Traditional Moral Theology

[chrisb]

Could someone well versed in Classic Catholic Moral Theology help me understand what constitute a Morally Good Act…

As I understand it there are three components to a Morally Good Act… the object chosen, the end in view or intention, and the circumstances.

Could someone better versed in this help me understand it more clearly?

Thanks!

 

[blackrobe]

Could someone well versed in Classic Catholic Moral Theology help me understand what constitute a Morally Good Act…

As I understand it there are three components to a Morally Good Act… the object chosen, the end in view or intention, and the circumstances.

Could someone better versed in this help me understand it more clearly?

Thanks!

Three components of the human act:

1. Object (who does what to whom)
2. End (what is intended)
3. Circumstances (incidental conditions).

Key Concept: **the object is the primary determinant of the moral value of an act. **If the object is bad, the act is immoral. Bad intent and/or bad circumstances can poison the object but good intent and/or circumstances can never redeem a bad object.

The heresy prevalent in our times is proportionalism which holds the object to be neutral or “pre-moral” while the intent determines the moral value of the action.

In evaluating objects it is essential to discern all their elements. For example, having intercourse with your spouse and having contracepted intercourse with your spouse are different objects. The latter is *objectively * immoral but a proportionalist would say that depends on your intent.

Another example: Self-defence is not an exception to the precept against murder; it is a completely different case. Shooting an attacker is a different* object* from shooting an innocent person.

One more: I loose arrows at a proper target [good]. I want to strengthen my body and improve my aim [good]. All conditions for safety are in place [good] Conclusion-> moral behavior.

I loose arrows at a proper target [good]. I want to improve my aim with an eye to murdering my neighbor [bad intent] Conclusion-> immoral act because of bad intent.

I loose arrows at a proper target [good]. I want to strengthen my body and improve my aim for lawful hunting [good]. There is no backstop behind my target and it is very foggy so I can’t see past the target but i hear voices [bad circumstances]. Conclusion-> immoral act because of circumstances.

This sort of exercise can be done with a flowchart. I wonder if the Angelic Doctor used flowcharts?

JSA+

 

[chrisb]

As I understand it there is another moral philosophy at work also which is different than Proportionalism. Is this true?

The divorce of the material object of a moral act from the formal inner meaning is appears to be a position which has much influence in contemporary Moral Theology, called “modern theology” also known as “consequentialism”, or “proportionalism”.

Are the two completely the same here?

What are “morally relevant circumstances”? How does Traditional Moral Theology evaluate them?

 

[blackrobe]

As I understand it there is another moral philosophy at work also which is different than Proportionalism. Is this true? ?

There are many subspecies of proportionalism. Perhaps you are also thinking of Nominalism which is certainly the “modern” way of thinking. There are many gradations of Nominalism but the underlying assertion is that either there is no objective reality apart from perception, or that if there is we can’t say anything about it with certainty. This is in direct opposition to Aquinas’ Realism which holds that the universe has objective reality apart from our perceptiions and that it is intelligible-- our minds are made to figure it out.

Among the tragedies perpetrated in the name of Nominalism is the loss of any ability to speak of that which cannot be apprehended by the senses-- the metaphysical, for example. A great example of the absurdity of thorough-going Nominalism appears in a TV spot against abortion. After relating her experience with considering abortion and deciding to carry the child to term, the woman questions her own [Nominalist] thinking: “Why was it a baby when I wanted it and something else when I didn’t?”

JSA+