Why did you decide to pull weeds? To beautify your yard? To prepare yourself a veggie lunch? A human act is one which involves the will. All deliberate acts, willful acts, have a moral content, that is they are not morally neutral.
> 1749 When he acts deliberately, man is, so to speak, the father of his acts. Human acts, that is, acts that are freely chosen … can be morally evaluated. They are either good or evil.
Not quite. The object of an act (what) is unique to that human act. The same description of that human act retains the same moral object (objective) regardless of who acts. The purpose of an a human act (why) is unique to the subject (subjective).
Your analysis confuses the two fonts. There is no “purpose” expressed in the object. And the object of an act does not change if the subject’s intention changes. The intent may be dependent on the object but not vice versa.
There is only one act.
The foreseeable consequences are part of those circumstances of the act, which, while capable of lessening the gravity of an evil act, nonetheless cannot alter its moral species (VS77).
Do you interpret the above as stating that all consequences are circumstances? That would be incorrect. In VS 77, JPII is arguing against the moral philosophy of consequentialism – the morality of an act is solely dependent on “a calculation of foreseeable consequences.” This is the referent for his subsequent use of the word “consequences.” Consequences that are circumstantial do not determine the morality of the act.
In the trolley exercise, relegating an effect of this willed act – the killing of an innocent human – to the circumstantial font is grossly wrong. Any act which directly kills an innocent human being is murder, an intrinsically evil act. Intrinsically evil acts are acts evil in their object, that is, incapable of being ordered to God.
JPII cites acts that are evil in their object as acts that are "hostile to life itself, such as any kind of homicide …’” (VS 80).