moral object

[Ron_Conte]

There are three fonts (sources) of morality. Every knowingly chosen act of human persons is either moral or immoral based on these three sources of morality:

[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 moral object is perhaps the most difficult of the fonts to understand.

Every knowingly chosen act has an inherent moral nature, independent of intention and circumstance, and that nature is determined by the moral object, which is the end toward which the act itself is inherently ordered. The moral nature of an act is not defined by the attainment of that end, but by the inherent ordering of the act toward that end, its moral object. An act has a particular moral object because that act, by its very nature, is directed toward that moral object; this inherent ordering constitutes the moral meaning (or moral nature, or moral ‘species’) of the act. The knowingly chosen acts of human persons are never without a moral meaning before God, who is the eternal moral law. The moral object determines the moral meaning of the act before the eyes of God. Therefore, all knowingly chosen acts must have a moral object. Each and every good moral object is capable of being ordered toward God as our final end. Each and every evil moral object is incapable of being ordered toward God as our final end.

Any act with an evil moral object is intrinsically evil, because all knowingly chosen acts are intrinsically ordered toward their moral object. Intrinsically evil acts are always immoral, regardless of intention or circumstances (i.e. regardless of the other two fonts). Whenever any one font is immoral, the other two fonts can never cause the act to become moral.

**Pope John Paul II, Veritatis Splendor: **

“Christian ethics, which pays particular attention to the moral object…”

“The primary and decisive element for moral judgment is the object of the human act, which establishes whether it is capable of being ordered to the good and to the ultimate end, which is God.”

“The doctrine of the object as a source of morality represents an authentic explicitation of the Biblical morality of the Covenant and of the commandments, of charity and of the virtues.”

“Consequently, circumstances or intentions can never transform an act intrinsically evil by virtue of its object into an act “subjectively” good or defensible as a choice.”

 

[FightingFat]

Good post. So bombing Hiroshima was utterly indefensible for Catholics as a perfect example of utilitarianism, which JPII condemns in VS.



That should get some reaction!

 

[sinnegam]

There are three fonts (sources) of morality. Every knowingly chosen act of human persons is either moral or immoral based on these three sources of morality:

[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 moral object is perhaps the most difficult of the fonts to understand.

Every knowingly chosen act has an inherent moral nature, independent of intention and circumstance, and that nature is determined by the moral object, which is the end toward which the act itself is inherently ordered. The moral nature of an act is not defined by the attainment of that end, but by the inherent ordering of the act toward that end, its moral object. An act has a particular moral object because that act, by its very nature, is directed toward that moral object; this inherent ordering constitutes the moral meaning (or moral nature, or moral ‘species’) of the act. The knowingly chosen acts of human persons are never without a moral meaning before God, who is the eternal moral law. The moral object determines the moral meaning of the act before the eyes of God. Therefore, all knowingly chosen acts must have a moral object. Each and every good moral object is capable of being ordered toward God as our final end. Each and every evil moral object is incapable of being ordered toward God as our final end.

Any act with an evil moral object is intrinsically evil, because all knowingly chosen acts are intrinsically ordered toward their moral object. Intrinsically evil acts are always immoral, regardless of intention or circumstances (i.e. regardless of the other two fonts). Whenever any one font is immoral, the other two fonts can never cause the act to become moral.

**Pope John Paul II, Veritatis Splendor: **

“Christian ethics, which pays particular attention to the moral object…”

“The primary and decisive element for moral judgment is the object of the human act, which establishes whether it is capable of being ordered to the good and to the ultimate end, which is God.”

“The doctrine of the object as a source of morality represents an authentic explicitation of the Biblical morality of the Covenant and of the commandments, of charity and of the virtues.”

“Consequently, circumstances or intentions can never transform an act intrinsically evil by virtue of its object into an act “subjectively” good or defensible as a choice.”

Being non-academic I couldn’t help but notice the strong similarity between your 3 fonts of morality and the 3 conditions necessary for sin to be mortal…grave matter, full knowledge and full consent…or did I miss the whole point of your post?

 

[Ron_Conte]

Being non-academic I couldn’t help but notice the strong similarity between your 3 fonts of morality and the 3 conditions necessary for sin to be mortal…grave matter, full knowledge and full consent…or did I miss the whole point of your post?

