Which acts are moral?

[Ron_Conte]

Any act is moral if all three fonts of morality are good.
Any act is immoral if any one font of morality is bad.
There are no exceptions to this rule.

first font: intention

If the intended end (purpose) is contrary to the love of God and neighbor, then the first font is bad. But if the intention is to achieve a good intended end by an immoral means, then the intention is still immoral. For the end does not justify the means.

second font: moral object

If the intentionally chosen act is inherently directed at an end (in terms of morality) that is contrary to the love of God and neighbor, then the act is intrinsically evil and the second font is bad. Whenever the second font is bad, the act is intrinsically evil, and always immoral.

third font: consequences

If the reasonably anticipated bad consequences outweigh the reasonably anticipated good consequences, then the third font is bad; otherwise, it is good.

 

[Prime]

Any act is moral if all three fonts of morality are good.
Any act is immoral if any one font of morality is bad.
There are no exceptions to this rule.

first font: intention

If the intended end (purpose) is contrary to the love of God and neighbor, then the first font is bad. But if the intention is to achieve a good intended end by an immoral means, then the intention is still immoral. For the end does not justify the means.

second font: moral object

If the intentionally chosen act is inherently directed at an end (in terms of morality) that is contrary to the love of God and neighbor, then the act is intrinsically evil and the second font is bad. Whenever the second font is bad, the act is intrinsically evil, and always immoral.

third font: consequences

If the reasonably anticipated bad consequences outweigh the reasonably anticipated good consequences, then the third font is bad; otherwise, it is good.

Ron,
I read some of your posts on the same subject. No one is arguing on the moral rules you are quoting. It’s how you apply them on cases that many here do not agree with you.

 

[Ron_Conte]

I notice that in the vast majority of posts on moral theology, the three fonts are not mentioned at all. Most posters are not applying the three fonts when considering questions in ethics.

 

[carinapir]

So then the Church’s Just War doctrine is immoral?

 

[PaulinVA]

Instead of starting yet another thread on the same subject, might I suggest you return to the **marital, unitive, procreative **thread you started previously and answer all of the questions various posters have addressed to you on the application of the three fonts to a real world situation.

Continually starting threads and bailing when they don’t go your way is a waste of bandwidth and time. We all get the three fonts as originated by Aquinas and found in the Catechism starting at 1749. As Prime said, the discussion is about the applicability in specific situations.

 

[Ron_Conte]

So then the Church’s Just War doctrine is immoral?

Just war theory is not immoral. Neither is just war theory is entirely settled doctrine. But it can be understood in terms of the three fonts, just as any moral question can be.

This thread is about the three fonts and how they can be applied, in general, to determine if any act is moral. Very many moral questions are raised in this forum, and many members venture to answer those questions, but almost always without any reference to the three fonts of morality.

 

[Ron_Conte]

Returning to the original subject…

The moral object is perhaps the least well understood of the three fonts.

Whenever the moral object is evil, the act itself is intrinsically evil and always immoral. Neither intention nor circumstances can ever change an intrinsically evil act into an act that is good; neither can intention or circumstances ever change the moral object, from evil to good. No context, no purpose, no prior, concurrent, or subsequent acts, no situation, no good intention, no good consequences, no law and no principle whatsoever (including the principle of double effect) can ever change an intrinsically evil act into an act that is moral, nor change an evil moral object into a good moral object.

So in order to determine if an act is moral, in addition to intention and circumstances, one must determine the moral object of the act. If the moral object is deprived of a good required by the moral law, i.e. by the love of God and neighbor, then the moral object is evil, and the act is intrinsically evil and always immoral. Always immoral.

 

[PaulinVA]

Ron, perhaps you could talk a little about how to determine *what *the moral object is.

In an ongoing disagreement about marital relations, you consider the moral object to be masterbation, which is always wrong. Others, including me, consider the moral object to be stimulation, which is not intrinsically wrong; indeed it is required for marital relations to occur. Well, actually, the moral object is marital relations, of which stimulation is a part.

