Object of an act

  • Thread starter Thread starter PeteZaHut
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

PeteZaHut

Guest
Someone please explain this:

1751
The object chosen is a good toward which the will deliberately directs itself. It is the matter of a human act. The object chosen morally specifies the act of the will, insofar as reason recognizes and judges it to be or not to be in conformity with the true good. Objective norms of morality express the rational order of good and evil, attested to by conscience.
 
Someone please explain this:

1751
The object chosen is a good toward which the will deliberately directs itself. It is the matter of a human act. The object chosen morally specifies the act of the will, insofar as reason recognizes and judges it to be or not to be in conformity with the true good. Objective norms of morality express the rational order of good and evil, attested to by conscience.
The Catechism:

1750 The morality of human acts depends on:
  • the object chosen;
  • the end in view or the intention;
  • the circumstances of the action.
Veritatis Spendor:

“In order to be able to grasp the object of an act which specifies that act morally, it is therefore necessary to place oneself in the perspective of the acting person. The object of the act of willing is in fact a freely chosen kind of behaviour.” (Veritatis Spendor 78)

Lets see how the Catechism gives an example of an object.

1755 A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself (such as praying and fasting “in order to be seen by men”).

Here it calls “praying and fasting” the good object. (but the intention makes it not a purely good act at least)

Likewise …Murder and theft are objects. Evil objects to be sure but objects.

So lets look at two different acts.

Good act:

Object: the necessary taking of a persons life in self defense.
Intention: to save ones own life from an unjust aggressor.
Circumstance: in order to save ones life one needs to use lethal force here and now.

Evil act:

Object: Murder (of ones wife.)
Intention: To marry the Sue whom one wants to marry.
Circumstance: Unhappy marriage

(In this last case ones good intention to ‘marry’ doe not justify the intrinsically evil object …murder. or does the circumstance)

(of course the person is also stupid here for in Canon law one can not murder someone in order to marry a particular person…for that will render the other ‘marriage’ invalid…i guess they had some who tried this in the past!)

evil act

Object: Giving alms (for Haiti)
Intention: so one can brag on how much one gave.
Circumstance: real need in Haiti.

(Here one has a good object --alms giving-- which is made at least partially bad due to the bad intention or end.)

vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a4.htm#I
 
The Catechism:

1750 The morality of human acts depends on:
  • the object chosen;
  • the end in view or the intention;
  • the circumstances of the action.
Veritatis Spendor:

“In order to be able to grasp the object of an act which specifies that act morally, it is therefore necessary to place oneself in the perspective of the acting person. The object of the act of willing is in fact a freely chosen kind of behaviour.” (Veritatis Spendor 78)

Lets see how the Catechism gives an example of an object.

1755 A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself (such as praying and fasting “in order to be seen by men”).

Here it calls “praying and fasting” the good object. (but the intention makes it not a purely good act at least)

Likewise …Murder and theft are objects. Evil objects to be sure but objects.

So lets look at two different acts.

Good act:

Object: the necessary taking of a persons life in self defense.
Intention: to save ones own life from an unjust aggressor.
Circumstance: in order to save ones life one needs to use lethal force here and now.

Evil act:

Object: Murder (of ones wife.)
Intention: To marry the Sue whom one wants to marry.
Circumstance: Unhappy marriage

(In this last case ones good intention to ‘marry’ doe not justify the intrinsically evil object …murder. or does the circumstance)

(of course the person is also stupid here for in Canon law one can not murder someone in order to marry a particular person…for that will render the other ‘marriage’ invalid…i guess they had some who tried this in the past!)

evil act

Object: Giving alms (for Haiti)
Intention: so one can brag on how much one gave.
Circumstance: real need in Haiti.

(Here one has a good object --alms giving-- which is made at least partially bad due to the bad intention or end.)

vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a4.htm#I
okay, so the object is simply the act itself? The Catechism made it sound a lot more complicated.
 
okay, so the object is simply the act itself? The Catechism made it sound a lot more complicated.
in a sense…but there can be more too it…for some acts look like others…

for instance …

killing someone in self defense when necessary – is a good object.

murder is an intrinsically evil object.

both acts can be be actually: “putting a sword through someone”

but both are different objects.

