What makes something intrinsically evil/good?

  • Thread starter Thread starter fakename
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

fakename

Guest
consider, actionA–>endB–>event C and event C is bad and → means cause.

So if the above actionA occurs, does this action have event C as its moral object and thus, is actionA intrinsically bad because event C is the de facto object?
 
That is, how is the moral object determined. I’ve read answers on this question but they always seemed anomalous since it seems something can be object and not object from the POV taken.
 
When an action is spoken of as intrinsically evil the meaning is that the action itself is wrong by its nature, regardless of the end intended.

To curse God, or strangling a baby deliberately termination a pregnance are actions which are evil in themselves. Artificial contraception is called intrinsically evil because it interferes directly with the potential divine plan. It is necessary to remember, however, that an act which is evil in itself still may not be a bad as one whichi is even graver by reason of its consequences, or the intention behind it.

Thus contraception is always wrong by nature. Firing a gun can be morally neutral or even a good thing. But to fire a gun into a crowded schoolyard is a graver sin than a contraceptive act.

English has more words than Latin which is the primary language of moral theology, and it does happen that phrases in English take on a coloring which is not found in the original.
 
Hadrianus said:
When an action is spoken of as intrinsically evil the meaning is that the action itself is wrong by its nature, regardless of the end intended.

To curse God, or strangling a baby deliberately termination a pregnance are actions which are evil in themselves. Artificial contraception is called intrinsically evil because it interferes directly with the potential divine plan. It is necessary to remember, however, that an act which is evil in itself still may not be a bad as one whichi is even graver by reason of its consequences, or the intention behind it.

Thus contraception is always wrong by nature. Firing a gun can be morally neutral or even a good thing. But to fire a gun into a crowded schoolyard is a graver sin than a contraceptive act.

English has more words than Latin which is the primary language of moral theology, and it does happen that phrases in English take on a coloring which is not found in the original.
Click to expand...
Ah, so the “Firing-into-a-crowd” is a circumstance but what makes it not an object?
 
fakename said:
consider, actionA–>endB–>event C and event C is bad and → means cause.

So if the above actionA occurs, does this action have event C as its moral object and thus, is actionA intrinsically bad because event C is the de facto object?
Click to expand...
I don’t think this kind of analysis is useful in deciding if something is intrinsically evil. I think the only thing that is needed to consider is whether the action in question is evil by its very nature, irrespective of any additional circumstantial information. Also I don’t think “intrinsically evil” should be taken as a synonym for “most evil”, as demonstrated by the example cited above of firing a gun into a crowded schoolyard. Things can be intrinsically evil and still not be as evil as something that is not intrinsic. Although to my mind, any relative ranking of evil is perilous because it is the first step toward accepting evil.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top