So, if, off the bat, we disagree on the moral object itself, then there can be no meaningful discussion.

 

[Prime]

So in order to determine if an act is moral, in addition to intention and circumstances, one must determine the moral object of the act. If the moral object is deprived of a good required by the moral law, i.e. by the love of God and neighbor, then the moral object is evil, and the act is intrinsically evil and always immoral. Always immoral.

So what is the moral object of kissing?

 

[Bookcat]

lets go to the Catechism …

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

I. THE SOURCES OF MORALITY

1750 The morality of human acts depends on:

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

The object, the intention, and the circumstances make up the “sources,” or constitutive elements, of the morality of human acts.

1751 The object chosen is a good toward which the will deliberately directs itself. It is the matter of a human act. The object chosen morally specifies the act of the will, insofar as reason recognizes and judges it to be or not to be in conformity with the true good. Objective norms of morality express the rational order of good and evil, attested to by conscience.

1752 In contrast to the object, the intention resides in the acting subject. Because it lies at the voluntary source of an action and determines it by its end, intention is an element essential to the moral evaluation of an action. The end is the first goal of the intention and indicates the purpose pursued in the action. The intention is a movement of the will toward the end: it is concerned with the goal of the activity. It aims at the good anticipated from the action undertaken. Intention is not limited to directing individual actions, but can guide several actions toward one and the same purpose; it can orient one’s whole life toward its ultimate end. For example, a service done with the end of helping one’s neighbor can at the same time be inspired by the love of God as the ultimate end of all our actions. One and the same action can also be inspired by several intentions, such as performing a service in order to obtain a favor or to boast about it.

1753 A good intention (for example, that of helping one’s neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just. The end does not justify the means. Thus the condemnation of an innocent person cannot be justified as a legitimate means of saving the nation. On the other hand, an added bad intention (such as vainglory) makes an act evil that, in and of itself, can be good (such as almsgiving).39

1754 The circumstances, including the consequences, are secondary elements of a moral act. They contribute to increasing or diminishing the moral goodness or evil of human acts (for example, the amount of a theft). They can also diminish or increase the agent’s responsibility (such as acting out of a fear of death). Circumstances of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves; they can make neither good nor right an action that is in itself evil.

II. GOOD ACTS AND EVIL ACTS

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”).

The object of the choice can by itself vitiate an act in its entirety. There are some concrete acts - such as fornication - that it is always wrong to choose, because choosing them entails a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil.

1756 It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

 

[Bookcat]

Ron, perhaps you could talk a little about how to determine *what *the moral object is.

In an ongoing disagreement about marital relations, you consider the moral object to be masterbation, which is always wrong. Others, including me, consider the moral object to be stimulation, which is not intrinsically wrong; indeed it is required for marital relations to occur. Well, actually, the moral object is marital relations, of which stimulation is a part.

So, if, off the bat, we disagree on the moral object itself, then there can be no meaningful discussion.

Yes …the moral object is ‘the marital act’ --there is a “moral unity” of what goes before and after the physical act of martial intercourse.

i will post here again what i wrote in the other thread:

It is within good orthodox Catholic moral theology that when the wife experiences climax either during foreplay or during actual physical intercourse or right after the climax of the husband (which can only take place during the actual physical act of intercourse) --it is a good act. All forms part of the maritial act. (of course the actions themselves need to be good…) All of these form a “moral unity” as part of the one marital act.

One source I will point you to off the top of my head from the ones you posted as good sources of moral theology – so I know you will have it is the the one from Germain Grisez – go look it up in the second volume pg 642.

others may find it online here: twotlj.org/G-2-9-E.html

section 1 h iii

 

[OraLabora]

Yes …the moral object is ‘the marital act’ --there is a “moral unity” of what goes before and after the physical act of martial intercourse.

i will post here again what i wrote in the other thread:

It is within good orthodox Catholic moral theology that when the wife experiences climax either during foreplay or during actual physical intercourse or right after the climax of the husband (which can only take place during the actual physical act of intercourse) --it is a good act. All forms part of the maritial act. (of course the actions themselves need to be good…) All of these form a “moral unity” as part of the one marital act.