Fornication, prayer, almsgiving, murder, lying, stealing, charity. marital relatons, self defense…can all be different objects.

but some of these are good objects and others are evil objects…though some look like the same act…
 
okay, so the object is simply the act itself? The Catechism made it sound a lot more complicated.
The object is the end, in terms of morality, toward which the chosen act is inherently ordered. The object is distinct from the act, and is not always obtained. The act seeks to obtain the object.

An act of theft is inherently, by the very nature of the act, directed toward the end of depriving an owner of his goods. The act itself might be any of countless exterior acts, each one very different from the next. But they are all ordered toward the same end, and end in terms of morality (which is based on love of God and neighbor). An end that is contrary to the love of God and neighbor is an evil object, and an end that is particular fulfillment of the love of God and neighbor is a good object.

The object of the act determines the inherent moral meaning of the act itself.

So there are three concepts:

the act chosen by the will
the inherent moral meaning of that act
the moral object which determines the inherent moral meaning of the act
 
The example that comes to mind involves TV or movies. There are often some inappropriate sexual situations that you are exposed to.

If you do your best to focus on a different part of the screen and do not want look at anything inappropriate, but are still exposed to it, would the conditions be as follows:

good (or neutral):
object - watching a movie
intention - harmless entertainment

OR would it be like this:

evil:
object - lusting at inappropriate images
intention - harmless entertainment

Am I right in saying that the second set of conditions would be incorrect because the object is formed by what you are trying to accomplish? That is just confusing to me because it seems like to determine the object, you have incorporate intent, but then there is a whole different category of intent that cannot make an evil object good. Does that make sense?
 
The example that comes to mind involves TV or movies. There are often some inappropriate sexual situations that you are exposed to.

If you do your best to focus on a different part of the screen and do not want look at anything inappropriate, but are still exposed to it, would the conditions be as follows:

good (or neutral):
object - watching a movie
intention - harmless entertainment

OR would it be like this:

evil:
object - lusting at inappropriate images
intention - harmless entertainment

Am I right in saying that the second set of conditions would be incorrect because the object is formed by what you are trying to accomplish? That is just confusing to me because it seems like to determine the object, you have incorporate intent, but then there is a whole different category of intent that cannot make an evil object good. Does that make sense?
the object can be: watching and/or lusting regarding inappropriate images

and thus right there it is evil…

or

object can be: watching a movie for entertainment (a reasonable one)
intention: entertainment
circumstances: one avoids a sexual scene with out problem

and thus it can be good.

or

object can be: watching a reasonable movie (that one could ordinarily avoid problematic scenes.
intention: to find lustful scenes to watch
Circumstance: one is in a state of grave temptation and should not watch anything that has bad scenes that one could give into and watch for it is a near occasion

thus in this case the intention and/or circumstance made it a evil act.

or

object: watching lustful movie
intention: to get ready for marital relations
circumstances: one has difficulty with having marital relations

here …we have an intrinsically evil object. so no matter what he intentions or circumstances it does not make it the act good.
 
The the language of the Catechism:

The Catechism:

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.
The object, the intention, and the circumstances make up the “sources,” or constitutive elements, of the morality of human acts.

1751 The object chosen is a good toward which the will deliberately directs itself. It is the matter of a human act. The object chosen morally specifies the act of the will, insofar as reason recognizes and judges it to be or not to be in conformity with the true good. Objective norms of morality express the rational order of good and evil, attested to by conscience.

1752 In contrast to the object, the intention resides in the acting subject. Because it lies at the voluntary source of an action and determines it by its end, intention is an element essential to the moral evaluation of an action. The end is the first goal of the intention and indicates the purpose pursued in the action. The intention is a movement of the will toward the end: it is concerned with the goal of the activity. It aims at the good anticipated from the action undertaken. Intention is not limited to directing individual actions, but can guide several actions toward one and the same purpose; it can orient one’s whole life toward its ultimate end. For example, a service done with the end of helping one’s neighbor can at the same time be inspired by the love of God as the ultimate end of all our actions. One and the same action can also be inspired by several intentions, such as performing a service in order to obtain a favor or to boast about it.

