The Argument through Degrees of Perfection simply doesn't work, right?

'So we arrange some things in terms of more and less. And when we do, we naturally think of them on a scale approaching most and least. For example, we think of the lighter as approaching the brightness of pure white, and the darker as approaching the opacity of pitch black. This means that we think of them at various “distances” from the extremes, and as possessing, in degrees of “more” or “less,” what the extremes possess in full measure.

Sometimes it is the literal distance from an extreme that makes all the difference between “more” and “less.” For example, things are more or less hot when they are more or less distant from a source of heat. The source communicates to those things the quality of heat they possess in greater or lesser measure. This means that the degree of heat they possess is caused by a source outside of them.

Now when we think of the goodness of things, part of what we mean relates to what they are simply as beings. We believe, for example, that a relatively stable and permanent way of being is better than one that is fleeting and precarious. Why? Because we apprehend at a deep (but not always conscious) level that being is the source and condition of all value; finally and ultimately, being is better than nonbeing. And so we recognize the inherent superiority of all those ways of being that expand possibilities, free us from the constricting confines of matter, and allow us to share in, enrich and be enriched by, the being of other things. In other words, we all recognize that intelligent being is better than unintelligent being; that a being able to give and receive love is better than one that cannot; that our way of being is better, richer and fuller than that of a stone, a flower, an earthworm, an ant, or even a baby seal.

But if these degrees of perfection pertain to being and being is caused in finite creatures, then there must exist a “best,” a source and real standard of all the perfections that we recognize belong to us as beings.

This absolutely perfect being—the “Being of all beings,” “the Perfection of all perfections”—is God.’- Peter Kreeft, Catholic Philosopher.

This surely presumes that all ‘amounts’ have, somewhere, a full source and surely this simply isn’t the proven case? Because we ich, and have a concept of ichiness, do we assume for a moment that there is a ‘fount of ichiness’ from which the sensation came, from which the concept’s full archaetype is found? Surely the key thing to highlight in the following is the term ‘SOMETIMES’.

‘Sometimes it is the literal distance from an extreme that makes all the difference between “more” and “less.”’

I love Peter Kreeft, but sometimes His arguments depend upon an outlook before they’ve reached that conclusion. His proof for God giving us joy was, God is good, God is love, God wills what is best for those He loves and therefore God will give us joy. That ASSUMES that joy is one of the highest goods, without proving it.

Consider Lucifer. He is a fallen angel- fallen because
he had jealousy of God. Yet he was in Heaven with God
where all is perfection and evil does not co-exist.
Therefore the question becomes from what source
did Lucifer obtain envy? And how much or little was
enough?

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.