One source I will point you to off the top of my head from the ones you posted as good sources of moral theology – so I know you will have it is the the one from Germain Grisez – go look it up in the second volume pg 642.

others may find it online here: twotlj.org/G-2-9-E.htmlsection 1 h iii

The role of the female orgasm in procreation is still very poorly understood (as are many things about the human body!). There is some evidence that the female orgasm does play a role during or after intercourse, that facilitates fertility.

It would be the height of irony for Mr. Conte if research did conclusively prove that the female orgasm even after intercourse improved the odds of conception.

Personally I think we know so little that we in fact increase the danger of erring by getting down to this level of detail within the marital act.

I think morally, we should just say “whatever works for you, is ordered towards procreation, and doesn’t affront your dignity” and leave it at that.

I am sure that Mr. Conte’s wedding night will be very interesting indeed if he sticks to his very unsound theories…

 

[Ron_Conte]

I will not carry over the discussion from any of the sexual ethics threads into this discussion. Here the topic is how to determine which acts are moral under general principles: the three fonts, the love of God and neighbor, the positive and negative precepts, etc.

I don’t consider anyone to have a sound understanding of Catholic ethics unless they have studied Veritatis Splendor.

When any poster makes personal remarks about me or uncharitable comments, I ignore that persons posts.

Ron, perhaps you could talk a little about how to determine *what *the moral object is.

Yes, I will discuss that point. There are three fonts of morality. Each is a type of end.

The first font is the intended end, i.e. the purpose for which the act was chosen.

The third font is the end result of the chosen act, i.e. the consequences. Our knowledge of past and present allows us to reasonably anticipate the consequnces, good and bad, of a chosen act.

The third font is the chosen act itself. Every knowingly chosen (deliberately chosen; intentionally chosen) act has an inherent moral meaning; this is the essential moral nature of the act. In moral theology, it is called the ‘moral species’ of the act. This inherent moral meaning is the type of act in terms of morality.

For example, there are an endless number of different ways to commit theft. Yet they are all called theft because all these very different acts have the same moral nature, i.e. the same meaning in terms of morality before the eyes of God.

Now this inherent moral meaning is determined by its moral object. The moral object is the end in terms of morality toward which the act itself is inherently ordered. Every knowingly chosen act is inherently directed at an end in terms of morality – not the intended end, and not the end result. This end is the moral object, and it is the sole determinant of the morality of the second font.

To determine the moral object, determine the end toward which the act is inherently ordered.

Examples:

murder is inherently ordered toward the deprivation of life of an innocent person

theft is inherently ordered toward the deprivation of good from your neighbor

lying is inherently ordered toward the deprivation of truth from an assertion

When any moral object lacks a good (i.e. is deprived of a good) required by the love of God and neighbor, then the moral object is evil.

When any moral object has no such deprivation, but is a particular fulfillment of the love of God and neighbor, then the moral object is good.

 

[PaulinVA]

To determine the moral object, determine the end toward which the act is inherently ordered.

Examples:

murder is inherently ordered toward the deprivation of life of an innocent person

theft is inherently ordered toward the deprivation of good from your neighbor

lying is inherently ordered toward the deprivation of truth from an assertion

When any moral object lacks a good (i.e. is deprived of a good) required by the love of God and neighbor, then the moral object is evil.

When any moral object has no such deprivation, but is a particular fulfillment of the love of God and neighbor, then the moral object is good.

Let’s go to Haiti. There is a person there ransacking a store to find food for his family.

Is this theft that is ordered toward depriving his neighbor of good? Does the man have to identify the owner of the store, know that he is alive, and wants the things being taken to eat?

This is morality in the real world. Is this person stealing?

This isn’t a trick question - I really am interested. By labeling the action “theft” instead of “taking” or whatever, you are giving a pejorative connotation to the act, and the conclusion is forgone.

