Summaries / Resúmenes - Studia Moralia

386 BRIAN JOHNSTONE
namely the separation of subject and object. However, the following
sentence of the same paragraph shows the influence of
what I have earlier called the “subject-based,” or “subject-inclusive”
theory, which accords an essential role to intention in the
constitution of the meaning of morality. The text of n. 1756 ,
however, reflects the object-based theory, which considers the
object prior to and separate from the subject. As has been noted,
Veritatis Splendor would say here, not simply independently of
“intentions,” but of “ulterior” intentions. What needs to be investigated
is the meaning and role of that intention which is distinct
from the ulterior intentions and is “essential” in moral evaluation.
These two perspectives, the subject-based and the objectbased,
are clearly operative in the text of Veritatis Splendor,
#71. 13 The first sentence of this paragraph reflects a subjectinclusive
theory. The human act “manifests,” “expresses” or
“realizes” the subject-based element, which is construed in
terms of “moral conscience” or the “goodness or evil of the individual.”
The act manifests the goodness or evil already present
in the individual. The third sentence, however, reflects both the
subject-based theory — (h)uman acts are moral acts because
they “express” the goodness or evil of the individual. . .— and the
object-based theory — (h)uman acts “determine” the goodness
or evil of the individual. . .” According to the fourth sentence, the
object of the human act, where this is evil, that is, “. . . not in harmony
with the true good of the person, ” “makes” the subject
morally evil. Here, the object-element is considered prior to the
will and makes it morally evil.
According to the first theory, the interior moral element in
13
Veritatis Splendor, # 71. “The relationship between man’s freedom and
God’s law, which has its intimate and living centre in the moral conscience,
is manifested and realized in human acts. It is precisely through his acts that
man attains perfection as man, as one who is called to seek his Creator of his
own accord and freely to arrive at full and blessed perfection by cleaving to
him. Human acts are moral acts because they express and determine the
goodness or evil of the individual who performs them. If the object of the
concrete action is not in harmony with the true good of the person, the choice
of that action makes our will and ourselves morally evil, thus putting us
in conflict with our ultimate end, the supreme good, God himself.”