Which acts are moral?

[Bookcat]

The act called murder is defined as the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human person. The moral object is not murder, nor is the moral object the taking of a life. The moral object is the killing of an innocent human person, i.e. the deprivation of life from an innocent. When that moral object is deliberately chosen, such that the chosen act is inherently directed toward that moral object, then the act is murder.

The moral object is the end, not the act.

Similarly, the act called theft is the direct and deliberate deprivation of the goods of another person, i.e. the taking of the goods of an owner. Expropriation in dire need is not theft because God is the first owner of all things, and because the goods of this life have a certain commonality, in addition to personal ownership.

So the moral object is not theft, but the taking of the goods of another. When an act is inherently directed at that end, to deprive the owner of his possession, then the act is theft. But the end is not the act.

it is actually the case that murder or theft here is the object of the act. for they are “a freely chosen kind of behaviour.”

of course one can use the definitions of murder or of theft instead of the words …murder or theft. but they remain the objects. for these words signify particular kinds of behavior.

(also one can note that the moral object is the good that the will directs itself to. The object is the matter of the act. So when we choose an evil object (murder) we choosing an ‘apparent good’ something that in some sense seems good to us…but this is going more far afield.)

*****The moral object is not the end! ** ***one must not confuse the intention with the object!

to quote the Compendium of the Cathechism:

“An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself. On the other hand, a good end does not make an act good if the object of that act is evil, since the end does not justify the means.”

The Catechism:

1750 The morality of human acts depends on:

• the object chosen;
• the end in view or the intention;
• the circumstances of the action.

Veritatis Spendor:

“In order to be able to grasp the object of an act which specifies that act morally, it is therefore necessary to place oneself in the perspective of the acting person. The object of the act of willing is in fact a freely chosen kind of behaviour.” (Veritatis Spendor 78)

Lets see how the Catechism gives an **example **of an object.

1755 A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the** object **is good in itself (such as praying and fasting “in order to be seen by men”).

Here it calls “praying and fasting” the good object. It does not parse it and say …“turning your voice or heart to God…and going without food…” it just says ‘praying and fasting’

Likewise …Murder and theft are objects. Evil objects to be sure but objects.

to say: “The moral object is the killing of an innocent human person, i.e. the deprivation of life from an innocent.” is the the same thing as to say “the moral object is murder”.

So lets look at two different acts.

Good act:

Object: the necessary taking of a persons life in self defense.
Intention: to save ones own life from an unjust aggressor.
Circumstance: in order to save ones life one needs to use lethal force here and now.

Evil act:

Object: Murder (of ones wife.)
Intention: To marry the Sue whom one wants to marry.
Circumstance: Unhappy marriage

(In this last case ones good intention to ‘marry’ doe not justify the intrinsically evil object …murder. or does the circumstance)

(of course the person is also stupid here for in Canon law one can not murder someone in order to marry a particular person…for that will render the other ‘marriage’ invalid…i guess they had some who tried this in the past!)

evil act

Object: Giving alms (for Haiti)
Intention: so one can brag on how much one gave.
Circumstance: real need in Haiti.

(Here one has a good object --alms giving-- which is made at least partially bad due to the bad intention or end.)

vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a4.htm#I

 

[Ron_Conte]

The moral object is the end, as distinguished from the act itself.

At times, the act itself does not attain the moral object that it seeks. The act is deliberately chosen; the act occurs. But the end toward which the act is inherently directed might not occur. The moral species of the act is determined by something other than the act, specifically, the end in terms of morality toward which the act is ordered, regardless of whether or not that end is acheived.

Murder is any deliberately chosen act which is inherently directed toward the deprivation of life from an innocent person. The act is distinguished from the end. The end is the deprivation of life from an innocent. But if a man attempts to murder his neighbor and fails, his sin is nevertheless that of murder, even though no one was deprived of life. The act occurred, but the end was not achieved. Obviously, the act is not the moral object; they are distinct. One occurred and the other did not.

The act itself is inherently ordered toward an end, in terms of morality, called the moral object. But even when that moral object is not attained, the act has exactly the same inherent moral meaning, because the act remains inherently ordered toward that end. Distinguishing the end from the act is essential to understanding the second font of morality.

 

[Bookcat]

The act called murder is defined as the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human person. The moral object is not murder, nor is the moral object the taking of a life. The moral object is the killing of an innocent human person, i.e. the deprivation of life from an innocent. When that moral object is deliberately chosen, such that the chosen act is inherently directed toward that moral object, then the act is murder.

The moral object is the end, not the act.