Same with “murder”. Shouldn’t the action be “taking of a life”? You determine if it is murder (which is always wrong) by applying the moral object, right?

 

[Bookcat]

I don’t consider anyone to have a sound understanding of Catholic ethics unless they have studied Veritatis Splendor.

are you kidding me?

one may have a sound understanding of Catholic ethics without having studied that particular document.

not everyone has to have a degree in theology or have tackeled that document or even read it…to have a sound understanding of Catholic ethics or morality.

this is NOT the thinking of the Catholic Church on this matter…

a good knowledge of even the Catechism can give even a sound understanding …

and besides Veritatis Splendor was NOT addressed to everyone…it was addressed solely to the Bishops. Of course Moral Theologians need to study it and others who study theology it would be one to study…but not everyone can do this…nor does the Church expect them to.

(though i was reading it as soon as it came out…long before i got my degree in theology from steubenville…so it can be understood…do not take me wrong )

 

[Bookcat]

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

 

[Bookcat]

Let’s go to Haiti. There is a person there ransacking a store to find food for his family.

Is this theft that is ordered toward depriving his neighbor of good? Does the man have to identify the owner of the store, know that he is alive, and wants the things being taken to eat?

This is morality in the real world. Is this person stealing?

This isn’t a trick question - I really am interested. By labeling the action “theft” instead of “taking” or whatever, you are giving a pejorative connotation to the act, and the conclusion is forgone.

Same with “murder”. Shouldn’t the action be “taking of a life”? You determine if it is murder (which is always wrong) by applying the moral object, right?

Ron is correct here. Murder is a moral object as is theft.

the taking of food when needed which is unreasonbly being withheld from you …is simply NOT the moral object called ‘theft’.

nor is the killing in needed self defense the moral object called ‘murder’.

it is not murder . it is not theft. but something different from these.

you see it is a different thing. like apples and carrots.

also it is NOT the circumstances here that makes the change – it so not that murder is ok or theft is ok under particular circumstances…it is that these actions are simply NOT murder or theft. they do not fit the definitions. they are different moral objects.

 

[PaulinVA]

Ron is correct here. Murder is a moral object as is theft.

the taking of food when needed which is unreasonably being withheld from you …is simply NOT the moral object called ‘theft’.

…

also it is NOT the circumstances here that makes the change – it so not that murder is ok or theft is ok under particular circumstances…it is that these actions are simply NOT murder or theft. they do not fit the definitions. they are different moral objects.

Okay, so you agree that it isn’t theft to ‘take’ food from someone during a disaster, even if that someone owns the food?

In that case, yes, murder is always wrong. Theft is always wrong.

Busy day at work. More later.

 

[Bookcat]

yes.

it is not ‘theft’.

Catechism

2408 The seventh commandment forbids theft, that is, usurping another’s property against the reasonable will of the owner. **There is no theft **if consent can be presumed or if refusal is contrary to reason and the universal destination of goods. This is the case in obvious and urgent necessity when the only way to provide for immediate, essential needs (food, shelter, clothing . . .) is to put at one’s disposal and use the property of others.190

it is ‘not’ murder

Catechism

2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is **not guilty of murder **even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow…

---

theft and murder are always wrong.

the circumstances do not change murder or theft into not murder or not theft…

the acts described here are simply ‘not murder…not theft’ by definition…the moral objects are different.

 

[Ron_Conte]

Let’s go to Haiti. There is a person there ransacking a store to find food for his family.

Is this theft that is ordered toward depriving his neighbor of good? Does the man have to identify the owner of the store, know that he is alive, and wants the things being taken to eat?

This is morality in the real world. Is this person stealing?

This isn’t a trick question - I really am interested. By labeling the action “theft” instead of “taking” or whatever, you are giving a pejorative connotation to the act, and the conclusion is forgone.

Same with “murder”. Shouldn’t the action be “taking of a life”? You determine if it is murder (which is always wrong) by applying the moral object, right?

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.