Objective morality, Relative morality, or No morality...?

[vern_humphrey]

BillP:

Not supposed to be in any way a justification. Simply circumstances that might impair the woman’s consent and thus reduce or eliminate her culpability.

See here:

Since the act cannot be justified, it is intrinsically evil.

When you argue that there are circumstances in which culpability may be mitigated, you must recognize that these circumstances do not change the nature of the act.

 

[john_doran]

vern humphrey:

He has defined murder correctly. Killing in legitimate self-defense, in just war, or in the apprehension of a dangerous criminal resisting arrest with deadly force are all intentional, but justifiable.

To make it murder, the killing must be both intentional and unjustifiable.

well, we’ll just have to go on disagreeing…

 

[john_doran]

Ham1:

A moral evil object can occur in a moral act without the commission of a sin, mortal or otherwise. Some objects are evil in and of themselves and therefore render the entire act evil however the act could still occur without the commission of a sin if the agent did not fully consent to the act or did not have knowledge of the act. The evil that occurs is still real evil it just does not involve culpability on the part of the agent. It is an action that is disordered and goes against right reason.

right. but was is the evil that is done when one does commit a sin? and how does it relate to the evil that is done independently of the sin?

 

[BillP]

vern humphrey:

Since the act cannot be justified, it is intrinsically evil.

When you argue that there are circumstances in which culpability may be mitigated, you must recognize that these circumstances do not change the nature of the act.

Vern, perhaps we’re talking at cross purposes. My posts referred to post 39 (this thread) of yours:
vern humphrey:

Given the nature of those acts which are objectively and intrinsicly evil, it’s difficult to imagine that a person of sound mind who commits such an act would not meet the criteria for mortal sin.

I wasn’t trying to show that intrinisically evil acts weren’t evil under certain circumstances. They are, no matter what the circumstances. I was trying to address your difficulty in imagining how an intrinsically evil act could be committed and not meet the criteria of mortal sin.

 

[john_doran]

1. Reason attests that there are objects of the human act which are by their nature “incapable of being ordered” to God, because they radically contradict the good of the person made in his image. These are the acts which, in the Church’s moral tradition, have been termed “intrinsically evil” (intrinsece malum): they are such *always and per se, *in other words, on account of their very object, and quite apart from the ulterior intentions of the one acting and the circumstances. Consequently, without in the least denying the influence on morality exercised by circumstances and especially by intentions, the Church teaches that “there exist acts which per se and in themselves, independently of circumstances, are always seriously wrong by reason of their object”.

this is facially, at least, almost incoherent; how can there be an “object” to an act apart from the goal, point, or reason for an act’s commission? i.e. the answer to the question, “what is the object of this act?” is the same as the answer to “why is this act being done?”. and the goal one hopes to achieve in acting for some specific end is precisely the intention of the action.

The Second Vatican Council itself, in discussing the respect due to the human person, gives a number of examples of such acts: “Whatever is hostile to life itself, such as any kind of homicide, genocide, abortion, euthanasia and voluntary suicide; whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, physical and mental torture and attempts to coerce the spirit; whatever is offensive to human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution and trafficking in women and children; degrading conditions of work which treat labourers as mere instruments of profit, and not as free responsible persons: all these and the like are a disgrace, and so long as they infect human civilization they contaminate those who inflict them more than those who suffer injustice, and they are a negation of the honour due to the Creator”.

this paragraph contradicts your interpretation of the first: if these actions are defined independently of intent, then “homicide” just means “killing”, which makes self-defense and soldiery impossible to engage in without guilt.

also, what’s the point of qualifying suicide with “voluntary” if not to make reference to the intent with which the act was committed? same goes for “arbitrary” imprisonment - judging an imprisonment to be arbitrary is to say that the act was done for the wrong reasons. and treating labourers as instruments of profit is to specify the goal of the action, the intent with which it was executed.

look, i believe that there are instrinsically evil actions considered as a whole - as ways of willing the basic human goods at stake in every act of human free choice. i just don’t think there’s any sense to saying that there is some way that a sequence of neuronal firings and muscular contractions can be considered inherently evil. and that’s precisely what actions are when divorced from the rational motivation behind them…

 

[john_doran]

BillP:

I think “unintended” in that context means that the death wasn’t the “goal” or “point” of the act, but rather the inextricable consequence of the legitimate act i.e. the defending of ones self or others ot the successful prosecution of a war.

exactly.