Similarly, the act called theft is the direct and deliberate deprivation of the goods of another person, i.e. the taking of the goods of an owner. Expropriation in dire need is not theft because God is the first owner of all things, and because the goods of this life have a certain commonality, in addition to personal ownership.

So the moral object is not theft, but the taking of the goods of another. When an act is inherently directed at that end, to deprive the owner of his possession, then the act is theft. But the end is not the act.

\it is actually the case that murder or theft here is the object of the act. for they are “a freely chosen kind of behaviour.”

of course one can use the definitions of murder or of theft instead of the words …murder or theft. but they remain the objects. for these words signify particular kinds of behavior.

(also one can note that the moral object is the good that the will directs itself to. The object is the matter of the act. So when we choose an evil object (murder) we choosing an ‘apparent good’ something that in some sense seems good to us…but this is going more far afield.)

***The moral object is not the end! ***one must not confuse the intention with the object!

to quote the Compendium of the Cathechism:

“An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself. On the other hand, a good end does not make an act good if the object of that act is evil, since the end does not justify the means.”

The Catechism:

1750 The morality of human acts depends on:

• the object chosen;
• the end in view or the intention;
• the circumstances of the action.

Veritatis Spendor:

“In order to be able to grasp the object of an act which specifies that act morally, it is therefore necessary to place oneself in the perspective of the acting person. The object of the act of willing is in fact a freely chosen kind of behaviour.” (Veritatis Spendor 78)

Lets see how the Catechism gives an example of an object.

1755 A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself (such as praying and fasting “in order to be seen by men”).

Here it calls “praying and fasting” the good object. It does not parse it and say …“turning your voice or heart to God…and going without food…” it just says ‘praying and fasting’

Likewise …Murder and theft are objects. Evil objects to be sure but objects.

to say: “The moral object is the killing of an innocent human person, i.e. the deprivation of life from an innocent.” is the the same thing as to say “the moral object is murder”.

So lets look at two different acts.

Good act:

Object: the necessary taking of a persons life in self defense.
Intention: to save ones own life from an unjust aggressor.
Circumstance: in order to save ones life one needs to use lethal force here and now.

Evil act:

Object: Murder (of ones wife.)
Intention: To marry the Sue whom one wants to marry.
Circumstance: Unhappy marriage

(In this last case ones good intention to ‘marry’ doe not justify the intrinsically evil object …murder. or does the circumstance)

(of course the person is also stupid here for in Canon law one can not murder someone in order to marry a particular person…for that will render the other ‘marriage’ invalid…i guess they had some who tried this in the past!)

evil act

Object: Giving alms (for Haiti)
Intention: so one can brag on how much one gave.
Circumstance: real need in Haiti.

(Here one has a good object --alms giving-- which is made at least partially bad due to the bad intention or end.)

vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a4.htm#I

 

[Bookcat]

…

 

[Charlemagne_II]

While there may be some merit in considering morality as determined by the presence or absence of the three fonts, hardly anyone considers the Catechism fonts as a daily guide to their conduct. People whose conscience or reasoning powers have not been stunted by a negligent upbringing should know instinctively (by the light of the natural law) what’s moral and what’s immoral. What’s moral is what you can do in the open without fear of judgment, either from yourself or from others. What’s immoral is what you know to be wrong and what you hide from others, and sometimes even from yourself.

In the latter case, unjust wars are an example. Every effort is made by those perpetrating an unjust war to convince others and themselves that the war is just. No lie is too difficult or impossible to tell if it obtains the desired effect.

Likewise in the case of abortion. No lie is too difficult or impossible to think up if it will convince others or ouselves that abortion is not a crime against humanity.

In my own case, I was once severely addicted to potato chips. I ate them in private a large bag at a time. I lied to myself that they were not harmful. Often, in such a hurry to open that bag of chips, I did not even bother any more to lie.

But I’m sure the fonts did apply too.

 

[Bookcat]

In reading over these threads it seems to me that

part of the difficulty …is the use of different language…

for instance Ron uses older technical language …and the various uses of the word “end”. (i recall some what some of them now from my studies…though i can not evaluate at this time for my part all of his uses)

Where as I use the more recent things in this regard…particularly the Catechism (and moral elaborations after the CCC…for my formal studies were after its publication and after VS…and thus i was formed on this language) …which I find very clear and is very good to explain these things…but which can express things differently or more refined than in older manuals etc.

and so at times in these discussions…one speaks past the other…

similar terms take on different meanings…

so my apologies for any misunderstandings of use…and thus some errors in assessing some of Ron’s arguments…

though some disagreements remain. (ie. that murder can be called a moral object…and that certain things are different objects than others… etc)

It is i think very beneficial to use the language of the Catechism and other recent documents etc…