1753 A good intention (for example, that of helping one’s neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just. The end does not justify the means. Thus the condemnation of an innocent person cannot be justified as a legitimate means of saving the nation. On the other hand, an added bad intention (such as vainglory) makes an act evil that, in and of itself, can be good (such as almsgiving).39

1754 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.

II. GOOD ACTS AND EVIL ACTS

1755 A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself (such as praying and fasting “in order to be seen by men”).

The object of the choice can by itself vitiate an act in its entirety. There are some concrete acts - such as fornication - that it is always wrong to choose, because choosing them entails a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil.

1756 It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

IN BRIEF

1757 The object, the intention, and the circumstances make up the three “sources” of the morality of human acts.

1758 The object chosen morally specifies the act of willing accordingly as reason recognizes and judges it good or evil.

1759 “An evil action cannot be justified by reference to a good intention” (cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Dec. praec. 6). The end does not justify the means.

1760 A morally good act requires the goodness of its object, of its end, and of its circumstances together.

1761 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. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.
 
the object can be: watching and/or lusting regarding inappropriate images

and thus right there it is evil…

or

object can be: watching a movie for entertainment (a reasonable one)
intention: entertainment
circumstances: one avoids a sexual scene with out problem

and thus it can be good.

or

object can be: watching a reasonable movie (that one could ordinarily avoid problematic scenes.
intention: to find lustful scenes to watch
Circumstance: one is in a state of grave temptation and should not watch anything that has bad scenes that one could give into and watch for it is a near occasion

thus in this case the intention and/or circumstance made it a evil act.

or

object: watching lustful movie
intention: to get ready for marital relations
circumstances: one has difficulty with having marital relations

here …we have an intrinsically evil object. so no matter what he intentions or circumstances it does not make it the act good.
See how you have to say “object can be: watching a movie for entertainment (a reasonable one).” It has to include “for entertainment” to make sense, which seems like it includes the intention.
 
The object is the end, in terms of morality, toward which the chosen act is inherently ordered. The object is distinct from the act, and is not always obtained. The act seeks to obtain the object.

An act of theft is inherently, by the very nature of the act, directed toward the end of depriving an owner of his goods. The act itself might be any of countless exterior acts, each one very different from the next. But they are all ordered toward the same end, and end in terms of morality (which is based on love of God and neighbor). An end that is contrary to the love of God and neighbor is an evil object, and an end that is particular fulfillment of the love of God and neighbor is a good object.

The object of the act determines the inherent moral meaning of the act itself.

So there are three concepts:

the act chosen by the will
the inherent moral meaning of that act
the moral object which determines the inherent moral meaning of the act
lets stick with the terms of the Catechism here… so as to avoid confusion. 🙂

The morality of human acts depends on:
  • the object chosen;
  • the end in view or the intention;
  • the circumstances of the action.
The object, the intention, and the circumstances make up the “sources,” or constitutive elements, of the morality of human acts.

1751 The object chosen is a good toward which the will deliberately directs itself. It is the matter of a human act. The object chosen morally specifies the act of the will, insofar as reason recognizes and judges it to be or not to be in conformity with the true good. Objective norms of morality express the rational order of good and evil, attested to by conscience.

1752 In contrast to the object, the intention resides in the acting subject. Because it lies at the voluntary source of an action and determines it by its end, intention is an element essential to the moral evaluation of an action. The end is the first goal of the intention and indicates the purpose pursued in the action. The intention is a movement of the will toward the end: it is concerned with the goal of the activity. It aims at the good anticipated from the action undertaken. Intention is not limited to directing individual actions, but can guide several actions toward one and the same purpose; it can orient one’s whole life toward its ultimate end. For example, a service done with the end of helping one’s neighbor can at the same time be inspired by the love of God as the ultimate end of all our actions. One and the same action can also be inspired by several intentions, such as performing a service in order to obtain a favor or to boast about it.

