These rules also largely apply to use of force in personal defense.
154
The other reason(s), why I swing a bat, may be many and complex. The circumstances of an act, are basically for the sake of organizationally convenience. If “circumstances” were sub-divided, it would make no difference, since all factors, be it three, four, five or more, must be legitimate in order for the act to be legitimate. Of course, since “circumstances” are all other elements, they may be extensive in number and may have multiple reasons. I may hit a baseball because I am obligated to do my best (legitimate), while attempting a photo shoot for my own vanity (illegitimate), and increasing my paycheck (legitimate).
The circumstances are all other components, including the surrounding circumstances of the action, and the reasonably estimated results. We shall study the principle of double effect, which allows for both good and bad results.
Circumstances are matters such as: who, what, where, when, proportion, extent of good or evil produced.
For an act to be morally good, all willed components must be good. Any willed component that is bad, makes the entire action bad. There are no exceptions to this rule, but we shall see that bad elements that are not willed, may be allowed.
If we were to do some shifting of categories, it would not make any real difference. If we were to make “to kill” the object, and add the circumstances “an innocent person, deliberately”, we would have the act of murder, which is “to kill an innocent person, deliberately.” The willed circumstances make the act bad.
If we were to make “murder” the object, then the act is
bad from the beginning and no other factors will make it good.
Regardless of the categories that we place a moral element in, all must be good for the act to be good, and one bad element 155
makes the entire act bad. An act is good only if all willed elements, (regardless) of classification or order are good.122
The object, the end or intention, and the circumstances
make up the "sources," or constitutive elements, of the
morality of human acts.
_______________________________________
In Catholic moral theology, the object is defined to the point of its real moral significance. If our speaking is really lying, then we use lying as the moral object, rather than speaking. The intended end of lying which is to communicate a falsehood, makes “lying” rather than “speaking” the object.123 Using different terms or even identifying additional elements in an act makes no real difference, whatever the terms, and in whatever category the elements are placed, they must all be good for the act to be good.
If instead of three elements in a moral act (as taught in the catechism), we could define five; it would make no real 122 It is doctrine that circumstances cannot make an inherently bad act into a good act. But if the act is bad because of the circumstances, one may and should change the circumstances from bad to good, thus making a bad act into a good act.
123 Speaking or communicating a falsehood is not always morally prohibited; by long standing moral custom, we may lie in: self defense, military actions, games, sports, and other circumstances. However,
“Spying” is too broad a category to be included in any moral evaluation.
Spying has customarily included: blackmail, inducing and sustaining addiction, adultery and more, all of which are never legitimate. “Spying”
for instance must be differentiated into specific actions. Military spy observation may be legitimate (by custom), but corporate spying is not legitimate, its theft. One’s personal moral conscience is the final judgment in any decision and action. CCC 1776 – 1794 details the rules of personal obedience of one’s moral conscience, to both do the good and avoid the evil.
156
difference, now all five elements of the moral act must be good for the moral act to be good. We might define the five elements as, (1) motive, (2) object or means, (3) intended result or goal, (4) all reasonably foreseen results, (5) circumstances.
These two new elements — motive and reasonably
foreseen results — are not really new, they always existed in the traditional three element explanation. Motive was part of the “end”, and “reasonably foreseen results” were part of the circumstances.
The commonly held idea that “the end justifies the means”, is incorrect. The end may propose the means, but the end in itself does not justify the means. It should be restated as, “a good end, object and circumstances justifies the act.”
For an act to be good, all elements of the act must be good.
The idea that the end justifies the means, has one element of the moral act justifying another element. The three moral elements of an act do not justify each other; the act is justified by all elements of the act being good.
Another commonly stated moral axiom is “what is best, is
right.” This idea occurs in every moral code, including Catholicism. But the true evaluation of what is best, and therefore right, must include the afterlife, and the principle of spiritual efficacy.124 In Catholic moral theology, “what is best”, is the reunion of the individual with God. Therefore anything that impedes this reunion cannot be the best course of action.125
124 Spiritual efficacy is the principle that even immaterial actions are real, with real effects. When we: pray, think, emote, hate, love, lust, regard or disregard, we are making real activity, which has extended, real effect.
125 The idea that God does not sufficiently inform humans of what is evil has a grain of truth. As soon as sin entered into creation, every part of creation was damaged, including our ability to discern right from wrong.
157