Objective truth and absurdity of relativism

[Bradski]

His proposal seems to be:

(1) There are objective answers to moral questions.
(2) The correct answers will maximize well-being,
(3) The best way to find the answers is by empirical research.

Agreed he makes a persuasive case. I’m fine with (1), as it makes a break with a lot of other ethicists who argue morality is just opinion. Then (2) is standard consequentialism, which is a little shaky as he doesn’t seem to rule out anything as categorically wrong. But my real issue is (3).not, that’s my main problem with his argument.

He doesn’t say that there are objective answers. He says that there are often (repeat often) situations where we can determine the position that will maximise well being. If you want to class that as reaching some sort of Objective Truth, then your idea of what that entails and mine are different.

That the correct answers will maximise well being is something of a tautology. If they didn’t, then they wouldn’t be the best answers.

And as to the best way of finding out what those answers are, then just using empirical methods will only get you so far. But you can use biology, psychology, physics, maths, sociology, biology, neuroscience…whatever is likely to furnish you with the information you need for those reasonable people to make reasoned decisions.

 

[inocente]

I can think of only one famous exception to this: Ayn Rand, who was both an atheist and a believer in objective morality.

Yet Rand was drawn to the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas and Aristotle

medievalwisdom.com/articles/ayn-rand-atheist-and-thomas-aquinas-saint-strange-philosophical-bedfellows

Another atheist philosopher who argues for objective morality is Shelley Kagan of Yale. He had a friendly and entertaining debate with Craig on whether God is necessary for morality - youtube.com/watch?v=SiJnCQuPiuo

 

[grannymh]

He doesn’t say that there are objective answers. He says that there are often (repeat often) situations where we can determine the position that will maximise well being.

Whose well being? The victim or the murderer on death row? Whose well being? Yours or mine? Mine naturally. You may send me a thousand dollars each week. (repeat often) That will maximize my well being.

 

[inocente]

I don’t believe he is talking about objective morality. At least, not as a religious person might describe it. I saw the TED talk quite some time ago and read his book The Moral Landscape some time back. His argument is relatively simple and I personally could not agree with him more.

Harris’s argument concerns well being. And the fact (yes fact), that reasonable people, using reasonable arguments, having as much information as it is possible to have about any given situation, should be able to make a reasonable case as to what the right course of action should be.

This is so mind numbingly obvious to me that I find it a little depressing that Harris’s book caused something of a stir when it came out. What could possibly be controversial about such a proposal? Well, the secularists and some atheists suggested that he was proposing a scientific method of determining objective morality. Which he wasn’t. And the religious poured scorn on the fact that man could decide what constituted a moral act. This was God’s business, not some jumped up neuroscientist. And an atheist to boot!

Well, religions do not have any answers as to what constitutes objective morality because, put simply, there is no such creature. All moral questions are dependant on the situation. That there are scenarios whereby we would all agree that something is wrong doesn’t not detract from that. And the phrase ‘dependant on the situation’ is critical to understanding Harris’s point.

Considering any given situation, if all reasonable people have as much knowledge as required to make a decision, enter into reasoned arguments, using the scientific method for determining facts as may be required, then there is no reason why we can’t reach a conclusion that offers the best solution.

This is anathema to, for example, Christians, who would demand that there be only one solution covering all circumstances in all situations. No contraception. Period. No sex outside marriage. Period. No abortions. Period. No gay marriage. Period. No divorce. Period.

This is completely the opposite of what Harris proposes. That we look at each situation individually and reach reasonable conclusions.

Incidentally, if you need some support for what you think his views might be, try this:

'This book is different, though every bit as readable as the other two. I was one of those who had unthinkingly bought into the hectoring myth that science can say nothing about morals. To my surprise, The Moral Landscape has changed all that for me. It should change it for philosophers too. ’

Thank you Dr. Dawkins.