 

[vern_humphrey]

BillP:

Vern, perhaps we’re talking at cross purposes. My posts referred to post 39 (this thread) of yours:

Originally Posted by vern humphrey

Given the nature of those acts which are objectively and intrinsicly evil, it’s difficult to imagine that a person of sound mind who commits such an act would not meet the criteria for mortal sin.

I wasn’t trying to show that intrinisically evil acts weren’t evil under certain circumstances. They are, no matter what the circumstances. I was trying to address your difficulty in imagining how an intrinsically evil act could be committed and not meet the criteria of mortal sin.

First of all, you cited instances where a person would not be of sound mind, or would act under compulsion.

Secondly, the act itself remains intrinisically and obejectively evil – and that is in accord with Catholic doctirne.

 

[BillP]

vern humphrey:

First of all, you cited instances where a person would not be of sound mind, or would act under compulsion.

So do we agree? Intrinsically evil acts aren’t always mortal sins?
vern humphrey:

Secondly, the act itself remains intrinisically and obejectively evil – and that is in accord with Catholic doctirne.

Check. We’re in agreement here.

 

[vern_humphrey]

john doran:

this is facially, at least, almost incoherent; how can there be an “object” to an act apart from the goal, point, or reason for an act’s commission? i.e. the answer to the question, “what is the object of this act?” is the same as the answer to “why is this act being done?”. and the goal one hopes to achieve in acting for some specific end is precisely the intention of the action.

The source of this quote is

Ioannes Paulus PP. II
Veritatis splendor

1993.08.06

Blessing

*Venerable Brothers in the Episcopate, *
Health and the Apostolic Blessing!

The splendour of truth shines forth in all the works of the Creator and, in a special way, in man, created in the image and likeness of God (cf. Gen 1:26). Truth enlightens man’s intelligence and shapes his freedom, leading him to know and love the Lord. Hence the Psalmist prays: “Let the light of your face shine on us, O Lord” (Ps 4:6).

I recommend you read the entire encyclical. You can find it here

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_06081993_veritatis-splendor_en.html

 

[vern_humphrey]

BillP:

So do we agree? Intrinsically evil acts aren’t always mortal sins?

No, but the nature of intrinsically evil acts is such that it would be difficult or impossible for a person of sound mind to commit such an act and not commit a mortal sin.

 

[BillP]

john doran:

this is facially, at least, almost incoherent; how can there be an “object” to an act apart from the goal, point, or reason for an act’s commission? i.e. the answer to the question, “what is the object of this act?” is the same as the answer to “why is this act being done?”. and the goal one hopes to achieve in acting for some specific end is precisely the intention of the action.

Let me give you an example. The Church says masturbation, is an intrinsically disordered act. Fertility evaluation sometimes requires a sperm sample from the husband. This is normally obtained (from non-Catholics) through masturbation. However, even though the goal, point or reason of the masturbation is NOT sexual pleasure but facilitating medical treatment, the Church still forbids it because he “object” of masturbation, ejaculation outside of one’s wife’s vagina in a way consistent wiht the possibility of procreation, is intriniscally evil.
john doran:

this paragraph contradicts your interpretation of the first: if these actions are defined independently of intent, then “homicide” just means “killing”, which makes self-defense and soldiery impossible to engage in without guilt.

As far as I know, “homicide” does just mean “killing”. Murder, manslaughter, self-defense are all legal findings that may or may not pertain to specific acts of homicide depending upon the circumstances.

 

[Ham1]

john doran:

right. but was is the evil that is done when one does commit a sin? and how does it relate to the evil that is done independently of the sin?

Not really sure what you are asking but maybe this will help…

When one commits a sin an evil (lesser good) is chosen by the will over good. This choice is disordered and damaging to the agent as it does harm to the soul. The relation between the evil object of the act and the evil of the sin is that the evil object is the subject of the will. The object is the evil thing chosen resulting in harm being done to the soul by a disordered choice.

 

[john_doran]

vern humphrey:

The source of this quote is

I recommend you read the entire encyclical. You can find it here

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_06081993_veritatis-splendor_en.html

i know it’s an encyclical. that doesn’t make the reasoning any more clear or any more clearly intelligible.

 

[john_doran]

BillP:

Let me give you an example. The Church says masturbation, is an intrinsically disordered act. Fertility evaluation sometimes requires a sperm sample from the husband. This is normally obtained (from non-Catholics) through masturbation. However, even though the goal, point or reason of the masturbation is NOT sexual pleasure but facilitating medical treatment, the Church still forbids it because he “object” of masturbation, ejaculation outside of one’s wife’s vagina in a way consistent wiht the possibility of procreation, is intriniscally evil.

right. but one still has to intend to do it for it to be evil - if one is unconscious and it happens, or if someone ties you up and then does it to you, it’s not an evil that you have done.

and i think that the structure of mastubatory acts is such that they cannot be recitifably chosen or engaged in. which just means that they can never be legitimately intended.

