Are There Morally Neutral Acts?

[kafka]

In my opinion there is no such things as morally neutral or indifferent acts. Objectively an act in itself is either good or evil, light or dark. A knowingly chosen objective act is evil since it is lacking in good that ought to be present, in accord with the will and plan of God. All acts by all persons ought to be a reflection of the goodness of God. Yet where there is no lack of goodness, there is simply goodness and no neutrality. This idea is supported in Sacred Scripture and the Magisterial teachings especially in regards to the three fonts of morality in addition to the natural law which is open to the reason of every created human person who is able to exercise the faculty.

[b]Sacred Scripture[/b]

Sirach
{15:14} God established man from the beginning, and he left him in the hand of his own counsel.

"God willed to leave man in the power of his own counsel, so that he would seek his Creator of his own accord and would freely arrive at full and blessed perfection by cleaving to God" Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World Gaudium et Spes, 17. We arrive at full and blessed perfection by way of concrete acts which proceed from the will and intellect

{15:15} He added his commandments and precepts.

The commandments are divided into positive and negative precepts. The positive precepts are do this, representing the inherently good acts per se, we are to do, and the negative precepts are do not do that, representing the intrinsically evils acts per se, we are never to do. There are no neutral precepts.

{15:16} If you choose to keep the commandments, and if, having chosen them, you fulfill them with perpetual fidelity, they will preserve you.
{15:17} He has set water and fire before you. Extend your hand to whichever one you would choose.

Water symbolizes baptism, and the cooperation with the state of sanctifying grace infused at baptism by means of good actions. Fire symbolizes a lack of bapstism by means of a mortal sin of ommision for adults, or the rejection of the state of sanctifying grace infused at baptism by means of actual mortal sin without subsequent sincere repentance. One does good to sustain the state of sanctifying grace which is initially a free gift from God, one who rejects baptism or sanctifying grace infused at baptism does evil.

{15:18} Before man is life and death, good and evil. Whichever one he chooses will be given to him.

Life is the state of sancifying grace. Death is the state of actual mortal sin without sincere repentance. Good and evil are before man to choose, neutral is not a choice in this inspired passage of infallible and inerrant Sacred Scripture

and there are many more examples in Sacred Scripture expressing man as able to choose objectively good or evil actions (e.g. the tree of the knowledge of good and evil). Nowhere have I seen it directly or indirectly expressed that man has the a choice of objectively neutral actions.

[b]Magisterium[/b]

Nowhere in Veritatis Splendor, the crowing achievement of Magisterial teaching on moral fundamentals, are morally neutral acts explicitly or implicitly expressed. Rather the moral object of the second font of morality, the objective concrete act in itself, is always said to be good or evil:

"The primary and decisive element for moral judgment is the object of the human act, which establishes whether it is capable of being ordered to the good and to the ultimate end, which is God."

"Reason attests that there are objects of the human act which are by their nature "incapable of being ordered" to God, because they radically contradict the good of the person made in his image. These are the acts which, in the Church's moral tradition, have been termed "intrinsically evil" (intrinsece malum): they are such always and per se, in other words, on account of their very object . . ."

A moral object is either good or evil. A morally neutral act (if it existed) is in itself incapable of being ordered toward the love of God, neighbor, self or the ultimate end: God.

It is clear in Veritatis Splendor and other Magisterial teachings such as the CCC, and some documents of the USCCB that all three fonts must be good for the overall act to be moral.

"A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together." (CCC, n. 1755)

USCCB Catechism: "Every moral act consists of three elements: the objective act (what we do), the subjective goal or intention (why we do the act), and the concrete situation or circumstances in which we perform the act.... All three aspects must be good -- the objective act, the subjective intention, and the circumstances -- in order to have a morally good act." (United States Catholic Catechism for Adults, U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, July 2006, p. 311-312.)

There are three fonts of morality: intention, moral object and circumstance. All three must be positively good for the overall act to be moral. The CCC teaches that the moral object must be good, as does the USCCB. If the second font is neutral how can the overall act be moral if all three aspects must be good? Each font is distinct. Each is indepedent of the other. Together the three make up one overall act. The intention and/or circumstance cannot transform the intrinsic order of an concrete act itself. This is impossible since all three fonts have ends independent of each other. Further on:

“Freedom makes man a moral subject. When he acts deliberately, man is, so to speak, the father of his acts. Human acts, that is, acts that are freely chosen in consequence of a judgment of conscience, can be morally evaluated. They are either good or evil.” (CCC, n. 1749)

“no human act is morally indifferent to one’s conscience or before God” (Congregation for Catholic Education)

[b]Why Do Some Commentators Claim Examples of Morally Neutral Acts?[/b]

Conte comes up with one good answer:

"What some commentators claim as examples of morally neutral acts are merely an act that is not described with sufficient information to determine its moral object. For example, killing in self-defense has a good moral object; murder has an evil moral object. If we consider the ‘act of killing’ without enough information to determine the moral object, this does not imply that killing is morally neutral. An act in moral theology is a knowing choice; if we are not told what that choice is, we cannot determine the moral object. Each and every knowingly chosen act is intrinsically ordered toward either good or evil as its proximate end; this end is its moral object. If the act is described in such a way that its inherent ordering and its moral object cannot be determined, the fault is in the description. Killing is never morally neutral. Each and every knowingly chosen act of killing is either moral or immoral; its moral object is either good or evil." (Misunderstandings on the Principle of Double Effect)


Any thoughts to the contrary?

