The morality of an act: CCC 1756 and CCC 2263

[LucyEm]

I see “killing on purpose” as killing being the moral object at the end of the first stage analysis when intentions, circumstances, consequences, … are considered.

It’s very similar to the mutilation/amputation. The mutilation is “cutting a limb on purpose”. The amputation is NOT “cutting a limb on purpose” because it’s a consequence of not having other option to save patient’s life even though a doctor cuts a limb willingly without any second guessing with a firm hand.
Cutting a limb is bad, wrong, terrible, evil no matter what but when it’s a consequence of not having other option in saving one’s life it’s morally permitted.

Seems to me you must be making an error because you arrive at conclusions that I think are plainly wrong and contrary to the Catholic info you quoted!

I gotta pass on the amputation thing, as I don’t really understand it and I’d really like to focus on the 2 things that jumped out at me in your posts:

1). How do you figure metho injection is something other than murder? Why do you skip its intrinsic nature, and look right past that to the benefit the killing brings to the mum? Isn’t this exactly the “ends justifying the means” like the other poster said? Isn’t this exactly what one of the Catechism quotes says you can’t do?

2). What part of rape do you see as “procreation”? See my earlier post addressing this.

PS. An act that involved one person killing another cant be said to be an intrinsically evil act. We don’t have half the story. Was it on purpose? A hunting accident? Was it unintended? So the fact of a “killing” doesn’t mean the act was immoral. If it was on purpose - I’m sunk…I’ve done wrong, no matter what else. If it was not, then I need to check out Intentions and Circumstances / consequences to figure out morality. It seems sound to me!

 

[Jaaanosik]

Seems to me you must be making an error because you arrive at conclusions that I think are plainly wrong and contrary to the Catholic info you quoted!

I gotta pass on the amputation thing, as I don’t really understand it and I’d really like to focus on the 2 things that jumped out at me in your posts:

1). How do you figure metho injection is something other than murder? Why do you skip its intrinsic nature, and look right past that to the benefit the killing brings to the mum? Isn’t this exactly the “ends justifying the means” like the other poster said? Isn’t this exactly what one of the Catechism quotes says you can’t do?

2). What part of rape do you see as “procreation”? See my earlier post addressing this.

PS. An act that involved one person killing another cant be said to be an intrinsically evil act. We don’t have half the story. Was it on purpose? A hunting accident? Was it unintended? So the fact of a “killing” doesn’t mean the act was immoral. If it was on purpose - I’m sunk…I’ve done wrong, no matter what else. If it was not, then I need to check out Intentions and Circumstances / consequences to figure out morality. It seems sound to me!

Please, read the CCC 1756. An act can be intrinsically evil because its moral object is intrinsically evil. What is the intrinsically evil moral object of a murder?

An act that involved one person killing another cant be said to be an intrinsically evil act. We don’t have half the story. Was it on purpose?

Correct, that’s why I said there is a first stage of act analysis. The intentions, circumstances, consequences, … are inseparable in this stage in order to determine what is the moral object, in other words if killing is a moral object or it is a consequence of an accident, …
“On purpose” means the killing is a moral object. “Not on purpose” means the killing is a consequence; but it also means there HAS to be another moral object.

Once the identification is done; we know what is what, what are the intentions, what is the moral object, what are the circumstances, consequences then the second stage of analysis can take place. Every source of morality has to be good in order to say the act is morally OK. If we are dealing with double effect then the good has to outweigh the evil in the circumstances and the consequences.

If we end up with the moral object that is intrinsically evil then the act is intrinsically evil.
So for CCC 1756 to say that an act is intrinsically evil because its object is intrinsically evil and the intentions and circumstances can not change that is a false statement…
… because without knowing intentions and circumstances, … in the first stage of analysis there would be no moral object in the second stage.

1). How do you figure metho injection is something other than murder? Why do you skip its intrinsic nature, and look right past that to the benefit the killing brings to the mum? Isn’t this exactly the “ends justifying the means” like the other poster said? Isn’t this exactly what one of the Catechism quotes says you can’t do?

