3. If morality were determined by the end in view, and by that alone, the doctrine would hold that the end justifies the means. That doctrine is false, because the moral character of a human act depends on the thing willed, or object of volition, according as it is or is not a fit object. Now the object of volition is not only the end in view, but likewise the means chosen. Besides the end, the means are likewise willed. Indeed, the means are willed more immediately even than the end, as they have to be taken first. 4. A good action, like any other good thing, must possess a certain requisite fulness of being, proper to itself. As it is not enough for the physical excellence of a man to have the bare essentials, a body with a soul animating it, but there is needed a certain grace of form, colour, agility, and many accidental qualities besides; so for a good act it is not enough that proper means be taken to a proper end, but they must be taken by a proper person, at a proper place and time, in a proper manner, and with manifold other circumstances of propriety. 5. The end in view may be either _single_, as when you forgive an injury solely for the love of Christ: or _multiple co-ordinate_, as when you forgive both for the love of Christ and for the mediation of a friend, and are disposed to forgive on either ground separately; or _multiple subordinate_, as when you would not have forgiven on the latter ground alone, but forgive the more easily for its addition, having been ready, however, to forgive on the former alone; or _cumulative_, as when you forgive on a number of grounds collectively, on no one of which would you have forgiven apart from the rest. 6. Where there is no outward action, but only an internal act, and the object of that act is some good that is willed for its own sake, there can be no question of means taken, as the end in view is immediately attained. 7. The means taken and the circumstances of those means enter into the morality of the act, _formally_ as they are seen by the intellect, _materially_ as they are in themselves. (See what is said of ignorance, c. iii., s. i., nn. 3-5, p. 27.) This explains the difference between _formal_ and _material_ sin. A _material_ sin would be _formal_ also, did the agent know what he was doing. No sin is culpable that is not _formal_. But, as has been said, there may be a culpable perversion of the intellect, so that the man is the author of his own obliquity or defect of vision. When Saul persecuted the Christians, he probably sinned materially, not formally. When Caiphas spoke the truth without knowing it, he said well materially, but ill formally.