CHAPTER 6CHAPTER 6

MORALITY AND ACTIONMORALITY AND ACTION

INTRODUCTIONINTRODUCTION

The human life compared to a painting The human life compared to a painting on a canvason a canvas

The sins of Adam and EveThe sins of Adam and Eve

a) They chose not to serve Goda) They chose not to serve God

b) They decided what was supposedly b) They decided what was supposedly good or evilgood or evil

Oscar Wilde’s “The Picture of Dorian Oscar Wilde’s “The Picture of Dorian Gray”Gray”

1. Human Acts1. Human Acts

It is good to remind ourselves that only It is good to remind ourselves that only humans are capable of making moral humans are capable of making moral choices.choices.

This is made possible through the intellect This is made possible through the intellect and will.and will.

We must make a distinction between We must make a distinction between human actshuman acts and the and the acts of humans.acts of humans.

Human acts are all acts that involve intellect and will; Human acts are all acts that involve intellect and will; could be good or evil.could be good or evil.

Acts of humans are: breathing, sneezing, and actions Acts of humans are: breathing, sneezing, and actions such as those.such as those.

2. Components of the Moral 2. Components of the Moral ChoiceChoice

Morally good actions have certain Morally good actions have certain requirements. To be able to requirements. To be able to determine in all cases whether a determine in all cases whether a choice being considered is moral, it is choice being considered is moral, it is necessary to understand what is necessary to understand what is meant meant by the object, the by the object, the intention, and the circumstances intention, and the circumstances of a particular action.of a particular action.

A. The ObjectA. The Object

Objects of moral choices are the actions Objects of moral choices are the actions done. There are some actions which are done. There are some actions which are always immoral, so they may never be always immoral, so they may never be done.done.

The The object object is the matter of a human act or is the matter of a human act or the action itself. The object determines the action itself. The object determines the morality of an act.the morality of an act.

Ex. Adultery is always evil by its object, Ex. Adultery is always evil by its object, independently of the purpose of the one who independently of the purpose of the one who does it. So, when the moral object is in itself does it. So, when the moral object is in itself an absolute evil, the action in question is an an absolute evil, the action in question is an intrinsically evil act.intrinsically evil act.

B. The Intention or EndB. The Intention or End

The intention refers to the motive for which an The intention refers to the motive for which an act is done. Bad intentions can change good act is done. Bad intentions can change good acts into sinful actions. A bad intention has the acts into sinful actions. A bad intention has the power to change the result into something evil. power to change the result into something evil. Actions which have both an evil object and an Actions which have both an evil object and an evil intention increase the malice (seriousnessevil intention increase the malice (seriousness

of sin).of sin). On the other hand, a good intention can reduce On the other hand, a good intention can reduce

the guilt of a morally bad act, but it cannot the guilt of a morally bad act, but it cannot make an intrinsically evil act a good act. make an intrinsically evil act a good act.

C. CircumstancesC. Circumstances

The word circumstance comes from the The word circumstance comes from the Latin Latin circum-starecircum-stare, which means “what , which means “what stands around”. stands around”.

They are those factors that occur with the They are those factors that occur with the act and that contribute to the morality of act and that contribute to the morality of the act.the act.

Another way to explain the circumstancesAnother way to explain the circumstances is to say they describe each particular is to say they describe each particular

moral choice. Circumstances ask who, moral choice. Circumstances ask who, what, where, why, how, and when. what, where, why, how, and when.

Cont…Cont…

Circumstances can change the morality of Circumstances can change the morality of particular acts. Sometimes they can make particular acts. Sometimes they can make what would be a venial sin a mortal sin. what would be a venial sin a mortal sin. Actions which are evil in every instance, i.e. Actions which are evil in every instance, i.e. abortion and getting drunk, are called abortion and getting drunk, are called intrinsically evil acts.intrinsically evil acts.

The word intrinsically indicates they are evil The word intrinsically indicates they are evil from the very nature of the act. These acts from the very nature of the act. These acts are always wrong regardless of the are always wrong regardless of the circumstances. circumstances.

3. The Principle of Double 3. The Principle of Double EffectEffect

Some acts have the potential to Some acts have the potential to result in both good and evil effects. result in both good and evil effects. In certain situations, it is permissible In certain situations, it is permissible to perform a good action while to perform a good action while permitting a consequential evil permitting a consequential evil result. This section sets down the result. This section sets down the conditions which must be met for conditions which must be met for such a situation to be moral. such a situation to be moral.

a. The action must be good in a. The action must be good in itself or at least indifferentitself or at least indifferent

An intrinsically evil action like An intrinsically evil action like abortion is never permissible, even if abortion is never permissible, even if it has a good effect, because it has a good effect, because abortion is always evil in itself. abortion is always evil in itself.

b. The agent must have the b. The agent must have the right intentionright intention

The good effect must be directly The good effect must be directly intended, and the evil effect, although intended, and the evil effect, although foreseen, must not be intended but foreseen, must not be intended but only permitted or tolerated.only permitted or tolerated.

One must never directly intend evil; One must never directly intend evil; rather one allows the evil to occur rather one allows the evil to occur because it cannot be separated from because it cannot be separated from the good intended.the good intended.

c. The evil effect cannot be the c. The evil effect cannot be the means to the good effectmeans to the good effect

The god effect must be the direct The god effect must be the direct result of the action taken, since the result of the action taken, since the end does not justify the means.end does not justify the means.

d. The good effect must d. The good effect must balance the evil effect.balance the evil effect.

