"The end justifies the means"

  • Thread starter Thread starter JamesATyler
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Some thoughts on the morality of a human act.

There are 3 sources (or fonts or determinants) of the morality of a human act.

A human act is a free act of man proceeding from a deliberate free will. The three sources of the morality of a human act are 1. its object, 2. the intent or end of the agent and 3. the circumstances

The object is that to which the act, by its very nature tends. The object of an act of abortion is the abortion. What is the agent doing? In the abstract the object of an act can be good, giving alms; neutral, walking; or evil, fornication. In the concrete, no act can be neutral. Cutting a rope in the abstract is a morally neutral act. However, cutting a rope can be a morally good act if you are trying to mail a package of food to starving people, or a morally bad act if you cut a rope to drop a piano on someone.

The intent or end of the agent is the purpose of the agent in performing the act. This is further broken down into two parts, the end of the exterior act (finis operis) and the end of the interior act, also called the end of the agent (finis operantis). The end of the exterior act and the object of the act are the same. The end of the interior act is the purpose of the agent. What is the agent really trying to achieve? The object of the act will be the means to achieve the end of the agent.

The circumstances are the “accidents” of the act, the concrete conditions in which the act is done. These are the who, what, when, etc. of the act. Stealing a dollar from a rich man is different from stealing a thousand dollars from a poor man. The circumstances would be the who (rich man or poor man) and the what (a dollar or thousand dollars).

The object is the most fundamental of the three sources, since an act that is immoral in its object cannot be made moral by the other two sources, the intent or the circumstances. All of the sources, the object, the intent, and the circumstances must be moral for the act to be moral. However, neither the intent of the agent nor the circumstances of the act can make an act of fornication moral. However, a bad intent can make a morally good act into an evil act. For example, an agent may treat the sick, which is the object or the end of the exterior act. However, if his purpose, the end of the interior act, is to satisfy his pride by getting fame, then the act is immoral. Thus, the end of an agent would make this otherwise moral act immoral. Also the circumstances of the act can make an evil act worse.

Pax
 
Because it is a superior way of communication.
 
Last edited:
kapp19 said:
Because it is a superior way of communication.
Click to expand...
The way of communication in a PM is actually identical to the ordinary use of the forum - it is however private, or 1:1. It seems somewhat contrary to the primary nature of a forum, unless you view the forum as a means to find other persons for 1:1 communication.
 
Last edited:
Rau said:
The way of communication in a PM is actually identical to the ordinary use of the forum - it is however private, or 1:1. It seems somewhat contrary to the primary nature of a forum, unless you view the forum as a means to find other persons for 1:1 communication.
Click to expand...
Well, in this case the end justifies the means.

Peace…
-K
 
That is the catholics model. Various others here will not be able to abide it.
 
fredystairs said:
The circumstances are the “accidents” of the act, the concrete conditions in which the act is done. These are the who, what, when, etc. of the act. Stealing a dollar from a rich man is different from stealing a thousand dollars from a poor man. The circumstances would be the who (rich man or poor man) and the what (a dollar or thousand dollars).
Click to expand...
It is interesting - and I know it is strange, but it adds to the complexity but hopefully can be useful - St. Thomas actually considers, with Aristotle, actions as circumstances. Action/passion is an accident after all. The object is the hylomorphic sum of circumstances with the choiceworthiness of the acts being done taken into account, as well as the integral effects proceeding essentially from those acts, irrespective of the end - which if there is such a “per accidens” character in the intention (as opposed to “per se”) I contend must be outside whatever substance is being acted upon.
 
Last edited:
Rau said:
That is the catholics model. Various others here will not be able to abide it.
Click to expand...
I’m quite willing to accept it. If I lie to prevent someone’s death then you can say the lie was immoral if you like. And I’ll say ‘Well, OK. If that’s how you want to describe it then fine’.

But I’ll still lie and it will still be the right thing to do. And you will call it immoral and I will agree if you want me to. But if you try to tell me that God would want me to tell the truth and have someone die because of it (‘Yeah, they’re in the basement’), then I will state quite unequivocably that that is absolute nonsense.
 
