Types of moral acts
A perfect moral act is one that is performed with full knowledge and full consent. It is called perfect because it has fully the constituents of a human act, knowledge and full freedom of choice. The perfect example of this kind of moral act was when Mohan – who always had difficulty to pay the school fees- found a purse full of money lying near the canteen, and promptly deposited it in the school office.
An imperfect moral act is one which either the knowledge or the freedom of the individual, or both, are impaired or lessened. Accordingly, of course, the merit or guilt is lessened. When Neeta was lured by her school friends on to have an all night party, she attended it despite the fact that she knew her parents would not approve of it, was imperfect moral act. She knew that the act was wrong but she was guided by her friends.
A negative moral act is one, which involves some neglect to perform a duty. It is an omission of an act that should be done. For example a solider on sentry duty that goes to sleep when he is supposed to be on guard would be quality of moral offence of this type.
A positive moral act, on the other hand, involves the function of a human act that involves the performance of a good deed. Feeding a hungry person or taking care of the sick is a positive moral act.
A directly voluntary act is one, which is performed to achieve an end. The doer of the deed is conscious of the act and the end that is being sought. An indirectly voluntary act occurs when it has a secondary effect from a directly voluntary act. The secondary effect is not sought either for its own sake or a means to a further end, but it is, however, foreseen, at least obscurely. When Mr. Ram nursed his rich sick relative, he was aware that all the valuables and properties of the relative will invariably be given to him. He did not nurse the relative simply due to his greed but it was there at the back of his mind.
For instance, in a hospital a patient who is on a liquid diet asks a friendly nurse for solid food. She gives him some solid food out of friendship, never, of course, wishing any harm to the patient. Morally, this nurse is responsible for whatever ill effects the patient may suffer because such harm is indirectly willed by her.
Sometimes, however, the moral case is more complex. Ravi is suffering from acute appendicitis. If his life is to be saved he will have to undergo an operation. But Ravi has a morbid fear of the surgeon’s knife. He tries to run away from the hospital in order to avoid the operation. While the effect of saving Ravi’s life is good, there is the bad effect of destroying him psychologically. Should a doctor perform this operation? What are the moral principles that must be observed in such matters where one action has double effects? The answer to the case presented above is affirmative. The doctor may perform the operation.
Like it on Facebook, Tweet it or share this article on other bookmarking websites.