil and cut off its branches, and must be able to transform evil into good. This notion could be seen as challenging the very concept of God’s omnipotence and presence, given the existence of evil itself.
Later, while reading Plotinus’s works, Augustine came to accept Plotinus’s view that evil is not a substance but a lack of good. He understood evil as the loss or deficiency of the perfection or nature that natural things must possess.
If evil existed as a substance, the problem arises that responsibility for it could fall upon God the Creator. Augustine countered this by stating that although God the Creator made the world originally good, the phenomenon of evil arose due to the natural tendency of creatures to return to nothingness, creating deficiency. Therefore, he argued there was no reason to attribute responsibility for evil to God, rejecting the claim that evil is an independently existing substance.
Augustine’s Sexual Ethics
Augustine follows the Christian tradition that physical sexual relations between men and women should occur only after marriage, and that their purpose should be procreation. However, some Christians view marriage as a fall, but Augustine holds a different perspective. He sees marriage as part of God’s plan and as a true good.
Augustine distinguishes between sexuality before the Fall and after the Fall. He believed offspring were born not from the enjoyment of sexual pleasure but from a companionate relationship. He thought sexual union did not stem from sexual desire but was merely the will acting as it should. While such acts are not entirely free from lust, they are also not driven by it. He argues that while humans after the Fall cannot suppress desire, humans before the Fall could do so sufficiently, based on the fact that human self-control can govern the body’s involuntary functions. Augustine saw shame arising not from sexual relations themselves, but from the lack of dignity when a man and woman engage in them. He stated that such involuntary, lust-driven sexual relations are the cause of shame.
Post-Fall sexuality is linked to the shame felt by Adam and Eve. What they sought to cover was not merely nakedness; the genitals themselves did not cause shame. What provoked shame was the fact that the sexual being had disobeyed, that sexuality—which should follow the rational will—ignored it and violated the order. This does not mean the substance itself is evil, but rather that the disorder caused by the lack of the human soul’s capacity is evil.
Meanwhile, Augustine argues that socially respectable marriage and Christian marriage eliminate the shame accompanying sexual intercourse. He views marriage as honorable, deriving good without falling into evil. Regarding the goodness of marriage, Augustine stated, “There are three things here: first, the birth of children; second, the confirmation of love; third, the unity achieved through union.” According to Augustine’s explanation, the first is procreation, that is, the birth of children; the second is faith, fidelity, devotion, love, or the confirmation of love. The last is the vow or sacramental union. Augustine particularly expressed, through the second case, that marriage serves as a restraint or remedy against sin. This can be seen as God creating the institution of marriage to protect and control humanity in its fallen state. Augustine’s view that such marriage is a remedy for sin considers it secondary to the Christian understanding that human life is destined for salvation.
Augustine’s Ethics of War
Augustine fundamentally holds a theory of just war. He views war as evil, but when waged to prevent a greater evil, a just war is conducted. War exists to pursue peace. Augustine states that the state must participate in waging war if it is done to defend the state and punish grave injustice.
Furthermore, Augustine confers religious authority upon war. When questions arise about war, he argues that because God commands it, the war becomes just. He states regarding Moses, “In the war waged by divine command, what he showed was not cruelty but obedience,” implying divine command justifies war.
Augustine emphasized war as punishment for evil. “When force is generally required for punishment, good people may wage war either for obedience to God or by some legitimate authority.” He thus viewed the violence inherent in war not as self-defense, but as an act performed by legitimate authority, constituting an effort at retribution.
Meanwhile, Augustine viewed war as a form of religious education, influenced by the Old Testament’s dual perspectives of divine power and the execution of judgment. He stated that war chastises human pride and fosters humility; when conducted in obedience to God, it is a just war. He saw this as a process testing human endurance and tempering the soul, ultimately leading to blessing. This perspective does not view war as merely an evil act, but rather as a means of correcting human attitudes from a spiritual viewpoint.
Furthermore, Augustine clearly stated, “Those who wage war under God’s authority are not to be blamed, and those who know that God never makes wrong demands should not be blamed.” Divine authority guarantees that our righteous actions are just.
He states that war is a sign of God’s mercy because it destroys evils that must be eradicated, must be conducted with good motives, and must ensure just governance. The crucial point in Augustine’s just war theory is not whether an act is violent or not, but fundamentally whether inclinations or desires possess a righteous internal order and whether moral order is maintained. If such moral order exists, it becomes the basis for justifying violence. This understanding aligns closely with the epistemological and ethical characteristics of the New Testament.
Augustine’s Political Ethics
Augustine develops his political philosophy through a dualistic analytical framework: the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Man. His Kingdom of God is a realm following Christian teachings. In contrast, the earthly Kingdom of Man is a realm stained by human greed. In this regard, Augustine asserts that political authority is inevitable. This is because humans are born with an evil nature, necessitating politics to control it. Augustine explains 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 care for those under their command—even children or slaves—with love. This is because he believed that if the natural order was disrupted, either restraint or punishment would follow. Augustine’s Eternal Law is divine reason or God’s will, maintaining the natural order and punishing elements that disrupt it. He believed that a person with an evil will could not uphold the Eternal Law, which consists of love for God and love for one’s neighbor. Furthermore, Augustine acknowledged slavery, explaining and justifying it within the context of his time. While he did not explicitly condemn the sacrifices slavery entailed, he justified its inception and continuation through the rules of war. Augustine could legitimize slavery because he saw it as subject to moral commands or the application of the eternal law.
Augustine explains that the people are subject to custom or law, and the general consent of society is obedience to the ruler. He viewed such a republic as centered on the ruler, who unites the people. He also recognized that political leaders use religion to deceive the people and seek to possess subjects. However, he saw the attempt by politicians to balance each other by rewarding the people with appropriate actions as a kind of social contract.
Meanwhile, Augustine cited Cicero’s definition of a republic, arguing, “If the republic is the common good of the people, and the people possess knowledge of righteousness derived from a sense of justice, then without justice established, there can be neither people nor community, nor can the republic itself be formed.” On this point, he criticizes Rome as already incapable of being a republic. No matter how great an empire Rome was, a nation without justice could not be a republic. Here, justice is interpreted in a Platonic sense as justice itself, or the Idea of justice, meaning all temporal things must be judged against whether they are just.
Augustine’s political ethics allow for diverse approaches between Christian norms and political insight, reflecting an understanding of human sin and contemplation of the connection between real life and Christianity.
