The abortion memo

  • Thread starter Thread starter robertmidwest
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ender said:
If I anticipate a bad consequence and commit the act, this goes to the intent: I commit the act in anticipation of its consequence.
Click to expand...
Evil intentions condemn the act. Evil (called physical evil) in a consequence foreseen does not - it is weighed with other (physical) evils and goods. The balance must be good. We do not necessarily “intend” all foreseen consequences.
Ender said:
in neither case do the consequences change the nature of the act.
Click to expand...
Actual consequences are not relevant to the morality of what one does. Foreseen consequences are relevant, though they cannot convert a “murder” to “not murder”.
Ender said:
The difference between immigration and abortion is that for the latter the intent alone is not sufficient to justify ones position.
Click to expand...
This is too vague. What problem / what solutions are in debate?
 
Last edited:
HarryStotle said:
So a more precise reading of the moral dimensions would be something like this:
Click to expand...
Perhaps the Compendium provides a clearer expression:

367. What are the sources of the morality of human acts?
1749-1754
1757-1758
The morality of human acts depends on three sources: the object chosen, either a true or apparent good; the intention of the subject who acts, that is, the purpose for which the subject performs the act; and the circumstances of the act, which include its consequences.
368. When is an act morally good?
1755-1756
1759-1760
An act is morally good when it assumes simultaneously the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances. A chosen object can by itself vitiate an act in its entirety, even if the intention is good. It is not licit to do evil so that good may result from it. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself. On the other hand, a good end does not make an act good if the object of that act is evil, since the end does not justify the means. Circumstances can increase or diminish the responsibility of the one who is acting but they cannot change the moral quality of the acts themselves. They never make good an act which is in itself evil.
HarryStotle said:
This is why, to answer @LeafByNiggle’s query regarding attempted murder having no consequences, the CCC clearly states the choice by itself can entail a disorder of the will or moral evil. No one, I think, would claim that the individual chose to disorder their own will, but rather that the individual’s will was essentially disordered when they chose to carry out the act but didn’t succeed.
Click to expand...
@LeafByNiggle was not disagreeing with what you set out here, but with your earlier loosely expressed assertion that “Murder is immoral because someone is unjustifiably deprived of their life. The consequences are what make the act immoral.” Probably you’d express yourself differently now.

Even allowing that you meant “intended consequences”, how would you apply such a formulation to the morality of IVF (assuming no excess embryos)?
 
Last edited:
Rau said:
This is too vague. What problem / what solutions are in debate?

The morality of human acts depends on three sources: the object chosen, either a true or apparent good; the intention of the subject who acts, that is, the purpose for which the subject performs the act; and the circumstances of the act, which include its consequences.
Click to expand...
How does this apply to political issues? Ignore the consequences for a bit. What has to be true for us to say Proposal X is immoral? Assume that you and I both expect the consequences to be harmful. In such a case my support of the proposal would be immoral, but it is my reason for supporting it that is immoral; my sin does not make the proposal itself wrong. If someone else supported it believing the consequences would be good he does not sin. This is the situation that applies to most political issues.

Suppose, however, that Proposal Y permits acts that are intrinsically evil. Is my support of this proposal in the expectation of beneficial results justified? No. In this case, unlike Proposal X, we can say the proposal is immoral regardless of intent and consequences.

In the case of proposals like X, what is considered immoral is not the proposal itself, but the reasons for which it is (assumed to be) supported. That is, it is not the proposal that is judged, it is the people who support it that are condemned. And to do this is to violate the eight commandment. The catechism addresses this in the section “Offenses Against Truth.”
LeafByNiggle said:
So please restate your distinction between abortion and most other political issues
Click to expand...
See above.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top