Question about Veritatis Splendor, p. 78

  • Thread starter Thread starter St_Francis
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

St_Francis

Guest
Can’t figure out the meaning of the boldest sentence below, from Veritatis Splendor:
  1. The morality of the human act depends primarily and fundamentally on the “object” rationally chosen by the deliberate will, as is borne out by the insightful analysis, still valid today, made by Saint Thomas.126 **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. To the extent that it is in conformity with the order of reason, it is the cause of the goodness of the will; it perfects us morally, and disposes us to recognize our ultimate end in the perfect good, primordial love. By the object of a given moral act, then, one cannot mean a process or an event of the merely physical order, to be assessed on the basis of its ability to bring about a given state of affairs in the outside world. Rather, that object is the proximate end of a deliberate decision which determines the act of willing on the part of the acting person. Consequently, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches, “there are certain specific kinds of behaviour that are always wrong to choose, because choosing them involves a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil”.127 And Saint Thomas observes that “it often happens that man acts with a good intention, but without spiritual gain, because he lacks a good will. Let us say that someone robs in order to feed the poor: in this case, even though the intention is good, the uprightness of the will is lacking. Consequently, no evil done with a good intention can be excused. ‘There are those who say: And why not do evil that good may come? Their condemnation is just’ (Rom 3:8)”.128
Why do we have to “grasp the object”? Or, what does that mean?

And why do we have to see it from the perspective of the actor?

To me, the Popeseems to be going on to say that the morality is determined from outside the actor, and that if the act is morally bad, it is chosen by someone who has something wrong with the parts which process the thinking- through of the act. So I am confused.
 
What is the object of this question you are asking? It seems to me, and I have never read this document, so take this with a grain of salt, if you replace the word object with the word goal you may be able to better understand. For instance the word object can become objective, which means goal. So it may mean what direction your will is heading in is determined by your goal or objective. Of course the end does not justify the means. And good intentions do not justify an evil action.

Here is something else on the subject

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=456431
 
Oh :o I thought object was not the end but more like the direct object of a verb…

But what I really want to know is why do we have to understand the point of view of the actor?
 
St_Francis said:
Oh :o I thought object was not the end but more like the direct object of a verb…

But what I really want to know is why do we have to understand the point of view of the actor?
Click to expand...
You don’t, unless you are determining the morality of the act he has chosen. This applies to culpability for sin, for example.
“The actor shot a man. Did he engage in a moral act?” Well, that all depends on what his intent was…from his point of view. Did he shoot the man who was about to murder a village? Did he shoot the man on accident? Did he shoot him on purpose out of malice?
 
:twocents:

It means that only God can judge.
As a human being you can only know someone when you love them.
Moral judgements have to do with understanding and compassion.
In contrast to accusations, they are warnings to the person about who it is that they are turning into.
 
ahs said:
You don’t, unless you are determining the morality of the act he has chosen. This applies to culpability for sin, for example.
“The actor shot a man. Did he engage in a moral act?” Well, that all depends on what his intent was…from his point of view. Did he shoot the man who was about to murder a village? Did he shoot the man on accident? Did he shoot him on purpose out of malice?
Click to expand...
Oh, I didn’t recognize what I have always heard of as the circumstances in that; I thought it meant something deeper.

Do you know where this different language comes from?
 
St_Francis said:
Can’t figure out the meaning of the boldest sentence below, from Veritatis Splendor:
  1. The morality of the human act depends primarily and fundamentally on the “object” rationally chosen by the deliberate will, as is borne out by the insightful analysis, still valid today, made by Saint Thomas.126 **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. To the extent that it is in conformity with the order of reason, it is the cause of the goodness of the will; it perfects us morally, and disposes us to recognize our ultimate end in the perfect good, primordial love. By the object of a given moral act, then, one cannot mean a process or an event of the merely physical order, to be assessed on the basis of its ability to bring about a given state of affairs in the outside world. Rather, that object is the proximate end of a deliberate decision which determines the act of willing on the part of the acting person. Consequently, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches, “there are certain specific kinds of behaviour that are always wrong to choose, because choosing them involves a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil”.127 And Saint Thomas observes that “it often happens that man acts with a good intention, but without spiritual gain, because he lacks a good will. Let us say that someone robs in order to feed the poor: in this case, even though the intention is good, the uprightness of the will is lacking. Consequently, no evil done with a good intention can be excused. ‘There are those who say: And why not do evil that good may come? Their condemnation is just’ (Rom 3:8)”.128
Why do we have to “grasp the object”? Or, what does that mean?

