Abstract

It is customary to distinguish three kinds of moral acts: good, bad, and indifferent. This distinction gained its classic formulation by St. Thomas Aquinas. According to him the three basic sources of morality are the object, the end, and the circumstances of concrete acts determining their goodness or badness through their relation to right reason as the moral norm. In other words, what a man does, why, and under what circumstances he acts, determine the moral character of his actions in actual reality as either good or bad. But if one prescinds from the existential situation in real life and considers the acts apart from their actual ends and circumstances, then —in accordance with the intrinsic nature of the acts themselves—it is possible to speak not only of good or bad, but even of indifferent or neutral moral acts in the abstract. As illustrations, St. Thomas mentions a man stroking his beard, moving his hand or foot or picking up a straw from the ground. All this, of course, is well-known teaching found in any scholastic-oriented ethics or moral theology textbook and has also become a part of common knowledge among moralists of other schools to such an extent that even linguistic analysts accept it.