When there is a foreseeable evil When there is a foreseeable evil effect of an action, there must be a effect of an action, there must be a proportionately grave reason for proportionately grave reason for action.action.

Consider the example…Consider the example…

4. Objectivity of good and 4. Objectivity of good and evilevil

The denial of the existence of objective The denial of the existence of objective truth has become quite commonplace over truth has become quite commonplace over the last five centuries. This has led to a the last five centuries. This has led to a denial of moral absolutes. It can often be denial of moral absolutes. It can often be heard today in arguments, “You have your heard today in arguments, “You have your truth and I have mine.” However, truth truth and I have mine.” However, truth cannot be in conflict with itself and it is this cannot be in conflict with itself and it is this mentality that leads to a relativistic attitude mentality that leads to a relativistic attitude about morality, which in turn leads to the about morality, which in turn leads to the denial of the existence of intrinsically evil denial of the existence of intrinsically evil acts.acts.

The Historical Argument for The Historical Argument for Moral ObjectivityMoral Objectivity

There are no rational beings who can There are no rational beings who can look back on history and say that the look back on history and say that the Holocaust was just. Likewise, none Holocaust was just. Likewise, none could say that the actions of Mother could say that the actions of Mother Teresa were selfish and cruel. No Teresa were selfish and cruel. No matter how much someone tries to matter how much someone tries to convince himself or herself that all convince himself or herself that all things are subjective, there are definite things are subjective, there are definite elements of human nature that all elements of human nature that all people bear witness to.people bear witness to.

6. Some Errors Derived from 6. Some Errors Derived from Ethical RelativismEthical Relativism

Three types:Three types:

1. Situation Ethics1. Situation Ethics

2. Consequentialism2. Consequentialism

3. Proportionalism3. Proportionalism

1. Situation Ethics1. Situation Ethics

The denial of objective moral truth The denial of objective moral truth results in several erroneous attitudes or results in several erroneous attitudes or mindsets. One of these is situation mindsets. One of these is situation ethics. Situation ethics is a mentality ethics. Situation ethics is a mentality that essentially focuses around not that essentially focuses around not hurting anybody. A proponent of this hurting anybody. A proponent of this mentality would postulate that if your mentality would postulate that if your actions do not cause physical harm to actions do not cause physical harm to someone, then they are morally someone, then they are morally acceptable. acceptable.

Continued…Continued…

Supporters of situation ethics usually Supporters of situation ethics usually restrict their objections to laws relating restrict their objections to laws relating to the sixth commandment, saying to the sixth commandment, saying that sins against this commandment that sins against this commandment “don’t hurt anyone.” It is rare to find a “don’t hurt anyone.” It is rare to find a situationist arguing for the right to situationist arguing for the right to steal, however, because stealing steal, however, because stealing clearly hurts someone.clearly hurts someone.

2. Consequentialism2. Consequentialism

Consequentialism is another erroneous Consequentialism is another erroneous attitude. According to consequentialism, we attitude. According to consequentialism, we should try to avoid totally evil actions when should try to avoid totally evil actions when we can, but if good effects can be produced, we can, but if good effects can be produced, the action may be permitted. The problem the action may be permitted. The problem with this idea is that it leads to immediate with this idea is that it leads to immediate and completeand complete

subjectivism because the person acting will subjectivism because the person acting will always be deciding for himself what is always be deciding for himself what is permissible in different situations.permissible in different situations.

Continued…Continued…

Once this occurs there is no longer Once this occurs there is no longer any notion of right or wrong and any notion of right or wrong and consequentialism becomes no consequentialism becomes no different from complete amorality.different from complete amorality.

3. Proportionalism3. Proportionalism

A third erroneous attitude is A third erroneous attitude is proportionalism. Proportionalism proportionalism. Proportionalism argues that there can be proportional argues that there can be proportional goods which outweigh the evil of an goods which outweigh the evil of an act. Essentially, it maintains that if act. Essentially, it maintains that if the good that results from an act is the good that results from an act is greater than the evil put into the act, greater than the evil put into the act, than the act is justified. than the act is justified.

Continued…Continued…

Like consequentialism, proportionalism Like consequentialism, proportionalism is a mentality that completely denies is a mentality that completely denies objective moral truth and results in objective moral truth and results in immediate subjectivity. The danger in immediate subjectivity. The danger in these erroneous attitudes is that they these erroneous attitudes is that they appear to have a rational basis. In appear to have a rational basis. In reality, however, the basis for such reality, however, the basis for such ideas is usually contingent on how one ideas is usually contingent on how one feels in a particular situation. feels in a particular situation.

Continued…Continued…

Human emotion is far too volatile to be the Human emotion is far too volatile to be the basis for moral decisions. Unfortunately, basis for moral decisions. Unfortunately, decisions that only involve human emotion decisions that only involve human emotion usually result in the choosing of the most usually result in the choosing of the most selfish option. For aselfish option. For a

closer look at these false mentalities, see closer look at these false mentalities, see Veritatis Splendor, the encyclical written Veritatis Splendor, the encyclical written byby

Pope John Paul II in 1993.Pope John Paul II in 1993.