Injection is evil in this case but it’s a consequence, it’s not a moral object.
Check the mutilation and amputation. It’s exactly the same scenario unless we are creating a double standard.

2). What part of rape do you see as “procreation”? See my earlier post addressing this.

Procreation is intrinsically good but it’s a consequence, it’s not the moral object in this case.
This is just a demonstration that this works both ways.
One may not do good so that evil may result from it.

 

[LucyEm]

Please, read the CCC 1756. An act can be intrinsically evil because its moral object is intrinsically evil. What is the intrinsically evil moral object of a murder?

OK, so the terminology I learned is: Acts can be “intrinsically evil” (subject to moral object). Moral objects are “good” or “evil”. Evil moral object means “intrinsically evil” Act. Acts with a good moral object may be Moral or Immoral depending on Intentions / Circumstances

You quote from the CCC - sometimes to support your argument, sometimes to say it is wrong!! So, I’m really wondering - is there any source on this subject that I can look at that “gets it right” in your view?

Anyway - I think where we differ here is around words and definitions. What is the moral object of "the direct, voluntary killing of innocent individuals". Don’t tell me it’s “killing” The moral object of such an act is the moral evil of murder. And yep, all specific acts, described as above, are called murder. But it’s enough to recognise the moral object as Evil - we don’t have to name it, but choosing a name badly can create confusion (which is what I think you’re doing). And the word “killing” is a case in point - it fails to address the “will” of the actor.

An act that involved one person killing another cant be said to be an intrinsically evil act. We don’t have half the story. Was it on purpose?

Correct, that’s why I said there is a first stage of act analysis. The intentions, circumstances, consequences, … are inseparable in this stage in order to determine what is the moral object, in other words if killing is a moral object or it is a consequence of an accident, …
OK, so I say that is wrong, but I think I might know why you say it. You’re thinking like a police detective investigating…because you can’t get inside the suspect’s mind - you can’t know his Will, so you have to ask all about “motives” and “opportunity” etc and from that, you’re gonna try and decide can you do a Hercule Poirot and blurt out **“ahaa, so it was murder!” **

But we’re talking about morality. It “exists” independent of what anyone else can see. What did LongingSoul say - you need the “eyes of the human conscience” to see the moral object. The CCC is a book for the “actors” (and their consciences), not the police detectives!

“On purpose” means the killing is a moral object. “Not on purpose” means the killing is a consequence; but it also means there HAS to be another moral object.

That’s funny language!! “Killing on purpose” describes an Act with an evil moral object, which is what really matters (let’s not even give it a name for now). “Killing not on purpose” implies a different Act!

Once the identification is done; we know what is what, what are the intentions, what is the moral object, what are the circumstances, consequences then the second stage of analysis can take place. If we end up with the moral object that is -]intrinsically /-]evil then the act is intrinsically evil. So for CCC 1756 to say that an act is intrinsically evil because its object is -]intrinsically /-]evil and the intentions and circumstances can not change that is a false statement… because without knowing intentions and circumstances

, … in the first stage of analysis there would be no moral object in the second stage.
Hey, you are denying the exact **principle ** which the CCC is asserting! The principle that tells you that you can’t murder, commit adultery, etc. regardless of Intention. What you’re saying (“intrinsically” ) is that “the Ends may justify the Means” - we just need to check out the Intention to decide! It’s a nice theory, because, so long as there’s an indisputably good End in mind, it will be possible to do anything! You’ll just set the moral object accordingly!

And the evidence of that is in your analysis of the Metho injection scenario - on hearing that the mum has ectopic, you decide that the moral object is Good (save her), whereas if she just wanted not to have another baby, you’d say the moral object is Evil. That looks utilitarian to me - it abandons morality & is self-serving

Injection is evil in this case but it’s a consequence, it’s not a moral object.

