The morality of an act: CCC 1756 and CCC 2263

[Rau]

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

We disagree on this most fundamental point.

Saving the woman is the Intention that gives rise to the act of methotrexate injection. But that act wills the death of the baby. We know this with certainty, because, as a scientific fact - it is **only **the death of the baby in this treatment that helps the mother.

You are doing just what the CCC says not to do…

1756 It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them…

and further.....

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.

Methotrexate injection is a murder, and with no shades of grey about it. It has NO other proximate end except death of the baby.

You confuse Intention and Moral Object. In some scenarios, they turn out to be the same thing. In fact, they are the same thing when applying the licit treatment to ectopic pregnancy.

I referred you earlier to a 3rd party theologian who discussed in detail the common confusion between “Intention” and “Moral Object”.

 

[Rau]

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.

Using methotrexate injection by way of example, the Red text is exactly the confusing/blurring of Intention (save the woman) and Moral Object (the immediate end to which the act is ordered, ie. death of the baby) I have referred to repeatedly.

Removing the tube is the NECESSARY act, directed at the mother’s rupturing body, in order to save her. We know the baby is therein, and we know the **consequences **of proceeding.

Now, while ectopic pregnancy is not the same as a self-defence situation, the actions taken can be compared. In both, I can take necessary actions that may cause death, but I cannot take an action that is intrinsically ordered to the death of another / that wills death / that seeks death / that requires death. As explained above, methotrexate sets out to cause death - that is its one and only direct end. Tubal removal does not seek that at all, it does not need it at all - ideath of the baby is an unintended consequence that could not be avoided.

By the way, I’m not aware of Catholic moral theologians at large complaining about genuine conflicts in the CCC in this area. If you can point to any who have published on that point, I’d be interested to read them.

 

[Jaaanosik]

We disagree on this most fundamental point.
…

It seems that’s how it is, we disagree. Before replying to this point let me ask you the following. What is the moral object of amputation? What is the moral object of using x-rays?

I hope you recognize that your argumentation in your post is exactly the first stage - identification of what is what. This can not be done without knowing intentions, circumstances, … and these are inseparable in order to make the proper analysis.

Therefore to say that the moral object alone decides the morality of an act is a false statement.
There would be no moral object before finishing the first stage.

 

[Rau]

It seems that’s how it is, we disagree. Before replying to this point let me ask you the following. What is the moral object of amputation? What is the moral object of using x-rays?

I hope you recognize that your argumentation in your post is exactly the first stage - identification of what is what. This can not be done without knowing intentions, circumstances, … and these are inseparable in order to make the proper analysis.

Therefore to say that the moral object alone decides the morality of an act is a false statement.
There would be no moral object before finishing the first stage.

That which is “willed” in an act is not what we call Intention. It is set out this way to emphasize there are intrinsic wrongs, and wrongs can’t be done for good Intentions! The “Intention” in an act that involves “intentionally killing” may not be to kill - Intention sits in an outer layer of the Onion - perhaps it is preserve mother’s life, or preserve own life.

It is like the layers of an onion. The proximate end (moral object) of methotrexate injection is death of baby; with the Intention of preserving the woman’s life. We can’t do evil to achieve good.

The moral object does not alone determine morality of an act. Any one font can condemn the act, but all must be good to ensure morality.

I understand you believe methotrexate injection for ectopic pregnancy is moral? Could you explain why?

 

[Jaaanosik]

That which is “willed” in an act is not what we call Intention. It is set out this way to emphasize there are intrinsic wrongs, and wrongs can’t be done for good Intentions! The “Intention” in an act that involves “intentionally killing” may not be to kill - Intention sits in an outer layer of the Onion - perhaps it is preserve mother’s life, or preserve own life.

It is like the layers of an onion. The proximate end (moral object) of methotrexate injection is death of baby; with the Intention of preserving the woman’s life. We can’t do evil to achieve good.

The moral object does not alone determine morality of an act. Any one font can condemn the act, but all must be good to ensure morality.

I understand you believe methotrexate injection for ectopic pregnancy is moral? Could you explain why?

I already told you I don’t agree with the analysis of the moral object.

Do you believe that killing the baby by cutting the tube is any different? Cutting the tube kills the baby and it does not improve a chance of the mother to have another baby. This harms her even more. So the cutting kills and harms. More evil than good.

The moral object of any medical treatment is to save/improve the life of a patient. That’s what you did not answer.

Do you agree that there would be no moral object without the first stage; inseparable analysis of intentions, circumstances, consequences, object, … ?

 

[Rau]

I already told you I don’t agree with the analysis of the moral object…
The moral object of any medical treatment is to save/improve the life of a patient.

