Three Aspects of a Moral Act

Summary

This video from the Fisherman's Net explores the criteria for evaluating moral acts. It critiques approaches focusing solely on consequences or intentions as incomplete. The presenter introduces the concept of the 'moral object' and explains that some acts are intrinsically evil, such as rape and slavery, and cannot be justified by any outcome or intention. The video also discusses the importance of considering the circumstances and motives of an act to determine its morality, using euthanasia as an example where good intentions don't justify an intrinsically evil act.

Takeaways

• 🔍 Evaluating a moral act involves considering three key components: the moral object, circumstances, and intentions.
• 🚫 The moral object refers to the act itself and is considered intrinsically evil if it is wrong regardless of consequences or intentions.
• 🌰 Examples of intrinsically evil acts include rape, racial slavery, abortion, contraception, and euthanasia.
• 🤔 Circumstances of an act can make an evil action worse but cannot make it good; they do not justify an intrinsically evil act.
• 💡 Good intentions cannot make an intrinsically evil act morally right; the end does not justify the means.
• 🛑 If the moral object (the act itself) is evil, there is no need to consider motives or outcomes as the act is already morally wrong.
• 🤝 Intentions or motives are important for evaluating the morality of an act that is not intrinsically evil; bad intentions can turn a good act into an evil one.
• 💸 An act like giving to charity can be lessened in goodness or turned evil by intentions such as pride or vainglory.
• 🏥 The example of euthanasia (mercy killing) illustrates the complexity of evaluating moral acts, where good intentions and consequences do not justify the act itself.
• 📚 The Catholic faith emphasizes looking at the totality of an act to judge its morality, considering what it is, the circumstances, and why it is done.

Q & A

What are the three components necessary for evaluating a moral act according to the video?

The three components for evaluating a moral act are the moral object (the act itself), the circumstances under which the act is done, and the intentions or motives of the person performing the act.

What is meant by the 'moral object' in the context of evaluating a moral act?

The 'moral object' refers to the act itself, independent of the consequences or the intentions of the person performing it. It is the inherent nature of the act that determines if it is good or evil.

Can you provide an example of an intrinsically evil act mentioned in the video?

An example of an intrinsically evil act mentioned in the video is rape, which is considered wrong regardless of any potential good consequences or the intentions of the perpetrator.

What is the significance of the term 'intrinsically evil' in evaluating moral acts?

The term 'intrinsically evil' signifies acts that are inherently wrong and cannot be justified by any good consequences or intentions, no matter what the circumstances.

How does the concept of 'consequences' factor into the evaluation of a moral act?

While consequences alone cannot justify an intrinsically evil act, they can influence the moral evaluation by potentially making an evil action worse or better depending on the situation.

What role do 'intentions' play in the moral evaluation of an act?

Intentions are important as they can affect the moral evaluation of an act that is not intrinsically evil. Good intentions can enhance a good act, while bad intentions can diminish the goodness or even turn it into an evil act.

Why is it insufficient to evaluate a moral act solely based on its consequences?

Evaluating a moral act solely based on its consequences is insufficient because it ignores the inherent nature of the act itself and the intentions behind it, which are also crucial for moral evaluation.

What is the significance of the 'tricycle' analogy used in the video?

The 'tricycle' analogy is used to illustrate that a moral act requires all three components (moral object, circumstances, intentions) to function properly (be good) for the act to be considered morally good.

Can an act be considered morally good if it has a good intention but is intrinsically evil?

No, an act cannot be considered morally good if it is intrinsically evil, even if it has good intentions. The intrinsic evil of the act itself overrides any good intentions.

What are some examples of intrinsically evil acts provided by the Catholic Church mentioned in the video?

Some examples of intrinsically evil acts provided by the Catholic Church mentioned in the video include intentionally killing an innocent person, abortion, contraception, and euthanasia.

How does the video suggest we should approach the evaluation of euthanasia?

The video suggests that even though euthanasia might have good intentions and consequences (like relieving pain), it is still considered intrinsically evil because it involves directly killing an innocent human being.