I assume you meant the “Death of person” (not the injection…) is a consequence??? but anyway - I think you’re ducking the question. What outcome was the metho injection WILLING, by its nature?. And what is the Intention?

Choose Metho → Baby Dies → Mum Recovers

You can’t pretend the “killing” (your word) is ONLY a consequence, when that’s the thing that produced the good outcome you’re after!! [Therefore, you must have **wanted to kill.]

In another post, you said the moral object of the act of metho injection is “save mum’s life”. That’s utilitarian and goes directly against

1759 “An evil action cannot be justified by reference to a good intention” (cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Dec. praec. 6). The end does not justify the means.

and also this (which I lifted from another CAF thread):

Murder is defined by the Magisterium (Evangelium Vitae n. 57):
"Therefore, … I confirm that the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral…

“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.”

See the Red - the Intentions and Circumstances are not needed.

 

[Jaaanosik]

…
Anyway - I think where we differ here is around words and definitions. What is the moral object of **“the direct, voluntary **killing of innocent individuals”. Don’t tell me it’s “killing” The moral object of such an act is the moral evil of murder. And yep, all specific acts, described as above, are called murder. But it’s enough to recognise the moral object as Evil - we don’t have to name it, but choosing a name badly can create confusion (which is what I think you’re doing). And the word “killing” is a case in point - it fails to address the “will” of the actor.
The “will” of the actor is known when it’s concluded that the killing is the moral object of an act. This cannot be determined independently of circumstances and intentions. The first stage of analysis is required.

OK, so I say that is wrong, but I think I might know why you say it. You’re thinking like a police detective investigating…because you can’t get inside the suspect’s mind - you can’t know his Will, so you have to ask all about “motives” and “opportunity” etc and from that, you’re gonna try and decide can you do a Hercule Poirot and blurt out **“ahaa, so it was murder!” **

 

[LucyEm]

Intrinsically evil acts are always deliberately and knowingly chosen, and the (evil) moral object is always the direct (i.e. proximate) result of the chosen act.

So in our ectopic pregnancy example:

Deliberately choose Metho Injection → Baby Dies → Mum Recovers

Clearly, the moral object here is what immediately results from the act. We can’t “skip over” the matter of the baby being killed and point to the ultimate end of saving the mum. We can’t say that the Moral Object (proximate end) is the “mum recovers” (as you did in an earlier post) - **because that simply ain’t proximate **- it is “ultimate”. To argue for that to be the proximate end (the moral object), you’d have to be able to draw that arrow diagram with two arrows - each starting with the metho injection, one ending on “Mum Recovers” and one ending on “Baby Dies”. But we can’t - because Metho **does nothing directly **for the mum. It only kills the baby.

And you can’t say the baby’s death is ONLY a consequence - the causality above is at odds with that too. The Act (to be effective) needs the baby to die - the baby dying is the means to the end. We may have preferred another course, we may have felt considerable duress at the prospect of loss of a tube (from an alternate treatment), but in the end, we deliberately chose to kill the baby. There is no escaping it - the nature of this act (it’s “species”) is murder.
Pope:

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

 

[LucyEm]

The “will” of the actor is known when it’s concluded that the killing is the moral object of an act. This cannot be determined independently of circumstances and intentions. The first stage of analysis is required.

 

[Jaaanosik]

Intrinsically evil acts are always deliberately and knowingly chosen, and the (evil) moral object is always the direct (i.e. proximate) result of the chosen act.

So in our ectopic pregnancy example:

Deliberately choose Metho Injection → Baby Dies → Mum Recovers

Clearly, the moral object here is what immediately results from the act. We can’t “skip over” the matter of the baby being killed and point to the ultimate end of saving the mum. We can’t say that the Moral Object (proximate end) is the “mum recovers” (as you did in an earlier post) - **because that simply ain’t proximate **- it is “ultimate”. To argue for that to be the proximate end (the moral object), you’d have to be able to draw that arrow diagram with two arrows - each starting with the metho injection, one ending on “Mum Recovers” and one ending on “Baby Dies”. But we can’t - because Metho **does nothing directly **for the mum. It only kills the baby.