I think objective morality is usually defined as the statement that fact claims can be made about what is right and wrong. For instance, it is a fact, not just an opinion, that rape is wrong. So to me, Harris is arguing for objective morality.

Now it appears to me that he grounds this by arguing for a social contract, in other words we use reason to agree to behave in certain ways towards each other. That idea is nothing new, it goes back to Hobbes, Locke, Kant and before. Shelly Cagan makes a similar argument in the debate linked in post #198. His opponent Craig finds it unconvincing, and argues that even if we don’t believe in God, we need the idea of God to provide sufficient grounding, otherwise morality is just social convention.

A theist might on the other hand agree that a social contract is sufficient grounding, or an atheist might decide that the notion of an external authority, even just as an abstraction, is necessary. Imho we don’t need to reduce this to yet another theist vs. atheist.

Harris then wants the reasoning about moral facts to be based on maximizing well-being, in other words on the consequences of actions, which again is nothing new, that’s just standard utilitarian ethics. But how do we agree the maximum well-being? If one person has to suffer so that 1000 can be happy, is that maximum well-being? Or does spreading the suffering (assuming it’s unavoidable) and happiness around provide the maximum well-being? Can empirical research assist in making that decision? Probably yes, science can inform morality. But does it in any way replace freedom of conscience? Nope.

To me, Harris is really only radical in that he dares to face down relativism by arguing that there are moral answers which we can and should find. No problem at all with that, more power to his elbow. My issue is whether it can or should be a completely objective process. “But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him”. Pity, mercy, compassion are and should be unreasonable, we’re not just computers.

btw I don’t agree that religion requires fixed moral rules. Legalists do, sure, but in Christianity for example the summation of the law requires simply “love your neighbor as yourself”.

 

[grannymh]

Another atheist philosopher who argues for objective morality is Shelley Kagan of Yale. He had a friendly and entertaining debate with Craig on whether God is necessary for morality - youtube.com/watch?v=SiJnCQuPiuo

I did not watch the video. Pardon me. Using a bit of scientific objective thinking, that is, using the scientific (inductive) method which says that it is important to observe without prejudice – one can easily discover the difference in kind between a rock and us without referring to God.

Sam Harris, 01:31, post 185, “Why don’t we feel compassion for rocks?” and “if we’re more concerned about our fellow primates that we are about insects …” Do we really need a super-natural transcendent pure spirit to tell us the difference between a busy beaver building its dam and the great tourist attraction Hoover Dam. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoover_Dam
Tours. usbr.gov/lc/hooverdam/ There is a great picture on this link.

In reference to primates and insects, Sam says: “Now the crucial thing to notice here is that this is a factual claim: This is suffering.” Do we really need the Ten Commandments in order tell the difference between our chimp cousins and mosquitoes and us?

 

[inocente]

I did not watch the video. Pardon me. Using a bit of scientific objective thinking, that is, using the scientific (inductive) method which says that it is important to observe without prejudice – one can easily discover the difference in kind between a rock and us without referring to God.

Sam Harris, 01:31, post 185, “Why don’t we feel compassion for rocks?” and “if we’re more concerned about our fellow primates that we are about insects …” Do we really need a super-natural transcendent pure spirit to tell us the difference between a busy beaver building its dam and the great tourist attraction Hoover Dam. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoover_Dam
Tours. usbr.gov/lc/hooverdam/ There is a great picture on this link.

In reference to primates and insects, Sam says: “Now the crucial thing to notice here is that this is a factual claim: This is suffering.” Do we really need the Ten Commandments in order tell the difference between our chimp cousins and mosquitoes and us?

Agreed. But Craig does not agree, he argues that without God, that’s just an opinion.

Have you got audio? If so then you can listen to the debate by clicking this link: biblicalcatholic.com/CraigKaganMoralityDebate.mp3

Kagan speaks first, then Craig, then they ask each other questions.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I think objective morality is usually defined as the statement that fact claims can be made about what is right and wrong. For instance, it is a fact, not just an opinion, that rape is wrong. So to me, Harris is arguing for objective morality.

