On Morality (Third Article), What Constitutes a Moral Act?

THIRD ARTICLE

What Constitutes a Moral Act?

Objection 1. All that is required to perform a moral act is to obey the moral law. In His Law (Leviticus 18:4) God says, you must obey my laws and be careful to follow my decrees. What is required of us is to obey the law. Therefore all that is required to perform a moral act is to obey the law.

Objection 2. Soren Kierkegaard says that there have been honest pagans honestly worshipping a false god and hypocritical Christians worshipping the true God in a false spirit. According to him the former are better off and closer to the truth than the latter. Therefore all that is needed to perform a moral act is good and honest intent.

Objection 3. What we call morality is mere social custom. In my country a woman may dress however she wishes, but in another country a woman is deemed immoral and unchaste if her head is left uncovered. What is considered moral changes from place to place, therefore what constitutes a moral act is relative to the situation.

On the contrary, Christ says (John 4:24), God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth. Good intentions alone (the spirit of an act) are not enough, nor is the good act itself (the truth) enough to constitute a moral act—both are needed.

I answer that, An act must be the true and right act, done with noble intent, in the proper situation to be moral.

I may want to make love. If I do so out of marriage it is the wrong act and therefore immoral. If I do so in marriage, but with the intent to harm or humiliate my wife it is also immoral. I may do it within marriage because I love my wife and thereby do the right act with the right intent, but if I do so when it is medically dangerous for her, it is still an immoral act for it is not proper to do that act given the situation. Act, intent, and situation all must be good and true for an act to be moral.

Reply Obj 1. To obey the letter of the law and no more, this was the error of the Pharisees. They thought that a moral act lay in an act alone. But Christ said, (Mathew 23:25-26) woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean. An act is not good without good intent; an act is not good in and of itself. For an act to be moral more is needed than a moral act alone.

Reply Obj. 2. This is the error of subjectivism. Subjectivists believe in the supremacy of intent. I may intend to take a savage as a slave in order to civilize him, but this good intention does not excuse the wrong I do when I deprive him of his freedom. I may love my girlfriend and attempt to do her good, but my good intent does not excuse the sin of fornication. Hitler intended to make Germany a better place by exterminating the Jews, but his good intentions did not excuse his murder. Our intentions can be misguided and misinformed. People do evil acts all the time while attempting to do good; their good intentions do not excuse them from their behavior. A moral act is contains more than a good intention alone.

Reply Obj. 3. This is the error of relativism. According to relativists what is moral is completely dependant on the situation or culture in which the act takes place. Julius Caesar said that the Germanic tribes did not consider theft an evil. Some would say that if they did not think theft was wrong, theft was not wrong for them. But this is false. An act must not be judged by it culture, for if it were no act could be bad so long as society condoned it. This is contrary to common sense. None of us accept genocide, hate or rape simply because it occurs within a society that calls them good.

Leo Tolstoy said in his youth he was encouraged to have an affair with an older woman. In St. Petersburg society this was considered a good. Yet he said this was an evil despite his society. The fact that his society condoned a wrong gave no excuse for him to commit it.

Today it is acceptable in many parts of the world to beat one’s wife and mutilate the gentiles of daughter at birth. In other times at history it was acceptable to sacrifice children. No right minded person condones these acts; therefore no right minded person is truly a relativist. These acts are always wrong for morality is objective and eternal, transcending all cultures and ages.

When wronged we cry ‘that’s not fair’ and thereby appeal to a standard beyond our culture. We do so even when the wrong done to us is condoned by our culture. One can only be a relativist in theory; in practice no one is a relativist. Relativism is illogical and impractical therefore the morality of an act is not merely relative to the situation in which it was committed.