I don't mean this as a subtweet. I've noticed more and more that people are misusing the expression "intrinsically evil."

To say that a moral object is *intrinsically* evil is to say that it's the kind of thing that can never be directly chosen without evil.

This is to say that the object contains evil *within* itself, whereas other kinds of moral objects may be good or neutral and become part of overall evil acts only due to factors extrinsic to the object (such as intention).

"Intrinsically evil" does not indicate anything about the *gravity* of the evil of the act, only about its *source*.

So, "intrinsically evil" does not mean "very evil." Nor does it mean "the kind of evil we can never intend." This is how some people seem to be using it.

Stealing a penny is intrinsically evil. Telling a small lie is intrinsically evil.

*No* morally evil acts are permissible! That's entailed by "evil."

I fear that misusing "intrinsically evil" will give the impression that only very bad acts are always forbidden.

Why? Because when people misuse "intrinsically evil" to mean "it's so bad you can never do it," it is easy to gain the impression that there are not-so-bad things that are sometimes allowed (to be directly chosen).