How do we determine what is moral?

[Zynxensar]

Is there an official CCC paragraph underlying risk?

It’s impossible to live in the world without risk, orherwise, crossing the road at a “green man” would be a sin because there is the slightest risk that one may still get knocked down by a car but as we all know, crossing the road at the “green man” isn’t a sin at all.

Even going out poses the risk of us getting killed. Maybe there is a murderer in the place we’re going. There’s a very slight chance of such occurring. Yet, it isn’t a sin to go to the mall, but it might be sinful if we go to the mall KNOWING that there is a murderer on the loose in that location because we’d be intentionally endangering our lives without a good cause.

I’m aware that there is a section in the CCC regarding the morality of human acts, and one of the 3 aspects as to what makes an action moral are the circumstances - which includes consequences of the act. But for every good act, there is the possibility of something bad resulting for it. For example, we pray in public, someone sees us and speaks an ill word about God.

So how do we determine which acts are moral and which are not? The object and the intent may be good, but there is no way for certain to ensure that bad consequences won’t result from it.

 

[Ron_Conte]

The font of circumstances is evaluated based on the reasonable anticipation of the good and bad effects of the chosen act. Anything that could not be reasonably anticipated is not part of the morality of the act. Among effects that are anticipated, you weigh the likelihood of the effect and its moral weight as those effects may help or harm anyone affected by the act. If the bad consequences morally outweigh the good, then the third font is bad and the act is a sin (unless and until circumstances change).

 

[Zynxensar]

Would this apply to every single scenario? As in, so long as the good consequences outweigh the bad, the action is moral? Aren’t there some actions which are not moral even though the good consequences still outweigh the bad by a certain margin?

 

[Ron_Conte]

Would this apply to every single scenario? As in, so long as the good consequences outweigh the bad, the action is moral?

There are three fonts of morality: intention, object, circumstances. All three fonts must be good for any act to be moral. You gave an example where the intention and object were both good, so, in that case, the morality would depend on the circumstances. But speaking more generally, you always need three good fonts.

Aren’t there some actions which are not moral even though the good consequences still outweigh the bad by a certain margin?

Yes. An act with a bad intention, or an act with an evil moral object (called an intrinsically evil act), would be sinful regardless of the circumstances. Of course, if you have two or three disordered fonts, instead of just one, then the act is more sinful.

The gravity of a sin depends on how morally disordered any/each font may be. The greater the disorder, the greater the sin (objectively).

 

[Edward_H]

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c3a1.htm

 

[joseie]

Nobody can ensure that,there won’t be any bad consequences for any action including a moral one.We assess the possible consequences before doing any action.To determine what is moral(that is- good, righteous,sinless etc.), God has has given each one of us sufficient wisdom for that including the wisdom to seek help from others.Just follow that…

 

[Zynxensar]

Interesting explanation. It does make sense, actually: if it would be a sin to commit an action that has even the slightest risk then all of us would be paralysed and not act. Then again, even that has its own risk!

However the part I’m unclear about is “if the good consequences outweigh the bad”. I know what you mean there, but aren’t there certain actions which we aren’t to do at all even though the chance of a bad consequence happening is low?

 

[edward_george1]

Stop posting these threads and see your priest.

-Fr ACEGC

 

[harrygrayson]

Morality can be looked at in many different ways. Morality is typically associated with religion, but my point is looking at from a sports participant point of view. My best friend is involved in semi-professional boxing and unfortunately he was seriously injured in a recent bout. Some news came to light where we were informed that his opponent used legal steroids during his training camp. Although steroids are strictly illegal, “legal steroids” have been doing the rounds recently on the web. What’s your views on this. DO we have a point or are we clutching at straws?

 

[twoboys]

Morality is based on God, not on consequence. God is Love. so, morality is based on Love