In 1985, when I was a senior in a Catholic high school, I was taught
about Catholic moral doctrine. Specifically, I was taught that every
good action can be graded-for lack of a better word-based on a
hierarchy.
For example, if I decide to give $20 to a charity, the question could
be asked about my underlying reasons for doing so. Do I give because
the greater good will benefit? Or do I give to the charity because my
neighbor would look kindly on my character for giving the money?
There's a "bottom line" to every act, in other words.
My question: what is the philosophy that I'm explaining? Who developed
this line of reasoning?
Thanks,
Jim Harrington

---

Request for Question Clarification by juggler-ga on 10 Oct 2004 21:00 PDT

Hi,

Your description might match more than one ethical system or philosophy.  

However, it sounds like your describing a "deontological" ethical
system such as "formalism."

" From a deontological point of view, something is moral not because
of its consequences, but is moral because the motive or intent is
"good."  The clearest example of a deontological ethical system is
FORMALISM, developed by the famous philosopher-of-philosophers,
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804).  Kant's approach to ethics begins with an
analysis of "ulterior motives."  Something could look good, and really
be bad; and vice-versa, something could look bad, and really be good. 
Kant then proceeds to analyze the acts of so-called "Good Samaritans"
to see why they do good things for complete strangers.  What matters
is whether or not the Good Samaritan is truly, or formally, doing the
good thing out of the kindness of their heart -- or whether they
expect payment, glory, or the return of a favor."
http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/415/415lect02.htm


What do you think?  Let me know if I'm on the right track here.

---

Request for Question Clarification by juggler-ga on 10 Oct 2004 21:01 PDT

Sorry for that typo:

"...sounds like you're describing..."

---

Clarification of Question by jimbo0284-ga on 11 Oct 2004 20:19 PDT

This sounds like it could be it. The teacher was trying to teach us
how to interpret others' moral actions.
Thanks.

---

Request for Question Clarification by juggler-ga on 11 Oct 2004 20:22 PDT

So is it okay if I post "formalism" as the official answer here?

Hi,

Okay, we'll make that the official answer.

" From a deontological point of view, something is moral not because
of its consequences, but is moral because the motive or intent is
"good."  The clearest example of a deontological ethical system is
FORMALISM, developed by the famous philosopher-of-philosophers,
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804).  Kant's approach to ethics begins with an
analysis of "ulterior motives."  Something could look good, and really
be bad; and vice-versa, something could look bad, and really be good. 
Kant then proceeds to analyze the acts of so-called "Good Samaritans"
to see why they do good things for complete strangers.  What matters
is whether or not the Good Samaritan is truly, or formally, doing the
good thing out of the kindness of their heart -- or whether they
expect payment, glory, or the return of a favor."
http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/415/415lect02.htm

Additional reading:

"Kant?s Ethical Theory"
http://faculty.washington.edu/himma/imt551/lect3.htm

"Deontological Ethics"
http://www.uic.edu/classes/phil/phil103dh/pdf/Kant.pdf
(This document is in PDF format, so the Adobe Acrobat Reader is
required. If you don't have that, visit:
http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html )

---------
search terms:
deontological ethics moral motive

Thanks.

It's basic Catholic social teaching.

"Charity is a Divine virtue by which we love God above all things for
His own sake, and our neighbor as ourselves for the love of God."
(Baltimore Catechism #3)

Thus, when someone does an act of kindness for another under the
virtue of Charity, it is a truly supreme act, but when humanistic
feelings or ideas come into play with regards to the actions, it
lessons the benefit one receives from performing such an act, as God
is not considered as one's final end.

Sorry. Long week.
Formalism is fine.
Thank you.