Catholic morality - difference in deliberated and intended acts

[o_mlly]

Freedom (“to perform deliberate actions on one’s own responsibility”) does involve a subjective element. See Catechism:

All human beings have free will or the freedom to choose to act or not act. This faculty is not subjective as all possess it.

Imputability (blame) for an immoral act may be diminished or removed if circumstances of a particular actor impair that freedom.

All human beings have the faculty of intellect, the capacity to know. If the circumstances result in the ignorance of a particular actor in knowing the reasonable foreseeable evil outcome then (if that ignorance is not willful) that particular agent’s culpability may also be diminished or removed.

In both cases the act remains evil.

CCC#1754 Circumstances of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves; they can make neither good nor right an action that is in itself evil.

 

[Dovekin]

All human beings have free will or the freedom to choose to act or not act. This faculty is not subjective as all possess it.

This faculty is subjective, in fact, part of the definition of subjectivity. ( “Something being a subject , broadly meaning an entity that has agency, meaning that it acts upon or wields power over some other entity (an object).”)

If responsible and culpable have different meanings, your position might make sense. I cannot make sense of that difference, so I have no idea. I’d be inclined to say something might be evil, but it is not a moral evil without the subjective dimension. IDK.

 

[o_mlly]

This faculty is subjective, in fact, part of the definition of subjectivity. ( “Something being a subject , broadly meaning an entity that has agency, meaning that it acts upon or wields power over some other entity (an object ).”)

Since you have put the definition in quotations marks, I assume you have an authority that you are quoting. Please provide the citation that I might read it.

If responsible and culpable have different meanings, your position might make sense. I cannot make sense of that difference, so I have no idea.

That’s fine. Perhaps I could have done a better job in my explanation.

I’d be inclined to say something might be evil, but it is not a moral evil without the subjective dimension.

That would not be Catholic teaching.

The importance of the specifying the moral object as an independent criteria unrelated to the subjective fonts of intent and circumstance in the determination of the morality of a human act is emphasized again and again in the Catechism. To wit:

The object chosen is a good toward which the will deliberately directs itself.

The object of the choice can by itself vitiate an act in its entirety.

There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object.

There are concrete acts that it is always wrong to choose, because their choice entails a disorder of the will, i.e., a moral evil.

In contrast to the object, the intention resides in the acting subject

An evil action cannot be justified by reference to a good intention

Circumstances of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves.

 

[Vico]

o_mlly:

All human beings have free will or the freedom to choose to act or not act. This faculty is not subjective as all possess it.

This faculty is subjective, in fact, part of the definition of subjectivity. ( “Something being a subject , broadly meaning an entity that has agency, meaning that it acts upon or wields power over some other entity (an object).”)

If responsible and culpable have different meanings, your position might make sense. I cannot make sense of that difference, so I have no idea. I’d be inclined to say something might be evil, but it is not a moral evil without the subjective dimension. IDK.

Responsible and culpable do have different meanings since culpable pertains to evil.

 

[o_mlly]

Responsible and culpable do have different meanings since culpable pertains to evil.

Culpable pertains to sin and I see your point. Our English vocabulary does not always have direct substitutes for the Latin or exactly the same meaning. That fact motivates this thread –
“deliberate” and “intend” are often confused as synonyms in moral theology. Let me revise the last sentence in the OP from:

Any and all actors remains responsible, that is take merit or blame, for all outcomes, not only the intended outcome

To:

Any and all actors remain the material cause of the act’s outcomes, not just the intended outcome, even though some may be excused from formal culpability. Those excused from culpability still remain responsible for any restitution, if not in justice, certainly in charity.