And why do we have to see it from the perspective of the actor?

To me, the Popeseems to be going on to say that the morality is determined from outside the actor, and that if the act is morally bad, it is chosen by someone who has something wrong with the parts which process the thinking- through of the act. So I am confused.
Click to expand...
This is an extremely important paragraph from VS.

The juicier stuff is after the bold, but that sentence means that the judgement of an action’s goodness requires that one looks from the moral agent’s point of view (and I think he is speaking in general terms, in the abstract). The object of an act requires an assessment of the will, which calls for such an analysis. (The object is not the intention, it is “what the will is doing” in some act, as JPII goes on to say… That’s the juicy stuff!)
 
e_c said:
This is an extremely important paragraph from VS.

The juicier stuff is after the bold, but that sentence means that the judgement of an action’s goodness requires that one looks from the moral agent’s point of view (and I think he is speaking in general terms, in the abstract). The object of an act requires an assessment of the will, which calls for such an analysis. (The object is not the intention, it is “what the will is doing” in some act, as JPII goes on to say… That’s the juicy stuff!)
Click to expand...
Thank you! I didn’t understand the language when I read it, and now I see how it connects with the later part and so had to be different from the language I am accustomed to.
 
St_Francis said:
Can’t figure out the meaning of the boldest sentence below, from Veritatis Splendor:
…
Why do we have to “grasp the object”? Or, what does that mean? .
Click to expand...
  • Freely chosen acts are either intrinsically evil or neutral.
  • Intrinsically evil acts are by definition evil in their object and are never permitted.
  • Neutral acts may have good or evil objects which can only be specified by examining the intent of the actor.
  • Circumstances never change the morality of an act but may mitigate, exaggerate or eliminate the actor’s culpability.
St_Francis said:
To me, the Pope seems to be going on to say that the morality is determined from outside the actor, and that if the act is morally bad, it is chosen by someone who has something wrong with the parts which process the thinking- through of the act. So I am confused.
Click to expand...
Only intrinsically evil acts are always and everywhere evil independent of the actor’s intent or circumstances. Catholics do not define any intrinsically good or sinful acts because the actor’s intent always determines whether such acts are good or sinful.

Hope that helps.
 
o_mlly said:
  • Freely chosen acts are either intrinsically evil or neutral.
  • Intrinsically evil acts are by definition evil in their object and are never permitted.
  • Neutral acts may have good or evil objects which can only be specified by examining the intent of the actor.
  • Circumstances never change the morality of an act but may mitigate, exaggerate or eliminate the actor’s culpability.
Only intrinsically evil acts are always and everywhere evil independent of the actor’s intent or circumstances. ** Catholics do not define any intrinsically good or sinful acts because the actor’s intent always determines whether such acts are good or sinful. **

Hope that helps.
Click to expand...
I don’t really understand the bolded part: first you say Catholics say certain acts are intrisically evil, then that Catholics do not define… Maybe a work is missing? (I’ve done that… :o)
 
St_Francis said:
I don’t really understand the bolded part: first you say Catholics say certain acts are intrisically evil, then that Catholics do not define… Maybe a work is missing? (I’ve done that… :o)
Click to expand...
Perhaps our Catechism’s explanation will help clarify:
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) (Emphasis mine).
 
o_mlly said:
Perhaps our Catechism’s explanation will help clarify:
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) (Emphasis mine).
Click to expand...
An act can be intrinsically evil but not intrinsically good, then?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top