And you can’t say the baby’s death is ONLY a consequence - the causality above is at odds with that too. The Act (to be effective) needs the baby to die - the baby dying is the means to the end. We may have preferred another course, we may have felt considerable duress at the prospect of loss of a tube (from an alternate treatment), but in the end, we deliberately chose to kill the baby. There is no escaping it - the nature of this act (it’s “species”) is murder.

Deliberate - done consciously and intentionally.
Is killing in a “just war” done consciously? Yes. Is it done intentionally? No. The defenders might not have other option to defend themselves.
The injection is not chosen deliberately. It’s not intentional - there is no other option.
Check the mutilation and amputation and then you might understand.
Cutting a limb deliberately is mutilation. Cutting a limb to save life - no other option to do so is not deliberate; it’s amputation. Still the cutting is done consciously, no second guessing, with a firm hand.
Deliberate - the killing, the cutting, … is the moral object.
Non deliberate (unintentional) - the killing, the cutting, … is not the moral object.

 

[LucyEm]

Deliberate - done consciously and intentionally.
Is killing in a “just war” done consciously? Yes. Is it done intentionally? No. The defenders might not have other option to defend themselves.
The injection is not chosen deliberately. It’s not intentional - there is no other option.
Check the mutilation and amputation and then you might understand.
Cutting a limb deliberately is mutilation. Cutting a limb to save life - no other option to do so is not deliberate; it’s amputation. Still the cutting is done consciously, no second guessing, with a firm hand.
Deliberate - the killing, the cutting, … is the moral object.
Non deliberate (unintentional) - the killing, the cutting, … is not the moral object.

Jaasonick - what brand of moral theology are you following?.

Metho is not chosen deliberately? Are you playing with me? . If I tell you to kill someone, and that if you don’t, I’ll kill you, then even then, under duress, your decision to kill is a deliberate choice. Duress is in the circumstances and is not a free pass. See CCC1756. It is still Murder if you, as instructed, do what the Pope said is intrinsically evil and never licit! It is murder to deliberately choose the meth Act.

And there are evidently other choices. There is a choice where the arrow diagram is the alternative that I described (ie. 2 arrows from the act). Clearly that is morally distinct - look at the picture! The outcome from the alternative act is still a dead baby, but no murder is committed. In that case we deliberately choose the moral course, and we unintentionally get a dead baby.

Please tell me what brand of moral theology are you espousing. You use the structure of Catholic Moral Theology eg. The 3 fonts, etc., yet it is all twisted, abandoning the most fundamental principles.

 

[Jaaanosik]

Jaasonick - what brand of moral theology are you following?.

Metho is not chosen deliberately? Are you playing with me? . If I tell you to kill someone, and that if you don’t, I’ll kill you, then even then, under duress, your decision to kill is a deliberate choice. Duress is in the circumstances and is not a free pass. See CCC1756. It is still Murder if you, as instructed, do what the Pope said is intrinsically evil and never licit! It is murder to deliberately choose the meth Act.

And there are evidently other choices. There is a choice where the arrow diagram is the alternative that I described (ie. 2 arrows from the act). Clearly that is morally distinct - look at the picture! The outcome from the alternative act is still a dead baby, but no murder is committed. In that case we deliberately choose the moral course, and we unintentionally get a dead baby.

Please tell me what brand of moral theology are you espousing. You use the structure of Catholic Moral Theology eg. The 3 fonts, etc., yet it is all twisted, abandoning the most fundamental principles.

I am pointing out obvious. If there is no agent acting under certain circumstances and with certain intentions then there is no moral object.
Acting agent, circumstances, intentions, consequences,… are inseparable.
There is no acting agent in a vacuum with a moral object alone and nothing else. That’s a fantasy, this is not a reality.
Therefore the first stage of act analysis, identifying what is what, is necessary. All the act attributes have to be considered.

