[PHOTO] Himanshu Gunarathna at Pixabay
Rev José Mario O Mandía
We have studied both objective norms (moral law) and subjective norms (conscience) of morality. The next question is: what aspects of an action (“action” can also mean “thoughts,” “desires,” “attitudes”) should the conscience examine to determine whether it is good or bad? If a person means well, if his intention or motive (in Latin, finis operantis) is good, is that enough to qualify an action as “good”?
Like, if someone takes my money without asking, and his intention is to help another person in need, would we consider that a good act? Perhaps not. Saint Bernard of Clairvaux (1090-1153) said, “L’enfer est plein de bonnes volontés ou désirs” (“Hell is full of good wishes or desires”). So if good intentions are not enough, what other elements of an action should we take into account?
(1) The action itself seems important for determining whether an act is good or bad. For instance, if someone takes my money without asking my permission, I would consider his act “bad,” even if he meant to give my money to someone in need. So, aside from the intention of the person doing the action, the action itself must be considered. In ethics, this is also called the (moral) object or end of the act (in Latin, finis operis). The end or object is the prime determinant of an action, the first thing we need to consider when judging the goodness or evil of an act.
(2) How about the intention? How does it affect the action? The intention of the person acting (finis operantis) can make an action more (or less) good, or more (or less) evil. However, a good intention can never turn an action that is evil in itself into a good action.
The morality of an action (finis operis) is affected by the intention (finis operantis). For instance, giving alms in order show off is different from giving alms to help another person, and both are different from giving alms to give glory to God. The first action may not be so good, the other one is better, but the third act is the best among the three.
(3) Furthermore, we must also consider the circumstances that surround the action. The circumstances include the who, or what, or when, where or how.
In some cases we need to consider who it is doing the action. It is different if the person who lies is a child or a government official. It is not the same to kill a man who can defend himself and to slaughter a defenceless and innocent baby in the womb.
We may also have to ask to whom the act is done. It is different to steal $20 from a millionaire and the same amount from a beggar.
We might have to ask what is involved (the quantity or the quality of the object). For example, theft of a sacred object is more grave than theft of something not used for worship, even if both are of the same monetary value.
When or how long the thing was done also affects the goodness and evil of an act. To be angry at another person for a moment is not the same as to be angry with him for five days.
Where the action took place may alter the morality: a sin committed in public view is different from a sin in private.
The means used or the manner in which the action was done also affects the action. One can correct another either rudely or gently.
Other circumstances can also alter the goodness of the action. For example: to work is a good thing. But to work even when the circumstances are not so favorable (e.g., the weather is hot, or one is sleepy or tired, or the boss is unreasonable) adds value to the action itself.
Follow