Rau said:
40.png
Freddy:
I’m quite willing to accept it.
Click to expand...
Freddy said:
But I’ll still lie and it will still be the right thing to do.
Click to expand...
Not sure I understand statement 1 in light of statement 2 above.
Click to expand...
It’s all down to definition. If you want to class a lie which saves someone’s life ‘immoral’ then I actually have no problem with that.
 
Freddy said:
It’s all down to definition.
Click to expand...
The above is an important observation. Many debates in the moral theology field get caught up in word games and failure to grasp proper meaning.

It’s a rather pointless definition of “immoral” to then claim what is immoral is the right thing to do! It suggests that the system you employ to decide what is moral is different from the system used to determine what is the right thing to do.
 
Last edited:
Rau said:
40.png
Freddy:
It’s all down to definition.
Click to expand...
The above is an important observation. Many debates in the moral theology field get caught up in word games and failure to grasp proper meaning.

It’s a rather pointless definition of “immoral” to then claim what is immoral is the right thing to do! It suggests that the system you employ to decide what is moral is different from the system used to determine what is the right thing to do.
Click to expand...
No, we can still agree that something.is immoral yet can be the best course of action.

Is lying immoral? Let’s agree it is. But can you act immorally to save someone’s life (there’s no-one hiding in tbe basement)? Then yes you can.

Does that mean that the lie you told is immoral? Yes, we can still agree it is. And we can also agree that telling the truth simply as a means to maintain one’s personal adherence to a recognised code of morality is the wrong thing to do (they are in the basement).

It seems that people who would not lie in the usual examples we present are concerned with their own situation rather than those they might save. That they consider their ‘immortal soul’ might be at risk should they save the family in tbe basement. Needless to say I am not impressed with that position.
 
Rau said:
It’s a rather pointless definition of “immoral” to then claim what is immoral is the right thing to do! It suggests that the system you employ to decide what is moral is different from the system used to determine what is the right thing to do.
Click to expand...
Yes!

Morality is about happiness. The upshot of failing to start from there is what we see here, and elsewhere, with arbitrary norms that aren’t norms at all being put forward as “what ought to be done.” People can indeed be wrong about what will make them happy… Lying is a great example. It’s contrary to nature - it can’t make you happy. It could make you feel nice, or get a thing you want, but it cannot bring about flourishing… real happiness…

All this rests on a robust metaphysics of realism, which is sort of out the door in atheism, at least in many varieties.
 
kapp19 said:
Lying is a great example. It’s contrary to nature - it can’t make you happy.
Click to expand...
It obviously can. Would it make you happy that the family in the basement survives? Naturally. So you lie to save them.

I see no problem there.
 
Of course you don’t see a problem with it. That’s my point. You can’t see the problem because you don’t have a healthy enough metaphysics, and this impedes your ability to see what happiness really is, beyond simply “feeling good” or “getting stuff I feel like having right now.”
 
Freddy said:
No, we can still agree that something.is immoral yet can be the best course of action.
Click to expand...
So here is an example where there is a failure to agree the meaning of morality, or at the very least to demote it in a manner that strips away the real meaning. What is that “recognized code” (you mentioned) about, if not a guide to “the right thing to do”?
 
Last edited:
kapp19 said:
Of course you don’t see a problem with it. That’s my point. You can’t see the problem because you don’t have a healthy enough metaphysics, and this impedes your ability to see what happiness really is, beyond simply “feeling good” or “getting stuff I feel like having right now.”
Click to expand...
If you think that, for example, lying to save a family from being killed is done just to ‘feel good’ then I’m not sure the conversation is heading anywhere usefull.
 
No, but it is done to get a thing that you want right now. The key is to proceed in the right order - first, a discussion of God, and His attributes. Then, of creation and man in particular, with his powers and the order inherent in them. Then the last end of those powers considered, and how man is to direct those powers to the last end in general, and finally in particular. That’s the right order to go in. Everything else is mostly silly, though occasionally fruitful.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top