An intrinsically evil act has an intrinsically evil moral object.
Please, can you tell me what is the evil moral object of a mutilation?
Can you tell me what is the moral object of an amputation?

 

[LucyEm]

I am pointing out obvious. If there is no agent acting under certain circumstances and with certain intentions then there is no moral object.
Acting agent, circumstances, intentions, consequences,… are inseparable.
There is no acting agent in a vacuum with a moral object alone and nothing else. That’s a fantasy, this is not a reality.
Therefore the first stage of act analysis, identifying what is what, is necessary. All the act attributes have to be considered.

An intrinsically evil act has an -]intrinsically /-]evil moral object.

Noone denies that Intentions give rise to acts The point is - which act will the agent choose?

So, I see it pretty simply:

1. I can’t really object to “identifying what is what” .
2. I agree that “An intrinsically evil act has an evil moral object”
3. I accept the statement by the Pope…

"Therefore, … I confirm that the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral…

“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.”

1. Metho is an act of the species described by the Pope - and thus is the intrinsic evil of murder.

Neither the Intention to help someone, nor particular circumstances, changes that.

 

[Jaaanosik]

…
Neither the Intention to help someone, nor particular circumstances, changes that.

The intentions and circumstances shape the moral object.

Why don’t you try to answer the questions regarding the mutilation/amputation.
What are their moral objects?

 

[Rau]

The intentions and circumstances shape the moral object.

Why don’t you try to answer the questions regarding the mutilation/amputation.
What are their moral objects?

To be clear, you dispute the Pope’s statement ?

 

[LucyEm]

To be clear, you dispute the Pope’s statement ?

Yeah, that was my question too!

Jaaanosik - is the Pope’s statement wrong, or does tha Act not match the description he provides? I gotta say - the Act looks to match it exactly (so long as you agree the baby is a human being - I’ve read the Jewish people take a special view on that during the first so many days of pregnancy). But for Catholics - we’re human beings from conception, right?

 

[Jaaanosik]

To be clear, you dispute the Pope’s statement ?

I am stating what CCC 2263 says, approved by the same Pope.

 

[Jaaanosik]

Yeah, that was my question too!

Jaaanosik - is the Pope’s statement wrong, or does tha Act not match the description he provides? I gotta say - the Act looks to match it exactly (so long as you agree the baby is a human being - I’ve read the Jewish people take a special view on that during the first so many days of pregnancy). But for Catholics - we’re human beings from conception, right?

Have you tried to understand mutilation and amputation?

 

[LucyEm]

Have you tried to understand mutilation and amputation?

Not yet, one step at a time. With murder we have this great, specific benchmark for absolute intrinsic evil, so I want to run down this topic first.

Could you answer previous question specifically - and no “ducking” please!

 

[Jaaanosik]

Not yet, one step at a time. With murder we have this great, specific benchmark for absolute intrinsic evil, so I want to run down this topic first.

Could you answer previous question specifically - and no “ducking” please!

I am not ducking anything.
If you understood what I am saying through out the thread about the moral object and the consequences then you would know that I am not saying anything contrary to the Pope’s statement.

 

[davidv]

The intentions and circumstances shape the moral object.

Only if the object is moral or neutral. If the object is immoral, neither intention nor circumstance can shape the morality of the object. It remains immoral regardless the intention and circumstances.

Why don’t you try to answer the questions regarding the mutilation/amputation.
What are their moral objects?

First things first.

 

[LucyEm]

I am not ducking anything.

Oh, ok, I can see that. Wait, did you just duck again? LOL, LOL…

C’mon, before we talk about other instances, let’s clear up this one. I think I deserve a meaningful answer to post 93!

 

[Jaaanosik]

Only if the object is moral or neutral. If the object is immoral, neither intention nor circumstance can shape the morality of the object. It remains immoral regardless the intention and circumstances.

First things first.

There is no moral object if there is no agent acting with intentions and under some circumstances.