Morality of a person

[Bill_johnson]

Who is more morally corrupt or morally evil? Assuming all circumstances are the same if two people try to kill someone and one shoots and misses and the other shoots and kills (both intending to kill) who is more guilty? When reading the CCC it appears the latter is but I had previously assumed they would be both just as evil. (Provide sources if possible please).

The circumstances , including the consequences, are secondary elements of a moral act. They contribute to increasing or diminishing the moral goodness or evil of human acts (for example, the amount of a theft). They can also diminish or increase the agent’s responsibility (such as acting out of a fear of death). 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.
-CCC 1754

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Can you please provide citations to the CCC section on which you are relying for your statement “when reading the CCC it appears the latter is”?

I believe your first assumption “they would be both just as evil” is the correct one based on Matthew 5:21-22. It’s quite clear from Jesus’ own teaching.

21 “You have heard that it was said to your ancestors,n ‘You shall not kill; and whoever kills will be liable to judgment.’*22* But I say to you, whoever is angry* with his brother will be liable to judgment,oand whoever says to his brother, ‘Raqa,’ will be answerable to the Sanhedrin, and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ will be liable to fiery Gehenna.

 

[Beryllos]

(Provide sources if possible please).

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a4.htm

A short excerpt:

I. THE SOURCES OF MORALITY

1750 The morality of human acts depends on:

• the object chosen;
• the end in view or the intention;
• the circumstances of the action.

These three elements are described in greater detail in the text. The section is brief and well worth reading in its entirety.

I don’t see that it mentions the consequences or the outcome of the act, so the understanding you attributed to the CCC may be incorrect.

 

[Beryllos]

The circumstances , including the consequences, are secondary elements of a moral act. They contribute to increasing or diminishing the moral goodness or evil of human acts (for example, the amount of a theft). They can also diminish or increase the agent’s responsibility (such as acting out of a fear of death). 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.
-CCC 1754

Thanks for that.

To facilitate discussion, please post responses down here, not by editing your original post. When you post a new response, participating users are notified. Few have time to check old posts for edits. (I only caught it because I went back to check something else.)

 

[Tis_Bearself]

(CCC) …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.

In the case of an attempted murder, an intention to murder is “in itself evil” and is not changed by circumstances such as whether the intended victim died, was seriously injured, sustained only a minor injury, or was unscathed because the bullet missed.

 

[Vico]

Who is more morally corrupt or morally evil? Assuming all circumstances are the same if two people try to kill someone and one shoots and misses and the other shoots and kills (both intending to kill) who is more guilty? When reading the CCC it appears the latter is but I had previously assumed they would be both just as evil. (Provide sources if possible please).

The circumstances , including the consequences, are secondary elements of a moral act. They contribute to increasing or diminishing the moral goodness or evil of human acts (for example, the amount of a theft). They can also diminish or increase the agent’s responsibility (such as acting out of a fear of death). 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.
-CCC 1754

I can assume that you intend to use attempted murder and murder rather than defense. So for something in itself evil, there is no difference regarding malice.

Catechism

2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not."65

2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.

 

[Beryllos]

There is a difference, and I think the key is justice. What is the difference between charity and justice? Are both important? In the Original Post, the two persons sin equally against charity, but the one who kills has committed a greater injustice, and owes a greater debt to justice.

CCC or Bible references are left as an exercise to the interested reader.