Edited March 5, 2011 by kafka

[Nihil Obstat]

What about day-to-day actions that lack any kind of moral aspect? Like the example I used before, do I eat Cheerios or Corn Flakes for breakfast? (For me, neither. I think both are gross.)
Now, I understand that the choice itself is a moral good. It is good that we have the choice itself. However, neither is better than the other morally speaking. For the intent of my example, we need to assume that they're both exactly as healthy as the other. So picking Cheerios is morally good, and picking Corn Flakes is morally good. Is the choice between the two not a neutral choice?

[kafka]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1299300043' post='2218116']
What about day-to-day actions that lack any kind of moral aspect? Like the example I used before, do I eat Cheerios or Corn Flakes for breakfast? (For me, neither. I think both are gross.)
Now, I understand that the choice itself is a moral good. It is good that we have the choice itself.
[/quote]

day to day actions like walking, eating, sleeping all have good moral objects with moral meanings and so are inherently good. The moral object which is of the second font of morality is the concrete act which is knowingly chosen. (See my thread on the three fonts of morality in transmundane for more detail)

I morally defined eating in the lying thread when I was trying to describe the three aspects of the second font of morality: the concrete act, moral object, and inherent order. Eating could be morally defined as the direct and deliberate sustention of life. The moral object: sustention of life is a good which is compatible with love of self. And as strange as this may sound sustention of life, lowly as it is, is ultimately ordered toward God as the final end, since God is Life. We need food to sustain our whole person, since we are a union of soul, body, spirit. So sustaining life is in a sense even good for the spiritual life.

However these day to day actions are not meritorious, since one does not need actual graces to perform them. Yet, it is still possible for a person to cooperate with an actual grace in day to day actions like for example eating with grace filled thanks to God:

{10:31} Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatever else you may do, do everything for the glory of God.

but even without grace or merit day to day actions like eating, sleeping, traveling are in themselves goods. They are knowingly chosen. A knowing choice is an intention, the first font of morality. A knowing choice is usually not described as a good in itself as the moral object is. It is good to be able to choose certainly, but the knowing choice is subjective and can easily be evil if the intended end or intended means (moral object) is evil, immoral, illicit.

But when commentators speak of morally neutral acts they are usually referring to the moral object, the second font of morality, or perhaps the overall morality of an act. Neither can possibly be morally neutral as I explained above. And a knowing choice, the intention, cannot be morally neutral. Either it is good, meaning the intended end is good and the object knowingly chosen is good. Or it can be evil if either the intended end is evil or the object knowingly chosen is evil or they are both evil.

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1299300043' post='2218116']
However, neither is better than the other morally speaking. For the intent of my example, we need to assume that they're both exactly as healthy as the other. So picking Cheerios is morally good, and picking Corn Flakes is morally good. Is the choice between the two not a neutral choice?
[/quote]
o.k. so you are basically judging two overall acts with more or less identical intentions, identical moral objects and identical circumstances against one another and saying that it is not better to choose one or the other. Fine but this is not what we mean by morally neutral acts in the above. You are simply comparing the two and judging that it doesnt matter which one I do since all three fonts of morality are basically the same. But each moral object in itself is good in the eyes of God since eating is good (explained above) and each overall act is good granted the intention and circumstance is good, in the eyes of God. Neither of them are morally neutral.

In the above we are talking about one moral object on it's own and/or one overall act on its own. In the eyes of God either the moral object is good or evil. In the eyes of God either the overall act is good or it is evil. Neither can be morally neutral. Each overall act has its own set of three fonts: intention, moral object, circumstances. And all three must be good for the overall act to be good, moral, licit. If one is bad the overall act is evil, illicit, immoral.

Edited March 5, 2011 by kafka

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='kafka' timestamp='1299310881' post='2218179']

o.k. so you are basically judging two overall acts with more or less identical intentions, identical moral objects and identical circumstances against one another and saying that it is not better to choose one or the other. Fine but this is not what we mean by morally neutral acts in the above. You are simply comparing the two and judging that it doesnt matter which one I do since all three fonts of morality are basically the same. But each moral object in itself is good in the eyes of God since eating is good (explained above) and each overall act is good granted the intention and circumstance is good, in the eyes of God. Neither of them are morally neutral.

In the above we are talking about one moral object on it's own and/or one overall act on its own. In the eyes of God either the moral object is good or evil. In the eyes of God either the overall act is good or it is evil. Neither can be morally neutral. Each overall act has its own set of three fonts: intention, moral object, circumstances.
[/quote]
Ah, ok. I understand what you mean now.