The morality of an act: CCC 1756 and CCC 2263

[Jaaanosik]

The moral object of an action is an independent font of morality. It is neither Intention nor Circumstance (incl Consequences)… The moral object of methotrexate injection is evil as death is willed. The moral object of an act by the home owner in the course of a home invasion that wills death is evil. The moral object of an act by the home owner in the course of a home invasion that wills to stop the assault is good.
.
The moral object is intrinsic to the actual act. And independent of the other fonts. All 3 must be good for the actor to act morally.

What is moral object of a murder?
If it’s not killing … then what it is?

 

[Rau]

What is moral object of a murder?
If it’s not killing … then what it is?

“Killing” and “murder” are sometimes used synonymously and sometimes with a distinctive meaning. If I shot a man and he died, then, assuming I’m not confessing murder, I would not say “I killed him”, for that might be understood to mean “I murdered him”. If I say “I shot him, and he died (of his wound)” - this gives no hint of the moral object of the act. Of course - I know what it is.

The moral object is the end, in terms of morality, to which an act is ordered - for a murder (eg. methotrexate injection) it is deliberately depriving a person of life.

Another Conte quote:

The act chosen by the human person is an intentionally chosen act. The will chooses an Intended end, and the will intentionally chooses an act, and these choices are made in the knowledge of the consequences of the act. The will is the source of all three fonts, but in different ways. If the will were the source of each font in the same way, then each font would be identical, in other words, there would be only one font.

**And this is the common error found today in many persons’ understanding of intention and moral object. They treat the role of the will in the second font as if it were the same as the role of the will in the first font. To the contrary, in the first font, the will chooses an intended end, but in the second font, the will chooses a type of act. And that act inherently possesses its own end. **The will cannot change the end that is intrinsic to any particular type of act.

The intention and/or circumstances have no bearing on the moral object, or the morality of the second font, or whether or not an act is intrinsically evil.

JP II in Veritatis Splendour:

…the opinion must be rejected as erroneous which maintains that it is impossible to qualify as morally evil according to its species the deliberate choice of certain kinds of behavior or specific acts, without taking into account the intention for which the choice was made or the totality of the foreseeable consequences of that act for all persons concerned.

Conte again:

Concerning abortion, a physician cannot choose to directly kill the prenatal and not also choose the moral nature of the act, as determined by its moral object. He is unable to dissociate the inherent moral meaning of the act from that act. It is not true, as some commentators have tried to assert, that the exterior act is devoid of morality apart from the intention of the person who acts. Veritatis Splendor clearly and definitively teaches the contrary, that concrete acts, i.e. the intentionally chosen acts of the human person, have a moral species determined by the moral object of the act. This moral object is found in the inherent ordering of the act toward a particular proximate end; it is not found in the intended end or purpose for which the act was chosen.

 

[Rau]

Pope JP II

“The deliberate decision to deprive an innocent human being of his life is always morally evil and can never be licit either as an end in itself or as a means to a good end. It is in fact a grave act of disobedience to the moral law, and indeed to God himself, the author and guarantor of that law; it contradicts the fundamental virtues of justice and charity.” (Evangelium Vitae, n. 57).

 

[LongingSoul]

1756: “… 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…”

There are acts … such as … murder…
These acts … by reason of their object…

Please, how can you say a murder is the moral object???
Murder is not the moral object… killing is the moral object!
Please, check with an expert, if you do not trust me.

By ‘expert’ do you mean a modern moral relativist? The moral object of murder is murder. It, in and of itself, is intrinsically evil. It is the voluntary and intentional killing of a person. The only other way of causing death to a person is by accident or as an unintentional consequence of another act which may or may not have have a good moral object.

 

[Jaaanosik]

…
The moral object is the end, in terms of morality, to which an act is ordered - for a murder (eg. methotrexate injection) it is deliberately depriving a person of life.
…

… also known as killing. Killing alone is intrinsically evil. It violates the fundamental good of existence/life. If the killing was anything less (not intrinsically evil or even neutral) then the Church would not have an issue with executions.
When we say intentional killing; we emphasizes that the killing was intended/willed as a proximate end, as a moral object.

When it’s not intended/willed then it’s a consequence. The intention/willing of another moral object shifts the killing to the consequence.

It looks like you’ll keep denying that but that’s how it is.