Then you are saying there is no such thing as doing Evil to achieve a good intention. By your reasoning, the CCC is simply wrong in its presentation of morality and intrinsic evil, not merely contradictory in description!

You argue that the end justifies the means. That any evil in the means melts away if we have a suitably good motivation for the deed. That evil is always relative to some wider cause (“intention”). That’s a few more paragraphs of the CCC you can “cross out” as wrong.

Originally, I believed your issue was with poor description in the CCC and I set out to explain why that was not so. But your point is actually about the fundamental nature of evil and morality - and the differences you have with the Catholic position.

I don’t really care to debate whether the end justifies the means. I’ll leave that for a someone else. Thanks for the discussion though.

Cheers
Rau

 

[LongingSoul]

The moral object of any medical treatment is to save/improve the life of a patient. That’s what you did not answer.

‘Object’ refers to something concrete. It refers to the actual thing being done. The intention of any medical treatment is to save/improve the life of a patient. The moral object is to save the life of the patient by amptation or by injecting mex?? into the mass of conception (baby). The thing actually done represents the ‘object’. The CCC says…“The object chosen morally specifies the act of the will…”

 

[LongingSoul]

Jaaanosik, the main deficiency in your approach is not acknowledging the reality of moral absolutes. That’s why you are having trouble grasping what ‘object’ means. You are trying to make the ‘object’ and the intention the same thing and that amounts to godless moral relativism.

 

[Rau]

Jaaanosik, the main deficiency in your approach is not acknowledging the reality of moral absolutes. That’s why you are having trouble grasping what ‘object’ means. You are trying to make the ‘object’ and the intention the same thing and that amounts to godless moral relativism.

And this is a common mistake in this area. Jaaanosik, I referred you to a theologian’s paper addressing exactly that confusion. There are implications for anyone of acknowledging it, so I understand the difficulty to accept it.

LongingSoul - I recall you picked the moral relativism underpinnings many posts ago. I laboured under the view that he was simply mis-interpreting the CCC and thus analyzing incorrectly, but his last post clarified his perspective a lot.

 

[LongingSoul]

And this is a common mistake in this area. Jaaanosik, I referred you to a theologian’s paper addressing exactly that confusion. There are implications for anyone of acknowledging it, so I understand the difficulty to accept it.

LongingSoul - I recall you picked the moral relativism underpinnings many posts ago. I laboured under the view that he was simply mis-interpreting the CCC and thus analyzing incorrectly, but his last post clarified his perspective a lot.

There is such a forceful promotion of moral relativism on every level of life that it isn’t surprising that its infiltrated the Catholic world. However, fact one is that we are capable of recognising God and an objective moral law through reason and faith. We can teach the art of reasoning, so all discussion is ultimately valuable… but as the old saying goes…* faith *is caught, not taught.

 

[Jaaanosik]

Then you are saying there is no such thing as doing Evil to achieve a good intention. By your reasoning, the CCC is simply wrong in its presentation of morality and intrinsic evil, not merely contradictory in description!

You argue that the end justifies the means. That any evil in the means melts away if we have a suitably good motivation for the deed. That evil is always relative to some wider cause (“intention”). That’s a few more paragraphs of the CCC you can “cross out” as wrong.

Originally, I believed your issue was with poor description in the CCC and I set out to explain why that was not so. But your point is actually about the fundamental nature of evil and morality - and the differences you have with the Catholic position.

I don’t really care to debate whether the end justifies the means. I’ll leave that for a someone else. Thanks for the discussion though.

Cheers
Rau

The description of the reality is very simple. There is no moral object without the first stage of the analysis.
You were doing exactly the same in your posts; checking intentions, circumstances, consequences, … when you were trying to determine the moral object.

You did not answer the question what is the moral object of the amputation.

 

[Jaaanosik]

‘Object’ refers to something concrete. It refers to the actual thing being done. The intention of any medical treatment is to save/improve the life of a patient. The moral object is to save the life of the patient by amptation or by injecting mex?? into the mass of conception (baby). The thing actually done represents the ‘object’. The CCC says…“The object chosen morally specifies the act of the will…”

The most fundamental good, end (telos) of a human being and human nature is existence/life.
A killing is an evil moral object that violates this good.
Saving life or improving life is the exact opposite of the killing; it’s a good moral object.

Cutting a limb is intrinsically evil because it is** violating existence/life**; it’s affecting it in a negative way.
An amputation is an act that is directed at improving/saving a human life - that’s the moral object.
But the amputation is done by cutting a limb that is intrinsically evil. How is that possible?

 

[Jaaanosik]

Jaaanosik, the main deficiency in your approach is not acknowledging the reality of moral absolutes. That’s why you are having trouble grasping what ‘object’ means. You are trying to make the ‘object’ and the intention the same thing and that amounts to godless moral relativism.