Perhaps he is, but I would think he is arguing morality from the grounds of rational self-interest, which is insufficient for making morality obligatory in the sense that moral agents are, thereby, REQUIRED to act morally. That would be because moral agents don’t have the option to decide to buy into morality or not as if it were merely up to them to do so. If it were, there are some holding political power who could argue that it is objectively “good” for their interests to commit acts which are not so good for some who happen to be subject to their power. The difficulty comes – I would think for Harris – in providing the grounds for those holding autonomous political power to treat others justly when it may not be to their own benefit to do so. Why should they if maintaining power requires subjugation of others?

Harris’ is the kind of “morality” that rationalists and monarchs use to tempt followers and underlings because it appears to be common sensical, but which lacks any substantial warrant or accounting for the existence of moral obligation as a definitive element of morality.

The question, therefore, isn’t whether morality can be objectively determined or not, but what is the source of morality. What is it that obligates human beings to be moral? If it is a mere matter of “it’s to your benefit,” there would be some who could argue quite compellingly that subjugating others is a workable policy which benefits them just fine, thank you very much; so what would be the objective reason that would convince them that they are required to act morally?

Now before some take this as a seque to some notion of “fear of hell” or heavenly reward, I would argue those are entirely extrinsic to the issue. The question requires an intrinsic reason or warrant, which I think theism does, in fact, supply. Existence is purposeful and it is in the nature of existing as human beings that we are morally aligned to good ends. We are obligated BECAUSE of what we are – rational moral agents in a teleologically grounded universe. Harris cannot supply the reason why moral agents are obligated to be moral precisely because he cannot provide the grounds for being obliged to act as moral agents within objective, metaphysical reality. His universe is not purposeful in the requisite sense

Frankly, I doubt that Harris would even go there in terms of characterizing morality as obligatory or imperative because that would require a source or ground for morality beyond any and all human moral agents, which he would be loathe to admit into his world view.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Agreed. But Craig does not agree, he argues that without God, that’s just an opinion.

It would be “just an opinion” in the sense that moral authority would rest on human determination. It would be humans who would take the “is” and spin “ought.” In that sense, it would be humans who would ultimately determine whether or not to buy into the “oughts” since moving from “is” to “ought” would be entirely in the domain of individual determination.

I think that is what Craig means by “opinion” – i.e., ultimately determinable by each human agent. Man would be the ultimate measure and arbiter of morality precisely because, under atheism there is no other higher authority or determiner for morality. Morality would NOT exist in the fabric of reality itself, but would be a layer imposed on reality by subjective human determination.

Why would one human be obligated to something other humans have determined, even with finality, merely for themselves?

 

[grannymh]

Agreed. But Craig does not agree, he argues that without God, that’s just an opinion.

In my world, when I don my non-theist hat, all opinions are great. Opinions are what started the invention of the wheel which eventually led to the Ford Model T.

When atheists observe mice and men, the obvious difference becomes the base for various moral systems. This is expressed in the cultural developments which, according to popular theses, began in random breeding, humanizing self-preservation populations. The eventual result was societies complete with some form of government and the population’s shaman or medicine man. As a group organized themselves into the “preservation of the species” mode, a form of advantageous “laws” or advantageous “moral objectives” became necessary. For example, if women went to war, there would be less babies born to carry on the species.

Have you got audio? If so then you can listen to the debate by clicking this link: biblicalcatholic.com/CraigKaganMoralityDebate.mp3

Kagan speaks first, then Craig, then they ask each other questions.

I have audio which occasionally obeys my commands. In addition, my ears are not great in absorbing information. Thus, I like to print transcripts. Besides, it is easier to highlight important stuff on paper instead of the screen.