 

[Jaaanosik]

**By ‘expert’ do you mean a modern moral relativist? ** The moral object of murder is murder. It, in and of itself, is intrinsically evil. It is the voluntary and intentional killing of a person. The only other way of causing death to a person is by accident or as an unintentional consequence of another act which may or may not have have a good moral object.

No, of course not. Anybody you trust.
It appears you have hard time to understand 1756. The murder is an act. It has a moral object - the killing.
I’ll tell you, I like your posts, but here you are pushing it.

 

[Rau]

… also known as killing. Killing alone is intrinsically evil. It violates the fundamental good of existence/life. If the killing was anything less (not intrinsically evil or even neutral) then the Church would not have an issue with executions.
When we say intentional killing; we emphasizes that the killing was intended/willed as a proximate end, as a moral object.

When it’s not intended/willed then it’s a consequence. The intention/willing of another moral object shifts the killing to the consequence.

It looks like you’ll keep denying that but that’s how it is.

Perhaps you might like to remind us what it is you are arguing, and why? It started off with a declaration that the CCC was inconsistent. I (and others) identified a misunderstanding, or misreading, on your part which was pointed out to you.

Has any contribution on this thread influenced you understanding of the subjet?

Where are you now on the morality of an act of abortion?

It does appear that on the specific act of a methotrexate injection to a woman with ectopic pregnancy, you agree the act is intrinsically evil and thus an immoral act.

 

[LongingSoul]

Perhaps you might like to remind us what it is you are arguing, and why? It started off with a declaration that the CCC was inconsistent. I (and others) identified a misunderstanding, or misreading, on your part which was pointed out to you.

Has any contribution on this thread influenced you understanding of the subjet?

Where are you now on the morality of an act of abortion?

Where are you now on the specific act of a methotrexate injection to a woman with ectopic pregnancy?

Actually, could you link us to the thread that this one was spun off from? I’m at a loss to understand what jaaanosik is trying to prove.

 

[Rau]

Actually, could you link us to the thread that this one was spun off from? I’m at a loss to understand what jaaanosik is trying to prove.

The core of his argument is as set out in post 1 of the current thread. But the debate arose from a thread on ectopic pregnancy. Look for his posts on this thread:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=906406

 

[Rau]

Actually, could you link us to the thread that this one was spun off from? I’m at a loss to understand what jaaanosik is trying to prove.

This is where it started:

Jaaasnosik wrote:

Morality of an act can not be determined without object, intentions and circumstances. All three have to be present. If one of these changes then the act changes

One might argue that the discussed procedure is not abortion and it can never be an abortion.

The abortion is an intentional killing of embryo under normal healthy circumstances.
Once the circumstances change then we can not talk about the abortion it has to be a different act.

I know what CCC says but CCC has some other contradictions and logical fallacies.
For example CCC 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.”

… and CCC 2263:
"The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. “The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not.”
So which one of these two paragraphs is false?

LeafbyNiggle corrected him, then Jaaanosik added:

Please, re-read the bold part.
One is supposed to be immoral solely on the object alone.
The intention is needed to differentiate murder from self-defense in the second paragraph.

That’s a contradiction.
The murder includes/assumes bad intentions by definition. There is no way around that. Murder can not be determined without intentions.
Self-defense is a different act because of different intentions.

His early Purple statement is wrong. If any one of the 3 fonts is evil, then the act is evil - we don’t need to check all 3 if one fails. The act is the act. Different combinations of Intention, Moral Object and Circumstances (incl Consequences) MAY change the morality of the act.

To me his confusion is clear. He fails to distinguish the first and second fonts. I pointed him to Conte because there that common confusion is acknowledged and clearly treated. Jaaasonik’s sentence in red is wrong because he is not keeping the 3 fonts independent. One can commit murder when trying to save a pregnant woman (good intention), or when responding to an aggressor (good intention).

 

[Rau]

…
When it’s not intended/willed then it’s a consequence. The intention/willing of another moral object shifts the killing to the consequence.

There is no “shifting”. The 3 fonts are independent. The Consequence of an act is identified and assessed independently of the other 2 fonts.

Consider methotrexate injection:

• This act wills the baby’s death- that is the proximate end to which that act is directed;
• This act has death of the baby as a consequence (and also, subsequently, elimination of threat to the mother’s life).

The first bullet condemns the act as immoral, though the Consequences are neutral in balance (and the Intention good).

Consider removing the tube in an ectopic pregnancy:

• This act is directed at removing a portion of tube that will rupture (not at death of the child);
• This act has the consequence of saving the mother, but also the death of the child.

