Avant-propos - Studia Moralia

198 TODD A. SALZMAN
The relationship between the act and its impact on those dimensions
defines objective morality for revisionism. So, for example,
whereas giving alms for the sake of vainglory is morally
blameworthy (bad), what of the impact of that act on the poor?
Revisionism would say that the act is right, but the motive and
act defined in terms of the motive, is morally bad. The BGT,
however, does not view the moral realm in these terms. For the
BGT, “moral acts are objectively constituted by what people
think they are doing. Subjective morality is in the possibility of a
person’s confusion and/or error about the moral goodness or
badness of his or her act, and in the possibility that a person’s
freedom to choose is blocked or impeded.” 85 In the case of almsgiving,
then, the BGT would say that the act is morally bad since
the agent thinks that he is doing the act to gain praise rather
than to relieve the suffering of the poor. The BGT does not have
the ethical tools to evaluate the impact of the act, in se, on human
well-being detached from the subjective goodness/badness
of the moral agent. So, for example, regardless of whether or not
a person actually performs an act, intention itself is morally decisive
in the BGT’s understanding of objective morality. A person
who thinks about murdering another person is a murderer, regardless
of whether or not he commits the act of murder. 86 Objective
morality, then, resides within the willing subject, regardless
of the impact of carrying out one’s intentions in actions and
their impact on human well-being. The BGT, however, is not entirely
consistent in its claim. For instance, if a couple thinks that
they are practicing responsible parenthood by using artificial
birth control, why would this not determine the objective morality
of their act? While the BGT posits a moral order where there
is an intrinsic relationship between certain acts (e.g., artificial
birth control) and the will choosing the act (a contraceptive
85
GRISEZ and BOYLE, “Response to Our Critics and Our Collaborators”
231.
86 See for example, GRISEZ and JOSEPH BOYLE JR., Life and Death With Liberty
and Justice (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press) 393. See
EDWARD VACEK’S response to this assertion (“Contraception Again – A Conclusion
in Search of Convincing Arguments: One Proportionalist’s [Mis?]Understanding
of a Text,” in Natural Law and Moral Inquiry 50-81, at 52-53.