Transcript Religion III Ch 6 notes

CHAPTER 6
MORALITY AND ACTION
INTRODUCTION



The human life compared to a painting on
a canvas
The sins of Adam and Eve
a) They chose not to serve God
b) They decided what was supposedly
good or evil
Oscar Wilde’s “The Picture of Dorian Gray”
1. Human Acts



It is good to remind ourselves that only humans
are capable of making moral choices.
This is made possible through the intellect and
will.
We must make a distinction between human
acts and the acts of humans.


Human acts are all acts that involve intellect and will; could
be good or evil.
Acts of humans are: breathing, sneezing, and actions such as
those.
2. Components of the Moral Choice

Morally good actions have certain
requirements. To be able to determine in
all cases whether a choice being
considered is moral, it is necessary to
understand what is meant by the object,
the intention, and the circumstances
of a particular action.
A. The Object


Objects of moral choices are the actions done.
There are some actions which are always
immoral, so they may never be done.
The object is the matter of a human act or the
action itself. The object determines the morality
of an act.

Ex. Adultery is always evil by its object,
independently of the purpose of the one who does
it. So, when the moral object is in itself an
absolute evil, the action in question is an
intrinsically evil act.
B. The Intention or End


The intention refers to the motive for which an
act is done. Bad intentions can change good
acts into sinful actions. A bad intention has the
power to change the result into something evil.
Actions which have both an evil object and an
evil intention increase the malice (seriousness
of sin).
On the other hand, a good intention can reduce
the guilt of a morally bad act, but it cannot
make an intrinsically evil act a good act.
C. Circumstances



The word circumstance comes from the Latin
circum-stare, which means “what stands
around”.
They are those factors that occur with the act
and that contribute to the morality of the act.
Another way to explain the circumstances
is to say they describe each particular moral
choice. Circumstances ask who, what, where,
why, how, and when.
Cont…


Circumstances can change the morality of
particular acts. Sometimes they can make what
would be a venial sin a mortal sin. Actions which
are evil in every instance, i.e. abortion and
getting drunk, are called intrinsically evil acts.
The word intrinsically indicates they are evil
from the very nature of the act. These acts are
always wrong regardless of the circumstances.
3. The Principle of Double Effect

Some acts have the potential to result in
both good and evil effects. In certain
situations, it is permissible to perform a
good action while permitting a
consequential evil result. This section sets
down the conditions which must be met
for such a situation to be moral.
a. The action must be good in itself
or at least indifferent

An intrinsically evil action like abortion is
never permissible, even if it has a good
effect, because abortion is always evil in
itself.
b. The agent must have the right
intention


The good effect must be directly intended,
and the evil effect, although foreseen,
must not be intended but only permitted
or tolerated.
One must never directly intend evil; rather
one allows the evil to occur because it
cannot be separated from the good
intended.
c. The evil effect cannot be the
means to the good effect

The god effect must be the direct result of
the action taken, since the end does not
justify the means.
d. The good effect must balance
the evil effect.


When there is a foreseeable evil effect of
an action, there must be a proportionately
grave reason for action.
Consider the example…
4. Objectivity of good and evil

The denial of the existence of objective truth
has become quite commonplace over the last
five centuries. This has led to a denial of moral
absolutes. It can often be heard today in
arguments, “You have your truth and I have
mine.” However, truth cannot be in conflict with
itself and it is this mentality that leads to a
relativistic attitude about morality, which in turn
leads to the denial of the existence of
intrinsically evil acts.
The Historical Argument for Moral
Objectivity

There are no rational beings who can look
back on history and say that the Holocaust
was just. Likewise, none could say that
the actions of Mother Teresa were selfish
and cruel. No matter how much someone
tries to convince himself or herself that all
things are subjective, there are definite
elements of human nature that all people
bear witness to.
6. Some Errors Derived from Ethical
Relativism

Three types:
1. Situation Ethics
2. Consequentialism
3. Proportionalism
1. Situation Ethics

The denial of objective moral truth results
in several erroneous attitudes or mindsets.
One of these is situation ethics. Situation
ethics is a mentality that essentially
focuses around not hurting anybody. A
proponent of this mentality would
postulate that if your actions do not cause
physical harm to someone, then they are
morally acceptable.
Continued…

Supporters of situation ethics usually
restrict their objections to laws relating to
the sixth commandment, saying that sins
against this commandment “don’t hurt
anyone.” It is rare to find a situationist
arguing for the right to steal, however,
because stealing clearly hurts someone.
2. Consequentialism

Consequentialism is another erroneous attitude.
According to consequentialism, we should try to
avoid totally evil actions when we can, but if
good effects can be produced, the action may be
permitted. The problem with this idea is that it
leads to immediate and complete
subjectivism because the person acting will
always be deciding for himself what is
permissible in different situations.
Continued…

Once this occurs there is no longer any
notion of right or wrong and
consequentialism becomes no different
from complete amorality.
3. Proportionalism

A third erroneous attitude is
proportionalism. Proportionalism argues
that there can be proportional goods
which outweigh the evil of an act.
Essentially, it maintains that if the good
that results from an act is greater than the
evil put into the act, than the act is
justified.
Continued…

Like consequentialism, proportionalism is a
mentality that completely denies objective
moral truth and results in immediate
subjectivity. The danger in these
erroneous attitudes is that they appear to
have a rational basis. In reality, however,
the basis for such ideas is usually
contingent on how one feels in a particular
situation.
Continued…

Human emotion is far too volatile to be the basis
for moral decisions. Unfortunately, decisions
that only involve human emotion usually result
in the choosing of the most selfish option. For a
closer look at these false mentalities, see
Veritatis Splendor, the encyclical written by
Pope John Paul II in 1993.