In my opinion you are having trouble to understand the discussed subject.

 

[Jaaanosik]

And this is a common mistake in this area. Jaaanosik, I referred you to a theologian’s paper addressing exactly that confusion. There are implications for anyone of acknowledging it, so I understand the difficulty to accept it.

LongingSoul - I recall you picked the moral relativism underpinnings many posts ago. I laboured under the view that he was simply mis-interpreting the CCC and thus analyzing incorrectly, but his last post clarified his perspective a lot.

It appears you are confused to say that there is a moral object without analyzing the intentions, circumstances, consequences, … of an act.

Then in other posts you argue this is an intention, this is a consequence, … therefore this is the moral object.

How would you describe this?

 

[Rau]

The description of the reality is very simple. There is no moral object without the first stage of the analysis.
You were doing exactly the same in your posts; checking intentions, circumstances, consequences, … when you were trying to determine the moral object.

You did not answer the question what is the moral object of the amputation.

I saw no relevance in the question to the essential issue - ends don’t justify means.

The paper I referred you to addresses, among other things:

• the common confusion of Intention & Moral Object;
• scenarios where Moral Object can’t be determined by an observer and how knowledge of Intention sheds light on moral object.

See the key summary points in the CCC: 1757 - 1761.

 

[Rau]

It appears you are confused to say that there is a moral object without analyzing the intentions, circumstances, consequences, … of an act.

Then in other posts you argue this is an intention, this is a consequence, … therefore this is the moral object.

How would you describe this?

I guess I find myself consistent with the CCC and consistent with the moral theologians I’ve read. How about you?

 

[Rau]

The most fundamental good, end (telos) of a human being and human nature is existence/life.
A killing is an evil moral object that violates this good.
Saving life or improving life is the exact opposite of the killing; it’s a good moral object.

Cutting a limb is intrinsically evil because it is** violating existence/life**; it’s affecting it in a negative way.
An amputation is an act that is directed at improving/saving a human life - that’s the moral object.
But the amputation is done by cutting a limb that is intrinsically evil. How is that possible?

Amputation is a old chestnut. Physical evil vs. moral evil. See point 4.
ronconte.wordpress.com/2011/02/25/misunderstandings-on-the-principle-of-double-effect/

 

[Jaaanosik]

Amputation is a old chestnut. Physical evil vs. moral evil. See point 4.
ronconte.wordpress.com/2011/02/25/misunderstandings-on-the-principle-of-double-effect/

Nonsense!
Mutilation is an intrinsically evil act because its moral object - cutting a limb is intrinsically evil. Mutilation cannot be called intrinsically evil if its object was not intrinsically evil.
If you do not agree with this then there is nothing to discuss.

 

[LongingSoul]

Nonsense!
Mutilation is an intrinsically evil act because its moral object - **cutting a limb is intrinsically evil. **Mutilation cannot be called intrinsically evil if its object was not intrinsically evil.
If you do not agree with this then there is nothing to discuss.

Does this explanation help you see the error you are making? I’ll cut and paste it because I’m not sure you are reading the links offered to help you understand it.

The point of view sustained by St. Thomas and his commentators, as well as that of Veritatis Splendor, can be denominated objective morality (51). The meaning of the expression comes to be the following: objective morality is that which sustains that the acts of the will are determined by their object, that is, by the quid of the action they produce, since the decision of the will with reference to the action being carried out here and now is what bears the greater part of the action’s morality (52); and there are objects (quids of the act of the will) which it will always be evil to try or choose, because they cannot be ordered to God nor to true good of man (53). Objective morality or the objective moral order is a fixed reference for the good of the conduct, reference which occurs in all voluntary acts.

In this respect, the relatively frequent confusion of associating the fixity of the objective moral order with the fixity of material reality has to be avoided. On this view, the immutability of the moral order would be derived from physical actions: certain physical actions would always be evil and moral principles would be immutable because physical reality with its intrinsic laws is immutable (54). Perhaps this confusion is due to the other, mentioned above, between the moral object and the physical realization of the action.

As can be inferred from the previous discussion, the immutability of the moral order is not derived from the physical realities which the elections of the acting subject deal with, but rather they are derived from the natural laws internal to the acting subject: the action’s execution is posterior to the subject’s decision, which is good or bad before being executed. For this reason it is impossible to derive moral laws from physical actions. The expression “objective moral law” refers to the natural law interior to the acting subject.

unav.es/cdb/dhbapmoralact2c3.html

 

[Rau]

Nonsense!
Mutilation is an intrinsically evil act because its moral object - cutting a limb is intrinsically evil. Mutilation cannot be called intrinsically evil if its object was not intrinsically evil.
If you do not agree with this then there is nothing to discuss.

Are there any authorities among theologians that you regard as reliable??