Many moralists including you have explained that moral absolutes are acts that can never be good by virtue of their object alone. The word "object" here means matter, inasmuch as there is matter, intent, and circumstances with every act.

However, this seems false. The slaying of another could be the matter or object of an act of self-defense, and the taking of someone else's property might be the object, of survival as with the people in Hurricane Katrina that took break from store shelves. Murder and stealing are moral absolutes, but not simply because of their objects.

Janet Smith has stated that one must take into consideration not only the object but the defining and identifying circumstance as well. Being attacked by an unjust aggressor or starving due to a hurricane would be the defining circumstances in these cases.

Would this be correct, that a moral absolute is defined not solely on its object alone?

There is a need to distinguish between the physical object and moral object. For example, the physical object of killing another human being could have the moral object of self-defense or the moral object of murder. However, there are some actions whose physical and moral objects are identical, as in contraception and direct abortion. Such actions are always and everywhere morally unjustifiable. In such cases, no good intention or set of circumstances can make the action morally justifiable.

COPYRIGHT 2009

Click here to send this Question and Answer to a friend