Three Aspects of a Moral Act
Summary
TLDRThis 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.
Outlines
🚫 Understanding Moral Acts
The video from Saints Peter and Paul in Naperville Illinois discusses the evaluation of moral acts. It critiques systems that solely consider consequences or intentions, arguing that these are insufficient. The video introduces the concept of the 'moral object', which is the act itself. It explains that some acts are intrinsically evil, such as rape and slavery, and cannot be justified by any consequences or intentions. The video emphasizes that to evaluate a moral act, one must consider three components: the moral object, the circumstances, and the intentions. It concludes by stating that all three components must be good for an act to be considered morally good.
🔍 Evaluating Moral Acts: The Three Components
This paragraph delves deeper into the three components of evaluating a moral act. It explains that while good intentions cannot justify an intrinsically evil act, bad intentions can corrupt an otherwise good act. The paragraph uses the example of giving money to charity, which is a good act, but if done with pride or for vainglory, it can become an act of selfishness. The video then provides an example of euthanasia, or mercy killing, where good intentions and consequences might be present, but the act itself of directly killing an innocent person is intrinsically evil and cannot be justified. The paragraph concludes by reiterating the importance of considering the totality of an act to judge its morality.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Moral Act
💡Consequences
💡Intentions
💡Intrinsically Evil
💡Moral Object
💡Circumstances
💡Euthanasia
💡Abortion
💡Contraception
💡Virtues and Vices
💡Tricycle Analogy
Highlights
Evaluating a moral act involves considering three key components: the moral object, circumstances, and intentions.
A moral act is like a tricycle, needing three functioning wheels to be considered good.
The moral object refers to the act itself, which must be good for the act to be considered morally good.
Intrinsically evil acts are wrong regardless of consequences or intentions, such as rape and racial slavery.
The Catholic Church teaches that intentionally killing an innocent person, such as in abortion, is intrinsically evil.
Contraception and euthanasia are also considered intrinsically evil acts by the Church.
Circumstances of an act can make an evil action worse but not good.
The intention behind an act is crucial; good intentions cannot justify an intrinsically evil act.
However, bad intentions can turn an otherwise good act into an evil one.
An example given is euthanasia, where good intentions and consequences do not justify the act of directly killing an innocent person.
The video emphasizes looking at the totality of an act to judge its morality.
Future videos will explore more aspects of moral acts, including virtues and vices.
The video discusses the insufficiency of systems that evaluate moral acts based solely on consequences or intentions.
Acts that are contrary to human nature or love of God and others are intrinsically evil.
The ends do not justify the means when it comes to intrinsically evil acts.
The video provides a framework for understanding what makes an act morally good or evil.
Transcripts
hello and welcome to another video from
the fisherman's net and Saints Peter and
Paul in Naperville Illinois in these
past videos we've been talking about how
to evaluate a moral act and we saw that
there are some systems or some ways of
evaluating moral acts that are
insufficient so we looked at some ways
of evaluating moral acts that looks a
only at the consequences of an act
doesn't act hurt someone what's the
outcome and if we look solely at the
consequences that's only a piece of a
moral act or other systems look simply
at the intentions of the one acting is
the person acting sincerely again that's
a piece of the moral act but it's not
the whole of the act so we want to ask
in this video well what are the pieces
of evaluating a moral act as either good
or evil and we can say that a moral act
is like a tricycle
we need three parts three wheels that
are all functioning that are all good
for the act itself to be good if any one
of these three wheels is flat or in this
case bad or evil then the act itself is
bad or evil so the one piece that these
other systems really don't take into
account is what's called the moral
object or that is the act itself what is
the act
sark affleck tradition says there are
some acts that in and of themselves
irregardless of consequences
irregardless of the intentions of the
person doing it there are some acts that
are just wrong some acts that are
contrary to our human nature or contrary
to love of God and love of others and
the those acts that are wrong no matter
what
completely independent of consequences
or situations we call those acts
intrinsically evil and for an
intrinsically evil act there's no
consequence
there's no good intention that can make
them right now we all understand this
somewhat intuitively with extreme
examples extreme examples are always the
sometimes the clearest so for instance
rape
there is no consequence
good consequence that could come about
that would make that a good act there is
no intention on the part of the one
perpetrating back that we would say well
that makes it a good act we all see that
that's an intrinsically evil act we
probably all agree on other ones like
racial slavery
there's no good consequence that could
justify that there's no good intention
that could justify that it's an
intrinsically evil act the problem is a
lot of people don't agree on what
constitutes an intrinsically evil act in
our church teaches what some of those
are intentionally killing an innocent
person something like abortion is an
intrinsically evil act no consequence or
outcome can justify it no good intention
can justify it our official
contraception is an intrinsically evil
act another example would be euthanasia
intrinsically evil act so that's one
piece we have to look at we have to look
at it first what is the act itself if
the act is evil in and of itself
intrinsically evil we can stop there we
don't even really need to consider our
motives or what the outcome will be the
ends do not justify the means the act is
evil but a good action we can if we have
a good action a good moral object we
still need to look at two other aspects
we need to look first at the
circumstances and that includes the
consequences right so what are
circumstances of the act circumstances
good circumstances can never make an
evil action good but it can make an evil
action worse for instance theft is an
evil action but depending on who I'm
stealing from and what I'm stealing it
can be made worse those are
circumstances and then for a morally
good act we also need to look at the
motive or the intentions of the one
acting again we can't take an
intrinsically evil act and make it good
with good intentions the end does not
justify the means but we we can actually
take an otherwise good act and lessen
its goodness or even turn it evil by a
bad intention so for instance it's a
good act to give money to charity or to
those in need
but if our intention is not to help
anyone or not out of love of neighbor or
God but really just for pride and
vainglory and to be seen that actually
can lessen the good of the act or even
make it an evil act of selfishness so
again really what to focus on here is
that there are three aspects three tires
on our tricycle of a moral act the
object of the act itself the
circumstances that it's done in and the
intentions or motive of the person and
all three of those need to be good if
any one of those is lacking we don't
have a morally good act so here's an
example where this comes into play
so with euthanasia or sometimes called
mercy killing where there may be on the
part of the the people involved a good
intention we want our relative our loved
one to be out of pain that's a good
intention to want someone to be free
from pain and actually there is there
may be a good consequence of the act of
active euthanasia someone is relieved of
pain now we have to notice also there
are bad concert
Quinn's isn't person dead but we can see
that if we look solely at the intention
or the circumstances the consequences
those can be good but we need to take
into account the act itself of directly
killing another innocent human being and
we would say that that is one of those
intrinsically evil acts that no
consequences or circumstances or
intentions can justify and so that front
tire of our tricycle is already flat so
that's a beginning on how we evaluate
moral acts so there are three components
and our Catholic faith really looks at
the totality of the act what it is the
circumstances of who and how and and
where and then the intentions why we
look at the totality to act to judge its
morality in future videos coming up
we'll look at some more aspects of moral
acts what makes an egg's moral what
doesn't and we'll look at the vices and
virtues so stay tuned for that
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)