How can we determine if an act, given all of its circumstances and motivations, is good or evil? This article is a summary of the topic (number 80) by the same name from Peter Kreeft’s Practical Theology.

An act may be good or evil based on two dimensions. If either dimension is evil, it infects the entire act, making it evil as well. These two dimensions are:

• Ontological goodness
• Moral goodness

Ontological goodness indicates whether the act is good in and of itself. If I am physically healthy, that “act” is ontologically good. If I am ill with the flu, that “act” is ontologically evil.

Moral goodness is a bit more complex. It indicates the goodness of an act based on the object, circumstances, and motivation involved, or rather, doing the right thing, in the right way, for the right reason. As with goodness in general though, one evil component infects the entire act.

The object of an act indicates what is actually done. If I pick and apple from a tree in an orchard, did I pay for that apple or steal it? This aspect is absolute and objective. It is often defined by a moral law, like the Ten Commandments.

The circumstances of an act indicate the environment of the act. If I’m hungry, eating the apple is good, but if I am full it is gluttony. This aspect is objective and relative. It is decided by our reason and imagination.

The motivation of an act indicates why I did it. If I took the apple to feed a hungry child, the act is good. But if I did so to show how good I am (pride, vanity), then it is evil. This aspect is subjective and absolute. It exists only the mind of the actor.

We can organize the objective/subjective and absolute/relative distinctions visually like this:

Acts	Absolute	Relative
Objective	Object	Circumstances
Subjective	Motivation

It is also interesting to consider how other philosophies judge the goodness of an act:

Acts	Absolute	Relative
Objective	Legalism	Relativism
Subjective	Subjectivism

The bar for an act to be good is rather high then. It must be good in and of itself, the right thing, and done for both the right way and the right reason.

My comments

Above is a summary of Kreeft’s analysis. Below I’ll make some comments on this analysis.

Observability

When I am the actor, all of these aspects are observable by me. But suppose I attempt to judge the goodness of an act performed by someone else. Can I gather the necessary data?

Certainly I can judge both the ontological goodness and the object of an act. You may disagree with my view, but we can both observe these dimensions. I’m not so sure about the circumstances though. Any act occurs in a complex environment. The environment is an objective fact, but to observe the whole thing seems rather difficult. In addition, it is not possible to observe the motivation for an act, since we cannot read minds. Again, we could guess at the motivation (like the circumstances), but it would be difficult to judge with much certainty.

So it seems possible to judge an act based on its inherent goodness and its object. If those two dimensions are good, any other judgement is probably futile.

Subjective and relative

Is there a moral dimension to an act which is subjective and relative? This seems to be a missing part of the analysis above. I don’t see one, but the whole analysis would feel more complete if it included this.