My apology. I know I skipped some of your posts. I will eventually get to them. Maybe when there is a full moon.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

This is completely the opposite of what Harris proposes. That we look at each situation individually and reach reasonable conclusions.

More “situation ethics” a la Joseph Fletcher. Hardly an original idea.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Fletcher

 

[Charlemagne_III]

btw I don’t agree that religion requires fixed moral rules. Legalists do, sure, but in Christianity for example the summation of the law requires simply “love your neighbor as yourself”.

Of course religion requires fixed moral views.

One of them is: “love your neighbor as yourself.”

Another one is “Love the Lord your God.”

Another is, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

Read your New Testament, including the epistles of St. Paul, and you will find many other things you call “legalisms” but the early Christians called “the word of the Lord.”

 

[grannymh]

The first problem with moral relativism is that nobody believes in it. We get angry about real or perceived injustices, demand changes, criticize, and praise. Moral relativism gets dusted off for use in an argument so that the so-called “relativist” doesn’t need to admit anything uncomfortable, then gets stashed back on the shelf until it’s needed again. Later that night, that same person will watch the news and become genuinely angry at ISIS, or North Korea, or [insert bad person here]. At no point does he think “Well, I personally wouldn’t behead apostates and rape women, but if that’s what ISIS’s moral code calls for, then who am I to judge them?”

Second, moral relativism is the most close-minded ideology that has ever been constructed. The ironic thing is that religious people are stereotyped as close-minded, but the one who accepts that there is objective moral truth is implicitly open to the possibility of not having it. The one who truly embraces relativism–not just for argument’s sake, but actually lives according to it–is closed to the possibility of being wrong. There is never a reason to change one’s moral beliefs or behavior, because all beliefs and behavior are equally permissable. Any change is decided by pleasure or convenience, thus trapping the true relativist in the prison of his own mind.

May I briefly comment on this point. “The first problem with moral relativism is that nobody believes in it.” While it is true that many people do not accept moral relativism, in practice moral relativism can be an action or decision made by an individual or an individual society or the formal government of that society. Normally, it refers to this or that which will produce the well-being of the group. It is important, when speaking about moral relativism, that the base for moral relativism is known.

Regarding this point. “Second, moral relativism is the most close-minded ideology that has ever been constructed.” At first, I was ready to deny that statement. No longer. When I considered that moral relativism often uses subjective reasoning, I have to agree with that point.

 

[inocente]

Of course religion requires fixed moral views.

One of them is: “love your neighbor as yourself.”

Another one is “Love the Lord your God.”

Another is, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

Read your New Testament, including the epistles of St. Paul, and you will find many other things you call “legalisms” but the early Christians called “the word of the Lord.”

Then you should publish the formula which tells you exactly what is the right thing to do irrespective of the particular situation and the people involved. Christian ethicists would be eternally grateful to you as they could all then go home.

 

[inocente]

Perhaps he is, but I would think he is arguing morality from the grounds of rational self-interest, which is insufficient for making morality obligatory in the sense that moral agents are, thereby, REQUIRED to act morally. That would be because moral agents don’t have the option to decide to buy into morality or not as if it were merely up to them to do so. If it were, there are some holding political power who could argue that it is objectively “good” for their interests to commit acts which are not so good for some who happen to be subject to their power. The difficulty comes – I would think for Harris – in providing the grounds for those holding autonomous political power to treat others justly when it may not be to their own benefit to do so. Why should they if maintaining power requires subjugation of others?

Harris’ is the kind of “morality” that rationalists and monarchs use to tempt followers and underlings because it appears to be common sensical, but which lacks any substantial warrant or accounting for the existence of moral obligation as a definitive element of morality.

The question, therefore, isn’t whether morality can be objectively determined or not, but what is the source of morality. What is it that obligates human beings to be moral? If it is a mere matter of “it’s to your benefit,” there would be some who could argue quite compellingly that subjugating others is a workable policy which benefits them just fine, thank you very much; so what would be the objective reason that would convince them that they are required to act morally?