The Intention is to treat / save the mother (which is good). The latter act is thus assessed as moral: Good intention, Good act, neutral consequences on balance.

 

[LongingSoul]

This is where it started:

Jaaasnosik wrote:

LeafbyNiggle corrected him, then Jaaanosik added:

His early Purple statement is wrong. If any one of the 3 fonts is evil, then the act is evil - we don’t need to check all 3 if one fails. The act is the act. Different combinations of Intention, Moral Object and Circumstances (incl Consequences) MAY change the morality of the act.

To me his confusion is clear. He fails to distinguish the first and second fonts. I pointed him to Conte because there that common confusion is acknowledged and clearly treated. Jaaasonik’s sentence in red is wrong because he is not keeping the 3 fonts independent. One can commit murder when trying to save a pregnant woman (good intention), or when responding to an aggressor (good intention).

Thankyou for that. It helps me with context.

 

[LongingSoul]

1756: “… 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…”

There are acts … such as … murder…
These acts … by reason of their object…

Please, how can you say a murder is the moral object???
Murder is not the moral object… killing is the moral object!
Please, check with an expert, if you do not trust me.

I’m going back to this post.

When the moral object is the death of a person… no intention or circumstance can justify it. The moral object is always murder. The act is murder.

 

[Jaaanosik]

…
His early Purple statement is wrong. If any one of the 3 fonts is evil, then the act is evil - we don’t need to check all 3 if one fails. The act is the act. ** Different combinations of Intention, Moral Object and Circumstances (incl Consequences) MAY change the morality of the act.**

To me his confusion is clear. He fails to distinguish the first and second fonts. I pointed him to Conte because there that common confusion is acknowledged and clearly treated. Jaaasonik’s sentence in red is wrong because he is not keeping the 3 fonts independent. One can commit murder when trying to save a pregnant woman (good intention), or when responding to an aggressor (good intention).

If the 3 attributes of the morality were independent then the first bolded sentence can never be true.
The first sentence IS TRUE! Therefore the 3 attributes can not be kept independent!

 

[Jaaanosik]

I’m going back to this post.

When the moral object is the death of a person… no intention or circumstance can justify it. The moral object is always murder. The act is murder.

The moral object of a murder is not murder.

 

[Jaaanosik]

There is no “shifting”. The 3 fonts are independent. The Consequence of an act is identified and assessed independently of the other 2 fonts.
…

You had killing of an aggressor as circumstances/consequences in the second post of this thread.
How did you know it’s a consequence?

 

[Rau]

The moral object of a murder is not murder.

What name you give it is less important than whether you asses it as evil. Calling the “act” murder presupposes the moral object of the actual act.

The act of administering a methotrexate injection in the course of treating ectopic pregnancy has an evil moral object, and that is so, quite independent of any other consideration. We call such an act “murder”, and it remains so, quite independent of any other consideration.

 

[Rau]

You had killing of an aggressor as circumstances/consequences in the second post of this thread.
How did you know it’s a consequence?

If death happens, it is evidently a consequence. This is true for methotrexate injection as well as a licit treatment for ectopic pregnancy.

If death was willed (such as in methotrexate, since that is what is required and which gives rise to the healing of the mother) then death is also the moral object of the action.

 

[Jaaanosik]

What name you give it is less important than whether you asses it as evil. Calling the “act” murder presupposes the moral object of the actual act.

The act of administering a methotrexate injection in the course of treating ectopic pregnancy has an evil moral object, and that is so, quite independent of any other consideration. We call such an act “murder”, and it remains so, quite independent of any other consideration.

It’s not true. The moral object is to save the woman.

 

[Jaaanosik]

If death happens, it is evidently a consequence. This is true for methotrexate injection as well as a licit treatment for ectopic pregnancy.

If death was willed (such as in methotrexate, since that is what is required and which gives rise to the healing of the mother) then death is also the moral object of the action.

Here is the issue. The determination of a morality of an act is a two stage process.
The first one is to determine what is what. What is intended/willed moral object, circumstances, consequences, … without paying attention to morality first; really, just to know what is what.
The second stage is to evaluate morality of the 3 attributes.
The second stage can not be done before the first one is finished.
The first stage can not separate the 3 attributes; the second goes one by one.
This is my opinion how to resolve the conflict between the two CCC paragraphs.

It appears to me the removal of the tube knowing the embryo is there is morally the same as any other treatment.
To say otherwise seems like a hypocrisy.