 

[vern_humphrey]

john doran:

i know it’s an encyclical. that doesn’t make the reasoning any more clear or any more clearly intelligible.

Then study it and pray for guidance.

 

[john_doran]

BillP:

As far as I know, “homicide” does just mean “killing”. Murder, manslaughter, self-defense are all legal findings that may or may not pertain to specific acts of homicide depending upon the circumstances.

ok, sure. but then according to veritatis splendor all acts of killing are intrinsically evil…

 

[Ham1]

look, i believe that there are instrinsically evil actions considered as a whole - as ways of willing the basic human goods at stake in every act of human free choice. i just don’t think there’s any sense to saying that there is some way that a sequence of neuronal firings and muscular contractions can be considered inherently evil. and that’s precisely what actions are when divorced from the rational motivation behind them…

john,

A sequence of neuronal firings and muscular contractions would be termed a natural act and not a moral (or human) act. In order to judge whether that object is moral or immoral the act must be compared to right reason. A determination can then be made as to whether the act is moral or immoral.

As far as your comment above on goals, points, etc. That is not without basis. There are certain “ends” or goals and conditions contained within the object. That is, they are not properly a part of the circumstances or intention but rather exist as a part of the object itself. These circumstances/intentions which are necessary to specify an object to a particular moral species from the natural species are fundamentally part of the object of the act.

 

[Ham1]

john doran:

right. but one still has to intend to do it for it to be evil - if one is unconscious and it happens, or if someone ties you up and then does it to you, it’s not an evil that you have done.

and i think that the structure of mastubatory acts is such that they cannot be recitifably chosen or engaged in. which just means that they can never be legitimately intended.

john,

Evil still occurs even if it is not consented to by the agent. If I unintentionally kill you while sleepwalking, evil still occurs even though I have acted involuntarily and as such have commited no sin.

Please explain your comment that masturbation cannot be legitimately intended.

 

[john_doran]

Ham1:

john,

Evil still occurs even if it is not consented to by the agent. If I unintentionally kill you while sleepwalking, evil still occurs even though I have acted involuntarily and as such have commited no sin.

but what kind of evil? it’s certainly not moral evil.

 

[john_doran]

vern humphrey:

Then study it and pray for guidance.

in going through some of it, i see now that JPII’s use of the word “intent” and its cognates is kind of unusual, at least as it compares to its usage in the philosophical literature; i don’t think he is ultimately saying anything different than i am.

consider:
veritatis splendor:

Human acts are moral acts because they express and determine the goodness or evil of the individual who performs them.[120] They do not produce a change merely in the state of affairs outside of man but, to the extent that they are deliberate choices, they give moral definition to the very person who performs them, determining his “profound spiritual traits.” This was perceptively noted by Saint Gregory of Nyssa: “All things subject to change and to becoming never remain constant, but continually pass from one state to another, for better or worse . . . Now, human life is always subject to change; it needs to be born ever anew . . . But here birth does not come about by a foreign intervention, as is the case with bodily beings . . . ; it is the result of a free choice. Thus we are in a certain way our own parents, creating ourselves as we will, by our decisions”.[121]

1. The “morality of acts” is defined by the relationship of man’s freedom with the authentic good. This good is established, as the eternal law, by Divine Wisdom which orders every being towards its end: this eternal law is known both by man’s natural reason (hence it is “natural law”), and–in an integral and perfect way–by God’s supernatural Revelation (hence it is called “divine law”). Acting is morally good when the choices of freedom are “in conformity with man’s true good” and thus express the voluntary ordering of the person towards his ultimate end: God himself, the supreme good in whom man finds his full and perfect happiness. The first question in the young man’s conversation with Jesus: “What good must I do to have eternal life?” (Mt 19:6) immediately brings out “the essential connection between the moral value of an act and man’s final end.” Jesus, in his reply, confirms the young man’s conviction: the performance of good acts, commanded by the One who “alone is good”, constitutes the indispensable condition of and path to eternal blessedness: “If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments” (Mt 19:17). Jesus’ answer and his reference to the commandments also make it clear that the path to that end is marked by respect for the divine laws which safeguard human good. “Only the act in conformity with the good can be a path that leads to life.”

this describes morality and the moral evaluation of human action that i have been attempting to articulate.