Now before some take this as a seque to some notion of “fear of hell” or heavenly reward, I would argue those are entirely extrinsic to the issue. The question requires an intrinsic reason or warrant, which I think theism does, in fact, supply. Existence is purposeful and it is in the nature of existing as human beings that we are morally aligned to good ends. We are obligated BECAUSE of what we are – rational moral agents in a teleologically grounded universe. Harris cannot supply the reason why moral agents are obligated to be moral precisely because he cannot provide the grounds for being obliged to act as moral agents within objective, metaphysical reality. His universe is not purposeful in the requisite sense

Frankly, I doubt that Harris would even go there in terms of characterizing morality as obligatory or imperative because that would require a source or ground for morality beyond any and all human moral agents, which he would be loathe to admit into his world view.

I’ve not read any of Harris’ books, only bits and pieces ad hoc. Perhaps Brad could comment on how Harris grounds his morality. Kagan does it by arguing that humans have peerless capabilities (to write poetry, do calculus, fall in love and so on), and one of our capabilities is that we can reflect on our actions. He argues that’s sufficient of itself to make us moral agents, that we cannot be otherwise. Craig argues that’s not enough.

I’m not sure anything Harris says is especially new, it’s just that he seems to be one of the few people saying it at present. Perhaps Brad could comment on that as well.

 

[inocente]

It would be “just an opinion” in the sense that moral authority would rest on human determination. It would be humans who would take the “is” and spin “ought.” In that sense, it would be humans who would ultimately determine whether or not to buy into the “oughts” since moving from “is” to “ought” would be entirely in the domain of individual determination.

I think that is what Craig means by “opinion” – i.e., ultimately determinable by each human agent. Man would be the ultimate measure and arbiter of morality precisely because, under atheism there is no other higher authority or determiner for morality. Morality would NOT exist in the fabric of reality itself, but would be a layer imposed on reality by subjective human determination.

Why would one human be obligated to something other humans have determined, even with finality, merely for themselves?

Craig’s argument is based on the e word, which we must not discuss, but basically yes, as you describe.

Now again I don’t know about Harris, but Kagan argues for standard social contract theory. For anyone who doesn’t know what that means, the idea is that all of us in society agree what is right and wrong by drawing up and agreeing to a contract.

To do so we must try to be perfectly rational, but it’s hard to ignore our personal tastes and self-interests. A way of countering self-interest is called the veil of ignorance, meaning we try to forget whether we’re male or female, black or white, rich or poor, straight or gay, etc.

For instance, suppose the proposition is that slavery is moral. Now if we’re someone who could afford to own slaves, that might look like a great idea. But behind the veil of ignorance, we must also consider that we may instead be a slave, and now the idea doesn’t seem great at all. So we conclude that slavery is objectively bad, and always was and always will be, since the perfectly rational people we’re trying to be in drawing up the contract would always make that same decision.

 

[grannymh]

I’ve not read any of Harris’ books, only bits and pieces ad hoc. Perhaps Brad could comment on how Harris grounds his morality. Kagan does it by arguing that humans have peerless capabilities (to write poetry, do calculus, fall in love and so on), and one of our capabilities is that we can reflect on our actions. He argues that’s sufficient of itself to make us moral agents, that we cannot be otherwise. Craig argues that’s not enough.

I’m not sure anything Harris says is especially new, it’s just that he seems to be one of the few people saying it at present. Perhaps Brad could comment on that as well.

Who is Craig? I did not try listening to her/him because I got an e-mail with possible help. I am in the midst of dealing with a problem website --you really do not want to know the trouble I am in. And I am now totally lost on this thread.

It is precisely our capability that we can reflect on our actions which gives us another tool to be moral agents, though I am not totally sure what a moral agent is.

