CatholicPlanet.Net discussion group  

Go Back   CatholicPlanet.Net discussion group > Catholic Continuing Education > Teaching Series - moral theology
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #21  
Old 8th May 2009, 01:55 PM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,592
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sammy View Post
#2. An intention or act cannot be immoral. The consequences can be weighed, so we have some wiggle room in the 3rd font. As long as the 3rd font is not greater in immorality, more than 50%, it does not spoil the morality of the entire act. I would guess neutrality in the consequences would be acceptable and not negate the morality of the intention and act.

the intention and the act are moral; the bad consequences do not outweigh the good, so the overall act is moral.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 9th May 2009, 11:14 AM
VKallin VKallin is offline
supporting member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: North Port, Florida
Posts: 601
Default Possibly 1 and 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Conte View Post
Which of the following acts are moral?

1. a good act, done with only good intention, but where the bad consequences outweigh the good consequences

2. a good act, done with only good intention, but where the bad consequences and the good consequences are of equal moral weight

3. a small lie told with the best of intentions, in order to avoid dire harmful consequences

4. a good act with only good consequences but with selfish intention

It seems to me that if the intent is good and the act itself is good, than a bad result would be unintended,or an accident. Would God hold us accountable for that? Maybe poor judgement might be our responsibiolity in these situations.

Last edited by VKallin : 9th May 2009 at 11:15 AM. Reason: correction
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 9th May 2009, 11:57 AM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,592
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VKallin View Post
It seems to me that if the intent is good and the act itself is good, than a bad result would be unintended,or an accident. Would God hold us accountable for that? Maybe poor judgement might be our responsibiolity in these situations.

If the third font is bad, the overall act is immoral. If a person knowingly chooses a good act with good intention, but also knowing that the bad consequences of the act outweigh any good consequences, then the act is a sin.

We are morally responsible for the reasonably foreseeable consequences of our knowingly chosen acts.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 9th May 2009, 01:42 PM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,592
Default

The first font of morality is the intention of the subject (the person who acts). The person intends a particular end, by a particular means. The moral object is the end toward which the act itself inherently tends. It is sometimes difficult to distinguish between these two types of ends. The intended end of the subject has no effect at all on the end toward which the act is intrinsically directed. Although often the intended end and the moral object are the same, a change in intention does not change the moral object.

Example: A person intends to relieve the suffering of another person by means of an act of euthanasia. The end intended by the person is relief of suffering. But for all acts of euthanasia, the moral object, i.e. the end toward which the act itself inherently tends, is the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being. Euthanasia does not take its moral object from the intention of the person.

No act ever derives its moral object from the intention of the person who acts, but only and always from the end toward which the knowingly chosen act itself inherently tends. If an intrinsically evil act is used for a good purpose (i.e. a good intended end), the moral object of that act remains intrinsically evil and always immoral. Similarly, the moral object is never derived from the circumstances, such that the same act would have a different moral object in a different circumstance. The moral object is solely determined by the end toward which the act inherently tends, independent of the intention of the person and independent of the circumstances.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 12th May 2009, 12:17 PM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,592
Default

Is this clear? Any questions on this point?

The moral object is the end toward which the act is inherently ordered. Even if the act never obtains that end, the act is nevertheless ordered toward that moral object. Therefore, the moral object is not merely an extrinsic end sought by the act. The moral object is inherent to the act itself. When an act is ordered toward an evil moral object, that act is intrinsically morally disordered. An act possesses its moral object, even when it does not attain its moral object, by being directed or aimed toward that object as toward an end.

Analogy: An arrow is aimed toward a target, just as an act is aimed toward its moral object. Even if the arrow does not reach its target, the arrow nevertheless possesses its target because it is directed or aimed at that target. Thus every act has a moral object, even acts that never achieve the end toward which they are inherently aimed.

An act is inherently good if the object of the act is good, i.e. capable of being ordered toward God as our ultimate end. An act is inherently bad (intrinsically evil) if the object of the act is bad, i.e. incapable of being ordered toward God as our ultimate end. The end toward which the act is ordered is the moral object; but the moral object is also the inherent ordering of the act toward that end. Thus the moral object determines whether the act is intrinsically good or intrinsically evil.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 12th May 2009, 01:53 PM
Truthseeker Truthseeker is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 271
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Conte View Post
You are generally correct.

first font: intended end is good, but intended means (lying/deception) is bad; so the first font is bad. Any bad intention offends God.

second font: lying is intrinsically evil, so the second font is bad.

third font: the good outweighs the bad consequences, so the third font is good.

All three fonts must be good for the act to be moral, so this act is immoral.


Hi Ron. Let us take a case were a Husband cheats on his Wife. Should he tell the wife he did cheat or in order to save the marriage it is better that he hides the fact or denies the fact when asked to ? I think this is the current state of direction given by most confessors. To deny the fact in order to save the marriage and also because one has a right to safeguard his goodname.
__________________
For this was I born, and for this came I into the world; that I should give testimony to the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice. (Jh:18:37)
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 12th May 2009, 02:08 PM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,592
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Truthseeker View Post
Hi Ron. Let us take a case were a Husband cheats on his Wife. Should he tell the wife he did cheat or in order to save the marriage it is better that he hides the fact or denies the fact when asked to ? I think this is the current state of direction given by most confessors. To deny the fact in order to save the marriage and also because one has a right to safeguard his goodname.

Lying is never moral. This is the definitive teaching of the Church, and it is not an open question.

The husband who has cheated in the past cannot lie for any reason (not for any intention or purpose) because lying is intrinsically evil. Lying is immoral per se, in and of itself, regardless of intention or circumstances.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 14th May 2009, 11:51 AM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,592
Default

Completion of an act does not determine its morality.

Suppose that a man chooses to commit murder by firing a gun at an innocent person. The concrete act that he has chosen, firing a gun at a person, is intrinsically evil because it is inherently ordered toward the end or moral object of the direct and voluntary killing an innocent human being. The moral object is a particular type of end, it is the end or object of the act in terms of morality.

Now consider two cases:

(1) The man fails in killing the intended target.
(2) The man succeeds in killing the intended target.

Although the first case is attempted murder, and the second case is a completed act of murder, the moral object chosen by the person is the same, and so both acts are intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:02 AM.


Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.