Editor’s Note: This lesson on medical-moral issues is taken from the book Catholicism & Ethics. Please feel free to use the series for high schoolers or adults. We will continue to welcome your questions for the column as well. Contact information is included at the bottom of this column.
Special Course On Catholicism And Ethics (Pages 23-27)
Human actions involve the use of the intellect and the will. Every human act derives its morality from three elements: the act itself, the purpose of the act, and the circumstances surrounding the act. The act itself, or the object of the act, is “the primary and decisive element for moral judgment,” said Pope St. John Paul II, because it “establishes whether it is capable of being ordered to the good and to the ultimate end, which is God” (Veritatis Splendor, n. 79). The act of visiting a sick person would seem to be, on the face of it, a morally good act. But if the purpose of the visit is to steal something, then it would be a bad act. When the police arrive at the scene of a reported crime, such as a burglary, they are forced to make a hasty judgment based upon the act itself. If they saw you strolling leisurely in the vicinity of the burglary, they would have no apparent reason to arrest you, although they might want to question you about your knowledge of what happened. But if they saw you running from the scene, they would have good reason to think that you had done something wrong and to pursue you.
The second element in determining the morality of an act is the purpose of the act, or the reason why the act is performed. In other words, it involves the intention of the one performing the act. For example, a man lies about a doctor for the purpose of destroying the doctor’s reputation. A doctor lies to a patient because he fears the truth will disturb the patient’s peace of mind. In each case, a lie was told, but obviously the guilt is radically different. Why? Because of the intention of the agent.
It is important, however, to remember that the purpose will not always change the morality of an action because some acts are intrinsically evil, that is, evil by their nature. For example, abortion is the unjust taking of an innocent human life and it can never be morally right. Those in favor of abortion may argue that the act had a good purpose, such as preserving the health of the mother or sparing her the consequences of a pregnancy resulting from rape or incest, but killing the baby is still wrong. Why should a child be killed because of the evil actions of the father?
The third element is the circumstances surrounding the act. This refers to those factors, distinct from the act itself and the purpose of the act, which may affect its morality. Setting fire to a house is wrong, but doing it at night is worse because the occupants are sleeping and are more likely to perish. Murder, however evil, is so commonplace these days that the average killing causes little public excitement. But if someone were to murder the President of the United States while he was delivering the State of the Union Address, there would be universal condemnation of the murderer. The basis fact is the same — a man was killed — but the circumstances are dramatically different.
So, too, in the case of school shootings and terrorist bombings where many people are killed. The death toll in these cases is not much different from the weekend fatalities in a large city, but the circumstances often provoke a nationwide outcry because of the age of the victims or the brutality of the attack. When judging the morality of a specific action, some fundamental principles must be applied. Here are four principles:
First, an act is morally good if the act itself, the purpose of the act, and the circumstances of the act are substantially good. We say “substantially” because an act may have minor defects and still be morally good. A person who declines to steal from an employer more out of fear of being caught than because stealing is wrong performs a good act, but not for the best of motives.
Second, if an act is intrinsically wrong, it is not allowable regardless of purpose or circumstances. Murder, abortion, rape, adultery, racism, and slavery are always evil and are never permitted as a solution to a problem.
Third, circumstances may mitigate or aggravate sin. They can change an indifferent act into a morally sinful one. Striking a match is an indifferent act, striking it in the presence of an explosive may be suicide or murder or both. To use obscene language is wrong; to do it in front of children adds the sin of scandal. Sex between two unmarried persons (fornication) is a mortal sin; sex between married persons not married to each other (adultery) is a mortal sin since it violates the virtue of chastity, but adultery also sins against the fidelity of the marriage bond. Stealing five dollars is ordinarily a venial sin; stealing five dollars from a poor person is a serious sin.
Fourth, if all three moral elements are good, the act is good. If any one element is evil, the entire act is evil. If a reservoir is fed by three streams, and one is polluted, the reservoir is polluted. A more extensive discussion of these principles can be found in paragraphs 71-83 of Veritatis Splendor and in articles 1749-1761 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Please Use The Words Below To Answer The Questions (pp. 23-27):
ABORTION
ADULTERY
CIRCUMSTANCES
EVIL
GOOD
INTELLECT
JOHN PAUL II
MONEY
MORALITY
POLLUTED
PURPOSE
WILL
WRONG
Quiz
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress