After Philosophy has "proved" that a sovereign God can do all things, and that men cannot, but men can do evil, she goes on:
Therefore, since He who can only do good can do all things and those who do evil cannot do all things, it is obvious that those who can do evil are less powerful. Moreover, we have already shown that every kind of power is included among the things which men desire, and that all objects of human desire are related to the good as the goal of their natures. But the ability to commit crime is not related to the good, and so it is not desirable. And, since every power should be desired, it follows that the power to do evil is not a power at all. From all this it is clear that good men have power but evil men are weak. Likewise, the truth of Plato’s doctrine is evident; only the wise can do what they want to do; the wicked can follow their desires, but they cannot accomplish what they want. For they do what they feel like doing, and they suppose that they will find among their pleasures the good they are really looking for. But they are bound to fail, since shameful behavior does not bring happiness." (Book IV, Prose 2, p. 72)
Comforting thought for those of us who try to achieve happiness by walking the straight and narrow, but is this reality? It seems as though if we agree with the theory of good, (and a belief in God is not truly necessary here, but rather some form of force that lies beyond man himself), then Boethius relates the opposite to evil; qualities, desires, etc., all in opposition to what has been held as the good.
"But the ability to commit crime is not related to the good, and so it is not desirable. And, since every power should be desired, it follows that the power to do evil is not a power at all. From all this it is clear that good men have power but evil men are weak." While the logical progression that Philosophy has taken seems to point in this direction, it seems to be fraught with nonrealistic however idealistic and hopeful thinking. It’s like telling a child that something’s not good for him because something bad can happen. It’s rationalization (which is what logic is supposed to be) but forcing things to work or sound good to encourage the righteous that they’re not missing out. "Those grapes are sour anyway" says the fox of Aesop’s Fable.
I see evil people smiling all the time. Maybe we shouldn’t tell them they’re really unhappy?
The Lost Children: A Charity Anthology