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.

Outlines

00:00

🚫 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.

05:00

🔍 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.

Keywords

💡Moral Act

A moral act refers to a human action that can be evaluated as right or wrong based on ethical standards. In the video, the theme revolves around evaluating moral acts to determine their goodness or evilness. The script discusses how different systems evaluate moral acts, emphasizing that a comprehensive evaluation requires considering more than just consequences or intentions.

💡Consequences

Consequences are the outcomes or results of an action. The video script mentions that evaluating a moral act based solely on its consequences is insufficient. It argues that while consequences are part of the evaluation, they do not constitute the whole moral act, especially when dealing with intrinsically evil acts where no good consequence can justify the act.

💡Intentions

Intentions refer to the motives or purposes behind an action. The script points out that while intentions are important, they are only one aspect of evaluating a moral act. Good intentions cannot make an intrinsically evil act morally right, highlighting the complexity of moral evaluation.

💡Intrinsically Evil

Intrinsically evil acts are those that are morally wrong by their very nature, regardless of the consequences or the intentions of the actor. The video gives examples such as rape and slavery, stating that no good outcome or intention can justify these acts, making them always morally wrong.

💡Moral Object

The moral object refers to the act itself when evaluating its morality. The video script emphasizes that some acts are intrinsically wrong, and this is the moral object of the act. It is one of the 'three wheels' of the moral act's tricycle analogy, indicating that the nature of the act itself is crucial in moral evaluation.

💡Circumstances

Circumstances are the conditions or context in which an act is performed. According to the video, while good circumstances cannot make an evil act good, they can make it worse. Circumstances are one of the three aspects considered in the moral evaluation of an act, along with the moral object and intentions.

💡Euthanasia

Euthanasia, also referred to as 'mercy killing' in the script, is the deliberate ending of a life to relieve pain and suffering. It is presented as an example of an intrinsically evil act where even good intentions and consequences (like relieving pain) cannot justify the act of directly killing an innocent person.

💡Abortion

Abortion is mentioned in the script as an example of an intrinsically evil act. It is stated that no consequence or outcome can justify intentionally killing an innocent person, which in this case would be the unborn child, making it always morally wrong according to the video's perspective.

💡Contraception

Contraception is cited in the video as another example of an intrinsically evil act. It suggests that the use of contraception is morally wrong regardless of the intentions or consequences, aligning with the Catholic Church's teachings as mentioned in the script.

💡Virtues and Vices

Virtues and vices are character traits or habits that are respectively morally good or bad. The video script hints at future discussions on virtues and vices, suggesting that they play a role in understanding what makes a moral act good or bad, and how individuals can cultivate moral behavior.

💡Tricycle Analogy

The tricycle analogy is used in the script to illustrate that a moral act requires three 'wheels' or components to be considered good: the moral object, circumstances, and intentions. If any of these components are 'flat' or bad, the act itself is morally wrong, emphasizing the need for a holistic approach to moral evaluation.

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