No, the 3 fonts do not correspond to the 3 conditions of actual mortal sin.

 

[Ron_Conte]

The intention of the person in choosing the act has no effect on the moral object. Every knowingly chosen act is inherently directed at its moral object. In choosing the act, the person has in effect also chosen the moral object of the act. It is not possible to choose one act but a different moral object. It is not possible for intention to change the moral object.

For example, the moral object of lying cannot be changed by intention into a good moral object. Acts with an evil moral object are inherently immoral. No intention can transform an intrinsically evil act into a morally good act.

If an act is immoral solely because of the first font of intention, then the person can possibly cooperate with grace to change that intention, and the act will then be moral.

If an act would be immoral solely because of the third font of circumstances (because the harm resulting from the act morally outweighs the good resulting from the act), the person can wait until the circumstances change, or the person might choose a different act, one that changes the circumstances, making the first act now moral.

But nothing can cause an act that is immoral because of the second font of the moral object to become moral. The act is inherently ordered toward an evil end, its moral object, and nothing can change the essential moral nature (or moral species) of the act. The only way to ‘change’ the morality of the second font is to choose a different act, one that has a good moral object instead of an evil moral object.

 

[Ron_Conte]

The three fonts of morality:
[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

There are only three reasons why any knowingly chosen act is immoral:

1. the intention is evil (immoral)
2. the moral object is evil
3. the bad consequences outweigh the good consequences

If any one font is bad, the overall act (including all three fonts) is immoral; it is a sin. If all three fonts are good, the act is moral. There are no exceptions to this principle of ethics.

 

[rpp]

Good post. So bombing Hiroshima was utterly indefensible for Catholics as a perfect example of utilitarianism, which JPII condemns in VS.



That should get some reaction!

War brings in different considerations. After all, it is morally wrong to kill people, yet a just war (which nearly all moral theologian will claim was true for the USA and it’s allies) changes this in certain narrow circumstances.

Nice provocation, however!

 

[Ron_Conte]

The direct targeting of centers of mass population, and any direct targeting of civilians in warfare, is the direct and voluntary killing of innocent human beings, which is murder. All such acts are intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral.

If a military target is attacked directly, and if some number of civilians are killed indirectly (unintended, unavoidable, indirect), this is not murder (not the moral object of murder). However, it is also not always moral. The intention and the circumstances must also be good. If the bad consequence of civilian deaths outweighs the good consequences of attacking the military target, then it would be immoral to attack.

The bombing of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and the fire bombing of Tokyo were all acts of murder, not attacks on military targets.

The bombing of Dresden is a matter of some dispute among historians, as to whether or not there was a legitimate military target there. If not, then this bombing was also murder. If so, it is clear that the military targets there were not of sufficient necessity to attack that the very many civilian deaths would be outweighed. So either way the bombing of Dresden during WW2 was gravely immoral.

 

[rpp]

The direct targeting of centers of mass population, and any direct targeting of civilians in warfare, is the direct and voluntary killing of innocent human beings, which is murder. All such acts are intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral.

If a military target is attacked directly, and if some number of civilians are killed indirectly (unintended, unavoidable, indirect), this is not murder (not the moral object of murder). However, it is also not always moral. The intention and the circumstances must also be good. If the bad consequence of civilian deaths outweighs the good consequences of attacking the military target, then it would be immoral to attack.

The bombing of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and the fire bombing of Tokyo were all acts of murder, not attacks on military targets.

The bombing of Dresden is a matter of some dispute among historians, as to whether or not there was a legitimate military target there. If not, then this bombing was also murder. If so, it is clear that the military targets there were not of sufficient necessity to attack that the very many civilian deaths would be outweighed. So either way the bombing of Dresden during WW2 was gravely immoral.

Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were all major ports and had extensive dry docks that serviced the Japanese navy. All also had arms and ordinance manufacturing facilities. If Desden was an “arguably” legitimate military target, then so were these cities.

With that said, the intentional targeting of civilians is heinous in all circumstances. Yet at the same time, I was born because the atomic bombs were used.

