from the bad deed whose harm is outweighed, for that would amount to forbidding the good deed whose benefit predominates. Likewise, someone offering assistance should help in performing the good deed whose benefit predominates and in refraining from the bad deed whose harm is outweighed.

This is a fundamental principle encompassing matters of great importance, such as obedience to unjust rulers, refraining from rebellion against them, and other questions of religious law. The same judgment applies to a group whose actions comprise both good and bad deeds: in this respect, it is treated like an individual agent. What we have said about a single act and a single agent clarifies many matters, whether concerning truth as it exists or a thing being, in itself, both affirmed and negated. Often, however, a sweeping affirmation is set against a sweeping negation, whereas the truth lies in distinguishing between cases: affirming some of what falls under that generalization and negating the rest. This is predominantly the case with the major questions disputed by the various schools of speculative theology, philosophy, and the like.

As for evidence, if it is known with certainty, it can only be true. Yet a person often supposes something to be known with certainty when it is not. Thus, anyone who supposes that evidence known with certainty is contradictory is mistaken about that contradiction. One of two things must be the case: either all or some of the evidence is not known with certainty, or what the evidence entails is true without any contradiction, even if someone imagines it to be contradictory. One existing truth does not conflict with another existing truth; rather, both exist. This differs from truth as an intended aim, for it may