Question on the three fonts of morality

[fakename]

So the 3 fonts of morality basically say that intention, intrinsic goodness, and proportionality of the reasons, makes a thing good. But I was wondering how does one define each of these fonts? For instance, I could commit suicide by simply saying "I only want to play with the gun, putting the gun to my temple is not inherently immoral, and maybe I could do it if bored to a point bordering on madness. But the point is, I think this reasoning is specious -don’t you but it seems to be morally right given the 3 fonts. Where did I go wrong?

 

[davidv]

So the 3 fonts of morality basically say that intention, intrinsic goodness, and proportionality of the reasons, makes a thing good. But I was wondering how does one define each of these fonts? For instance, I could commit suicide by simply saying "I only want to play with the gun, putting the gun to my temple is not inherently immoral, and maybe I could do it if bored to a point bordering on madness. But the point is, I think this reasoning is specious -don’t you but it seems to be morally right given the 3 fonts. Where did I go wrong?

I don’t know where you got the names for the fonts of morality. The CCC states:

1750 The morality of human acts depends on:

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

The problem with your example is that you didn’t completely define the “object chosen” namely to commit suicide. If your are just "pointing a gun at your temple you will never commit suicide. You have to pull the trigger. Suicide is intrinsically immoral, therefore none the other fonts matter. This where you went wrong.

 

[JDaniel]

So the 3 fonts of morality basically say that intention, intrinsic goodness, and proportionality of the reasons, makes a thing good. But I was wondering how does one define each of these fonts? For instance, I could commit suicide by simply saying "I only want to play with the gun, putting the gun to my temple is not inherently immoral, and maybe I could do it if bored to a point bordering on madness. But the point is, I think this reasoning is specious -don’t you but it seems to be morally right given the 3 fonts. Where did I go wrong?

Fakename:

The fonts of morality are: (1) the object, (2) the circumstance, and (3), the end. Your act of unintentional suicide would not be strictly moral, in this sense, because your actions are fairly devoid of any object; further, they are the produce of a disordered playfulness that places your body in circumstances approaching, if not already completely immersed in, the near occasion of intentional disregard for your well being. And, finally, what is the end expected? The intensity of that feeling of standing too close to the edge of a long, sheer drop?

Madness would certainly abrogate the requirement to conform to the norm of morality, I should think.

God bless,
jd

 

[fakename]

well, why is it that the example is devoid of an object, the object appears to be “point-the-gun-at-my-head-and-pulling-the-trigger” an action which is not immoral in itself.

 

[fakename]

bump again

 

[JDaniel]

well, why is it that the example is devoid of an object, the object appears to be “point-the-gun-at-my-head-and-pulling-the-trigger” an action which is not immoral in itself.

Sorry, I should have said, “complete object.” The problem is, FN, you are separating the object into its parts, then, focusing on only part # 1. Think of the entire object: (1) pointing a gun at your head and (2) pulling the trigger to (3) eject a bullet which will (4) enter your skull cavity, where you vital functions reside, (5) resulting in damage severe enough to shunt the neural pathways which were providing necessary life support thereby (6) liberating your soul in a manner that violates the 5th Commandment. (Or, something to that effect.)

Don’t try it!

God bless,
jd

 

[fakename]

Oh, thanks