1753 A good intention (for example, that of helping one’s neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just. The end does not justify the means. Thus the condemnation of an innocent person cannot be justified as a legitimate means of saving the nation. On the other hand, an added bad intention (such as vainglory) makes an act evil that, in and of itself, can be good (such as almsgiving).39

1754 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.
 
See how you have to say “object can be: watching a movie for entertainment (a reasonable one).” It has to include “for entertainment” to make sense, which seems like it includes the intention.
or one could say watching a movie.
 
See how you have to say “object can be: watching a movie for entertainment (a reasonable one).” It has to include “for entertainment” to make sense, which seems like it includes the intention.
I can have:

Object: watching a movie
Intention: to relax…have entertainment
Circumstance: it is a reasonable movie, and it is a good day to watch it …or what have you

or I can have:

object: watching a pornographic movie

which would be an intrinsically evil object …and thus always evil.
 
objects like:

watching a movie, eating dinner, drinking a coke, talking with a friend, praying, fasting, almsgiving

all these can be good.

objects like:

lust, adultry, murder, stealing etc

are intrinsically evil and can never be good no matter what what ones intention or circumstnce
 
Okay, I think I am getting there. If an object is intrinsically evil, the act is evil no matter what the intention is. I get that. But if the object is not intrinsically evil, does the intention decide whether the act is right or wrong?
 
object: watching a pornographic movie

which would be an intrinsically evil object …and thus always evil.
Hmmmmm. What if you are a officer who has to make a determination whether the movie runs afoul of a certain law? Or an investigator who needs evidence contained in the movie?

VC
 
Okay, I think I am getting there. If an object is intrinsically evil, the act is evil no matter what the intention is. I get that. But if the object is not intrinsically evil, does the intention decide whether the act is right or wrong?
it is part of it.

once you have a good object

the intention and the circumstances must be good too…
 
Okay, I think I am getting there. If an object is intrinsically evil, the act is evil no matter what the intention is. I get that. But if the object is not intrinsically evil, does the intention decide whether the act is right or wrong?
1755 A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself (such as praying and fasting “in order to be seen by men”).

(Note…the ‘end’ is the intention)
 
Hmmmmm. What if you are a officer who has to make a determination whether the movie runs afoul of a certain law? Or an investigator who needs evidence contained in the movie?

VC
there is watching …(in a particular way) (perhaps the cases one notes…at least the investigator part) and then there is “watching”.

I think one could say that there is a different object here.

for one is not viewing it in ‘pornographic sense’ to lust etc…but for law enforcement.

I leave that to the moral theologians to hash out…

it is similar to a police officer needing to go into a go-go place to arrest someone …say a fight breaks out. they would need to take the care they can to avoid what is not needed to see…as they do so. but it is the object of law enforcement or breaking up a fight.
 
there is watching …(in a particular way) (perhaps the cases one notes…at least the investigator part) and then there is “watching”.

I think one could say that there is a different object here.

for one is not viewing it in ‘pornographic sense’ to lust etc…but for law enforcement.

I leave that to the moral theologians to hash out…

it is similar to a police officer needing to go into a go-go place to arrest someone …say a fight breaks out. they would need to take the care they can to avoid what is not needed to see…as they do so. but it is the object of law enforcement or breaking up a fight.
I agree. But then, when you said “watching a pornographic movie” is intrinsically evil perhaps your phrase “watching a pornographic movie” didn’t adequately define the moral object of the act you were attempting to designate as intrinsically evil.

VC
 
I agree. But then, when you said “watching a pornographic movie” is intrinsically evil perhaps your phrase “watching a pornographic movie” didn’t adequately define the moral object of the act you were attempting to designate as intrinsically evil.

VC
I was saying it in the normal sense of the words.

of what “to watch pornographic movie” means ordinarily…

an investigator for say child pornography …or other …in gathering the evidence is not ‘watching’ pornography…they are gathering evidence. if they give into and ‘watch’ it in the way it is ordinarily understood then they would be getting into the object i was referring to.

this is why such should (I assume it can be done …but I leave that to the moral theologians etc) take the right precautions…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top