Comments on: The Three Integral Parts of a Moral Act (and a bit of fun) http://brotherandre.stblogs.com/2007/08/30/fun-with-moral-theology-the-three-integral-parts-of-a-moral-act/ By Brother André Marie, M.I.C.M. Dedicated to Saint Joseph the Betrothed, Patron and Protector of the Universal Church Sat, 14 Nov 2009 13:54:30 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.1 hourly 1 By: Catholicism.org » Blog Archive » «Ad Rem» N° 44 (9/4/2007): News Items and Site Updates - Saints X and Y http://brotherandre.stblogs.com/2007/08/30/fun-with-moral-theology-the-three-integral-parts-of-a-moral-act/comment-page-1/#comment-239 Catholicism.org » Blog Archive » «Ad Rem» N° 44 (9/4/2007): News Items and Site Updates - Saints X and Y Wed, 30 Jul 2008 23:27:25 +0000 http://brotherandre.stblogs.com/2007/08/30/fun-with-moral-theology-the-three-integral-parts-of-a-moral-act/#comment-239 [...] Local News: St. Benedict Center wins battle Expansion / still faces uphill fight. This is good. Please pray that our “uphill fight” goes [...] [...] Local News: St. Benedict Center wins battle Expansion / still faces uphill fight. This is good. Please pray that our “uphill fight” goes [...]
]]> By: Brother André Marie, M.I.C.M. http://brotherandre.stblogs.com/2007/08/30/fun-with-moral-theology-the-three-integral-parts-of-a-moral-act/comment-page-1/#comment-8 Brother André Marie, M.I.C.M. Sat, 08 Sep 2007 14:03:52 +0000 http://brotherandre.stblogs.com/2007/08/30/fun-with-moral-theology-the-three-integral-parts-of-a-moral-act/#comment-8 Thank you, Don. You make a good point. I was treating the deed of killing a man prescinding from whether it is an act of reason. For St. Thomas, that's a No No. The way St. Thomas explains object, unless it is an unthinking act (e.g., picking up a straw, etc.), it is an act which engages the reason and must therefore be either good or bad in its object. My thinking was this: Because killing a man can be either good or bad in its species, it is therefore a morally neutral object which must be predicated by the end (the intention in the mind) and the circumstances. That, however, is not St. Thomas' explanation. So, to conform to the Angelic Doctor's doctrine, I should restate it this way: The object in this case is actually a GOOD, as you correctly point out, namely, self defense, and not a morally indifferent or neutral object. Thank you for your posting. God bless you and may Our Lady watch over you. Thank you, Don. You make a good point. I was treating the deed of killing a man prescinding from whether it is an act of reason. For St. Thomas, that’s a No No. The way St. Thomas explains object, unless it is an unthinking act (e.g., picking up a straw, etc.), it is an act which engages the reason and must therefore be either good or bad in its object.

My thinking was this: Because killing a man can be either good or bad in its species, it is therefore a morally neutral object which must be predicated by the end (the intention in the mind) and the circumstances. That, however, is not St. Thomas’ explanation.

So, to conform to the Angelic Doctor’s doctrine, I should restate it this way: The object in this case is actually a GOOD, as you correctly point out, namely, self defense, and not a morally indifferent or neutral object.

Thank you for your posting. God bless you and may Our Lady watch over you.

]]> By: Don Flynn http://brotherandre.stblogs.com/2007/08/30/fun-with-moral-theology-the-three-integral-parts-of-a-moral-act/comment-page-1/#comment-7 Don Flynn Sat, 08 Sep 2007 04:06:04 +0000 http://brotherandre.stblogs.com/2007/08/30/fun-with-moral-theology-the-three-integral-parts-of-a-moral-act/#comment-7 At first glance, it seems that the object of the act in Scenario Two and Scenario Three is to kill a human person. This might be a species of the genus of "to kill"; however, if we recall the words of St Thomas (Q. 18 Art. 9, Art. 10 Pt. I-II) a circumstance can become a principle condition of the object and specify the action. This would seem to permit us to add more notes to the species of the object and say that the object of the act is to kill an unjust aggressor in self-defense in a life and death situation. We have a natural right to self defense and, if certain conditions are met, to use force as necessary; therefore, it would seem that the object of the act in question would not be morally indifferent but would have a clear moral dimension. An important question appears to be: Does not the moral act of self defense depicted in Scenario Two and Three pertain to the order of reason and, therefore, would not the words of St Thomas apply when he states that no individual action is indifferent? It is understood that St Thomas first recognizes acts of man and acts not pertaining to the order of reason (such as to pick up a straw from the ground) as being indifferent according to their species. Clearly, an act of self-defense does not fall into these categories. (Q. 18 Art. 8 and Art. 9 Pt. I-II) This appears to argue that the object in the two scenarios is not a morally neutral act. Finally, I may be reading the essay incorrectly and I may fail to properly understand the words of the Summa. If this is the case, a correction would be appreciated. At first glance, it seems that the object of the act in Scenario Two and Scenario Three is to kill a human person. This might be a species of the genus of “to kill”; however, if we recall the words of St Thomas (Q. 18 Art. 9, Art. 10 Pt. I-II) a circumstance can become a principle condition of the object and specify the action. This would seem to permit us to add more notes to the species of the object and say that the object of the act is to kill an unjust aggressor in self-defense in a life and death situation. We have a natural right to self defense and, if certain conditions are met, to use force as necessary; therefore, it would seem that the object of the act in question would not be morally indifferent but would have a clear moral dimension.

An important question appears to be: Does not the moral act of self defense depicted in Scenario Two and Three pertain to the order of reason and, therefore, would not the words of St Thomas apply when he states that no individual action is indifferent? It is understood that St Thomas first recognizes acts of man and acts not pertaining to the order of reason (such as to pick up a straw from the ground) as being indifferent according to their species. Clearly, an act of self-defense does not fall into these categories. (Q. 18 Art. 8 and Art. 9 Pt. I-II) This appears to argue that the object in the two scenarios is not a morally neutral act.

Finally, I may be reading the essay incorrectly and I may fail to properly understand the words of the Summa. If this is the case, a correction would be appreciated.

]]>