 

[FightingFat]

War brings in different considerations. After all, it is morally wrong to kill people, yet a just war (which nearly all moral theologian will claim was true for the USA and it’s allies) changes this in certain narrow circumstances.

Nice provocation, however!

I thank you!

I agree, and like this example because it is particularly challenging; we of course, like to think that we are on the side of right. Certainly the argument seems pretty logical- the bomb was dropped to avoid further conflict. But this is clearly Utilitarian; it looks to the consequences, which we can not know before any action, as a justification for a moral act…A moral act which in this case was aimed at causing as much loss of life as possible to civilians. The Church teaches that the other sources of morality: the circumstances and the consequences, do affect the morality of an act, but not fundamentally.

Another similar example would be a WWII concentration camp. The Nazi officer lines up 11 of you, gives you a pistol and demands you shoot one of the other prisoners or he will shoot all of them. What do you do?

 

[FightingFat]

BTW Dresden is equally–if not even more-- an indefensible moral act!

 

[CWBetts]

Being non-academic I couldn’t help but notice the strong similarity between your 3 fonts of morality and the 3 conditions necessary for sin to be mortal…grave matter, full knowledge and full consent…or did I miss the whole point of your post?

He just found a book about Aquinas and copied it.

 

[Ron_Conte]

Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were all major ports and had extensive dry docks that serviced the Japanese navy. All also had arms and ordinance manufacturing facilities. If Desden was an “arguably” legitimate military target, then so were these cities.

With that said, the intentional targeting of civilians is heinous in all circumstances. Yet at the same time, I was born because the atomic bombs were used.

The ports and dry docks were not targeted. A very limited conventional bombing attack would have been sufficient to attack those targets, if this was desired. The mere presense in or near a city of some military resources does not justify attacking the entire city directly.

Also, speaking in general, even if a military location is targeted, this does not justify an overwhelmingly large number of civilian deaths.

I don’t believe that Dresden was targeted for its military resources (transportation, war factories). The factories were mostly in the industrial area outside of the city, and were unaffected. And the mere fact that some transportation resources are in a city does not justify an attack. Also, the transportation could have been effectively disrupted by striking bridges and remote areas of train tracks.

 

[Ron_Conte]

He just found a book about Aquinas and copied it.

I wrote the material in all my posts above. Some of it is from a book I am writing on moral theology, largely based on Veritatis Splendor and on Aquinas.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

He just found a book about Aquinas and copied it.

Not to get off topic, but are you implying that this is a negative thing? Please God we all find a book on Aquinas and copy it! The last thing you want in moral theology is innovation.

VC

 

[CWBetts]

I wrote the material in all my posts above. Some of it is from a book I am writing on moral theology, largely based on Veritatis Splendor and on Aquinas.

The least you could do is credit St. Thomas, it is obvious that it is his material

 

[Ron_Conte]

The least you could do is credit St. Thomas, it is obvious that it is his material

The teaching of the Church on the three fonts of morality is based, to some extent, on the work of St. Thomas Aquinas. However, he did not explicitly teach three fonts; the three fonts are only implicit in his work. It was a later theological development to distinguish, number, and name the three fonts, and to more profoundly and extensively consider the nature of each font. Consequently my posts above are based more on the current understanding in the Church, especially as found in Veritatis Splendor, than on St. Thomas.

Returning to the subject of this thread…

Every knowingly chosen act is either moral or immoral before God. Once a knowing choice has been made, the act is either moral or immoral. Every knowingly chosen act has three fonts of morality; it is these three fonts and only these three fonts that determine the morality of each and every act without exceptioin. Every moral act has three good fonts. If any one or more fonts is bad (immoral, evil), then the overall act is immoral; it is always a sin to choose an act that has one or more bad fonts.

The entire moral law rests upon these three fonts.

 

[CWBetts]

The teaching of the Church on the three fonts of morality is based, to some extent, on the work of St. Thomas Aquinas. However, he did not explicitly teach three fonts; the three fonts are only implicit in his work. It was a later theological development to distinguish, number, and name the three fonts, and to more profoundly and extensively consider the nature of each font. Consequently my posts above are based more on the current understanding in the Church, especially as found in Veritatis Splendor, than on St. Thomas.

Returning to the subject of this thread…

Every knowingly chosen act is either moral or immoral before God. Once a knowing choice has been made, the act is either moral or immoral. Every knowingly chosen act has three fonts of morality; it is these three fonts and only these three fonts that determine the morality of each and every act without exceptioin. Every moral act has three good fonts. If any one or more fonts is bad (immoral, evil), then the overall act is immoral; it is always a sin to choose an act that has one or more bad fonts.

The entire moral law rests upon these three fonts.

Again you are telling us nothing new. Parroting those that went before, and presenting as your own ideas is what is commonly called plagiarism. I need to learn to just ignore your threads. They are just exercises in self-importance.

 

[beafedor]

There are three fonts (sources) of morality. Every knowingly chosen act of human persons is either moral or immoral based on these three sources of morality:

[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 moral object is perhaps the most difficult of the fonts to understand.

Every knowingly chosen act has an inherent moral nature, independent of intention and circumstance, and that nature is determined by the moral object, which is the end toward which the act itself is inherently ordered. The moral nature of an act is not defined by the attainment of that end, but by the inherent ordering of the act toward that end, its moral object. An act has a particular moral object because that act, by its very nature, is directed toward that moral object; this inherent ordering constitutes the moral meaning (or moral nature, or moral ‘species’) of the act. The knowingly chosen acts of human persons are never without a moral meaning before God, who is the eternal moral law. The moral object determines the moral meaning of the act before the eyes of God. Therefore, all knowingly chosen acts must have a moral object. Each and every good moral object is capable of being ordered toward God as our final end. Each and every evil moral object is incapable of being ordered toward God as our final end.

Any act with an evil moral object is intrinsically evil, because all knowingly chosen acts are intrinsically ordered toward their moral object. Intrinsically evil acts are always immoral, regardless of intention or circumstances (i.e. regardless of the other two fonts). Whenever any one font is immoral, the other two fonts can never cause the act to become moral.

**Pope John Paul II, Veritatis Splendor: **

“Christian ethics, which pays particular attention to the moral object…”

“The primary and decisive element for moral judgment is the object of the human act, which establishes whether it is capable of being ordered to the good and to the ultimate end, which is God.”

“The doctrine of the object as a source of morality represents an authentic explicitation of the Biblical morality of the Covenant and of the commandments, of charity and of the virtues.”

“Consequently, circumstances or intentions can never transform an act intrinsically evil by virtue of its object into an act “subjectively” good or defensible as a choice.”

I’ve noticed that you posted something similar on a NFP thread to answer a question about: “is it a sin not to use NFP when a couple for serious reasons is not capable of raising a child”. I don’t understand what point you are trying to make. Is this teaching of the three fonts related to a particular situation that you would like to discuss?

 

[Ron_Conte]

Every knowingly chosen act is either moral or immoral before God. Once a knowing choice has been made, the act is either moral or immoral. Every knowingly chosen act has three fonts of morality; it is these three fonts and only these three fonts that determine the morality of each and every act without exceptioin. Every moral act has three good fonts. If any one or more fonts is bad (immoral, evil), then the overall act is immoral; it is always a sin to choose an act that has one or more bad fonts.

The entire moral law rests upon these three fonts.

Whenever the moral object is evil, the chosen act is intrinsically evil, because it is inherently ordered toward an evil end. Intrinsically evil acts are always immoral, regardless of intention and circumstances (the other two fonts). Good intention and dire circumstances cannot cause an act that is inherently ordered toward an evil end to become moral. Such acts are immoral by the very nature of the act. For any act to be moral, all three fonts (intention, object, circumstances) must be good.

Intrinsically evil acts are always immoral, but not always gravely immoral. Some intrinsically evil acts, such as lying or stealing, may be venial or mortal, depending on intention and circumstances. Other intrinsically evil acts, such as murder and illicit sexual acts, are not only always immoral, but also always gravely immoral. An intrinsically evil act is always gravely immoral if the moral object is gravely contrary to the love of God and neighbor. Such acts are inherently grave because the inherent moral meaning of the act is entirely determined by the moral object. A good intention and good consequences cannot cause such an act to be less than an objective mortal sin.