Does Craig know anything about the spiritual rational soul?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Then you should publish the formula which tells you exactly what is the right thing to do irrespective of the particular situation and the people involved. Christian ethicists would be eternally grateful to you as they could all then go home.

It’s already been done in the New Testament. My formula would be irrelevant since I submit to the New Testament and to the CCC, which is the best explanation of the New Testament for those who require one.

Keep in mind, if you will, that the New Testament you subscribe to was authenticated by the Catholic Church in the 4th Century. The last time I looked, you and most other Protestants accept the authority of the Catholic Church to authenticate the New Testament, though curiously enough you do not accept the same authority of that same Catholic Church to explains the Scriptures in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

The requirement for any objectively authentic Christian morality is that it conforms to the Catholic New Testament. Generally Protestants, while not claiming the charism of infallibility, do claim that the New Testament is objectively true because it is of divine origin. But how can they claim that without simultaneously asserting the New Testament was infallibly guided into being by the Holy Spirit through the Catholic Church?

 

[grannymh]

Personally, as an observer, I would cut to the chase and say to people who believe in the axiom, God as Creator exists – that human morality is founded on Genesis 1: 26-27 which is the reason for the maxim that the human person is worthy of profound respect.

Because the maxim that the human person is worthy of profound respect is actually, truly an universal objective truth, it grounds subsequent decision principles which are relative to time and place. We can discern right from wrong because humans have a spiritual rational intellective soul. When a proper decision appears impossible, we can use Catholic teachings as a guide. We need to spend time in prayer, asking the Holy Spirit for guidance.

The key is that actions using any kind of principles, etc., can vary and all we can do is to do our best when it comes to discerning an action based on the true worth of human nature. Note: atheists can see the true worth of human nature by observing the difference in kind between humans and hippos, chimps, cows, bears and our favorite busy beavers.

As an observer, I wonder why it is so difficult to find objective truths in human nature. Why is it so hard for some, not all, Catholics to consider a human person worthy of profound respect?

In the rush to remove literal interpretations from the first three chapters of Genesis, perhaps some people no longer consider Genesis 1: 26-27 as an objective Catholic truth. As an observer, it looks like some people would rather debate all the up and down principles proposed for morality instead of using common sense to get at the nitty-gritty of human nature and its ultimate goal.

 

[Bradski]

Then you should publish the formula which tells you exactly what is the right thing to do irrespective of the particular situation and the people involved. Christian ethicists would be eternally grateful to you as they could all then go home.

I’ve asked for this any number of times in a number of threads recently. Not really expecting an answer because I know there isn’t one.

Incidentally, I don’t think that the question: ‘On what grounds do you base your morality if there is no God’ would mean anything to Harris at all. It’s certainly meaningless to me. If one says ‘Love your neighbour’, then iI’m pretty certain that we can all come up with sound reasons why that is a good thing.

Which is what Harris is saying. That all the God given commandments (excluding the more self serving ones such as ‘no other gods’) can be supported by anyone of any faith or no faith at all all, simply by using reasonable arguments. He is, in effect, saying - there is no need for us to do these things simply because ithey are written. We should know these things anyway. No one religion ‘owns’ these relatively simple and universal concepts.

And the religious type of dogmatic objective morality is nonsensical. It is blind to different situations and different conditions. Which Harris surges us to consider.

 

[Peter_Plato]

And the religious type of dogmatic objective morality is nonsensical. It is blind to different situations and different conditions. Which Harris surges us to consider.

Incorrect. Religious morality has not always been “blind” to different situations and conditions. Situations and conditions have been “urged’ (surges???) by the Church at least since Aquinas, and I am sure by the early Church Fathers. Scriptures view it this way, as well. Pay close attention to the** red text.**

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church

1749 Freedom makes man a moral subject. When he acts deliberately, man is, so to speak, the father of his acts. Human acts, that is, acts that are freely chosen in consequence of a judgment of conscience, can be morally evaluated. They are either good or evil.

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.