Consequences as a font of morality

[Ron_Conte]

There are three source of morality, called fonts, which determine the morality of
each and every knowingly chosen act.

[1] the intention, or end, or purpose, or motive, of the person
[2] the moral object, or object, or species, or nature, of the act itself
[3] the circumstances, or consequences, of the intentionally chosen act

The third font is the consequences of our actions; this font is “the totality of the foreseeable consequences of that act for all persons concerned.”

Through our knowledge of past and present circumstances, we are able to use reason to anticipate the good and bad consequences of our acts. If the reasonably anticipated bad consequences morally outweigh the reasonably anticipated good consequences, then the third font is immoral and the act is a sin.

Even if the other two fonts of intention and moral object are good, if the bad consequences outweigh the good consequences, the chosen act is a sin.

There are three fonts of morality. Whenever any one or more of the fonts is bad, the act is immoral. All three fonts must be good for the act to be moral.

 

[Soler]

What if the first two fonts are good, but a) there are some pretty definite, but small, good consequences, and b) there are no probable bad consequences, but there is the distinct possibility of some major ones? And suchlike. Basically, how exactly does probability affect this font?

Also, does “negative consequences” refer only to those that will affect others, or can an act be immoral because of the negative consequences it will cause for oneself? (Obviously, I’m not talking about things that will endanger one’s soul.)

 

[Ron_Conte]

What if the first two fonts are good, but a) there are some pretty definite, but small, good consequences, and b) there are no probable bad consequences, but there is the distinct possibility of some major ones? And suchlike. Basically, how exactly does probability affect this font?

Evaluating the consequences often involves a judgment about the degree of risk and the degree of possible harm. There may not be absolute certitude as to the exact set of consequences that will result from an act. However, there may be moral certitude that a certain degree of risk, and a certain degree of harm, is present. In such cases, the consequences in third font are evaluated based on the likelihood of possible harm and the extent of that harm, versus the likelihood of possible benefit and the extent of that benefit.

If there is a slight likelihood of great harm, or a great likelihood of slight harm, the bad consequences have only a slight moral weight. If there is a slight likelihood of great good, or a great likelihood of slight good, the good consequences have only a slight moral weight. Many daily activities carry some minor risk, such as crossing the street, or taking a short drive. But since the possibility of great harm is slight, the act need only offer a correspondingly minor benefit to be moral. However, the substantial possibility of grave harm would have substantial moral weight, even though the harm is only a risk and not a certainty.

Also, does “negative consequences” refer only to those that will affect others, or can an act be immoral because of the negative consequences it will cause for oneself? (Obviously, I’m not talking about things that will endanger one’s soul.)

It includes everyone affected by the chosen act, including one’s self. The moral law is based on the love of God, neighbor, self.

Catechism of the Catholic Church: “Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality.” n. 2264