What makes something intrinsically bad/good?

[JDaniel]

Is this Church teaching? If it is, then why would the Church call it “sex”?

Fakename:

It is the un-stewarded release of seed. And, this is also why direct contraception is considered sin. It’s all very consistent.

In any case, they seem to be doing “something” and if no thing is bad, then why is their “something” bad? What does this imply for extrinsic actions? What is the rule for extrinsic actions?

The intrinsic badness is due to the selfishness of the act. The extrinsic badness is, in fact, that participation in the act. That is precisely why a gay person is not intrinsically bad.

God bless,
jd

 

[fakename]

user "JDaniel":

The intrinsic badness is due to the selfishness of the act. The extrinsic badness is, in fact, that participation in the act. That is precisely why a gay person is not intrinsically bad.

So extrinsic bad is what we count the evil actor while intrinsic bad is what we call the evil action?

But this seems to name things on account of the subject, I suppose. After all “intrinsic” means “selfishness” while “extrinsic” means “participation in the act”. However, we know that moral acts are distinguished by their objects not their subjects; fornication is evil sex, selfishness is irrational self-love, etc.

But here we see that the object and subject are united in the term “selfishness”. So are you trying to redefine all vices and virtues in so far as they are measured by the subject?

If there is some other substantiation of your definitions then please give it.

 

[fakename]

Let me pose the same question again, revisiting the subject with a little more experience:

good and evil are only slightly affected by circumstances, that is non-essentially. So it seems that circumstances are the extrinsic good and bad whereas good and evil are intrinsically part of the intention and the matter it self.

So is the intention and matter where good/evil intrinsically resides?

 

[fakename]

Sorry for reviving this question too many times but I think that I’m on to something.

 

[tonyrey]

Let me pose the same question again, revisiting the subject with a little more experience:

good and evil are only slightly affected by circumstances, that is non-essentially. So it seems that circumstances are the extrinsic good and bad whereas good and evil are intrinsically part of the intention and the matter it self.

So is the intention and matter where good/evil intrinsically resides?

1. If things just happened to exist for no reason or purpose they would be morally neutral, i.e. neither good or evil.
2. Since things are created by God for a reason and a purpose things are intrinsically good.
3. Nothing is intrinsically evil but, as St Thomas pointed out, things are often the **incidental **causes of evil consequences.
4. No one is intrinsically evil but persons are often the direct cause of evil consequences.

 

[fakename]

user "tonyrey":

1. If things just happened to exist for no reason or purpose they would be morally neutral, i.e. neither good or evil.
2. Since things are created by God for a reason and a purpose things are intrinsically good.
3. Nothing is intrinsically evil but, as St Thomas pointed out, things are often the incidental causes of evil consequences.
4. No one is intrinsically evil but persons are often the direct cause of evil consequences.

That’s true but not for moral goodness since, if what you said was true, then all evil would be extrinsic and yet we speak of intrinsic evil .

Now if I remember Aquinas, he said something to the effect that evil is caused by two goods clashing or by some other disorder in the good thing (some lack). So I wonder, as an addition to your claims, if inherent evil is like the clash and extrinsic like the perversion?

 

[FurtherSuntime]

edited

 

[tonyrey]

1. If things just happened to exist for no reason or purpose they would be morally neutral, i.e. neither good or evil.

Intrinsic evil is incompatible with the belief that God created everything. Something or some one may cause malfunction, disruption or destruction but nothing or no one exists solely for those purposes.

Now if I remember Aquinas, he said something to the effect that evil is caused by two goods clashing or by some other disorder in the good thing (some lack). So I wonder, as an addition to your claims, if inherent evil is like the clash and extrinsic like the perversion?

I agree with him but I don’t think he claimed that anything is intrinsically evil.