The Most Enduring Heresy - Moral Consequentialism
What is Moral Proportionalism/Consequentialism?
Proportionalism/Consequentialism is umbrella term that groups together several approaches to moral theology that broadly share certain beliefs about human nature and the moral life. Each is a version of an “ends justify the means” approach to moral problem solving. Proportionalism offers the possibility of engaging in a moral calculus of values which, presupposing a good intention or sufficiently weighty reason in the moral actor, could potentially validate any action – even those which Sacred Scripture and Christian perennial moral teaching have held to be intrinsically evil.
Proportionalists distinguish between what they call formal norms and material norms. A formal moral norm would be that "adultery is wrong!" This, they say, is a truly exceptionless norm; it is, after all, Divine Revelation. This they say no one questions because no one can. If one concedes that 'adultery' is sexual relations with the wrong person, this is tantamount to saying "wrong is wrong" which is a tautology no one can refute.
The challenge, they claim, is not then with formal norms that are truly exceptionless and universal, but rather with what they describe as material norms, often described as concrete material norms. If in the formal equation above, a morally evaluative word ('wrong') is on both sides of the equation, the challenge, they claim, is how to construct a concrete material norm without smuggling in a morally evaluative word on both sides of the logical equation.
This, they say, can only be done in general so that you have a good rule, a useful rule, a virtually exceptionless rule but not an absolute, not an exceptionless norm.
Consider the following concrete material norm: "Sexual intercourse with the spouse of another IS wrong!"
Now, proportionalists will say that this concrete material norm (sexual intercourse with the spouse of another is wrong) is a very good norm, a practical absolute, a virtually exceptionless norm; but this concrete material norm is not universally true, nor truly exceptionless. They will concede that it is always true in a non-moral sense - it is always some kind of evil: a physical evil; an ontic evil; a pre-moral disvalue; but it is not always and in every case a moral evil.
Proportionalists argue this could be a morally good choice (and therefore a good act) if:
a) some greater good is achievable by this act (i.e., brings about greater good consequences); or,
b) some truly proportionate reason is present to justify this choice (after weighing various positive and negative values).
Thus, in the concrete, one must always leave open the possibility that in some given set of circumstances, what would normally be a moral evil is not truly so, rather (sexual intercourse with the spouse of another) this is only a 'physical' or 'ontic' evil when it brings about greater goods or is justified by a proportionate reason for doing so.
Some characteristics of proportionalism are as follows:
• 'I and only I decide what's right and wrong’, • the subjective trumps the objective, • a good intention trumps intrinsic malice, • situation ethics determines guilt or lack of it, • no behaviour in itself is always wrong in all circumstances.
The Problem
Pope John Paul II attacked the modern moral theology errors of “consequentialism” and “proportionalism.” He explains that consequentialism “claims to draw the criteria of the rightness of a given way of acting solely from a calculation of foreseeable consequences deriving from a given choice.” He continues that proportionalism “weighs the various values and goods being sought, focuses rather on the proportion acknowledged between the good and bad effects of that choice, with a view to the ‘greater good’ or ‘lesser evil’ actually possible in a particular situation.” (Veritatis Splendor #75) Both of these errors, he concluded, consequentialism and proportionalism, are a far cry from how Christ's clear answer in Mathew 19: “Keep the commandments” to his questioner: ”What good deed must I do to have eternal life?”
As we’ve seen, according to the proportionalist theorists, there are no moral acts that are intrinsically good or evil, only acts that have both positive and negative consequences. Accordingly, the way that one should gauge the goodness or wickedness of a given act is rationally to assess its effects and determine whether the positive outweighs the negative. If there is a preponderance (a proportion) of the former over the latter, the act under consideration can be considered morally praiseworthy. So, when contemplating whether an abortion could be justified, the proportionalist would assess the various and complex outcomes of the act. On the one hand, we have the death of the child and the inevitable sadness of all concerned, etc.; and on the other hand, we have, say, an improvement in the overall mental health of the mother, an amelioration of the family’s economic situation, greater career opportunities for the mother, etc. If, in the judgment of the moral reasoner, the good consequences outweigh the bad, the abortion can be permitted. Once the category of the intrinsically evil is set aside, practically anything can be justified on proportionalist grounds. In classical moral theory, intrinsically evil acts would include, among many others, the direct killing of the innocent, the enslavement of other people, torture, and sexual intercourse with children, adultery, homosexual, acts, euthanasia, etc. No matter what positive consequences could possibly follow from these, they could never be justified, since they are, in themselves, morally repugnant. Pope St. John Paul II presents a sustained argument against proportionalism: “Reason attests that there are objects of the human act which are by their nature ‘incapable of being ordered’ to God, because they radically contradict the good of the person made in his image. These are the acts which, in the Church’s moral tradition, have been termed ‘intrinsically evil’ (intrinsece malum): they are such always and per se, in other words, on account of their very object, and quite apart from the ulterior intentions of the one acting and the circumstances. Consequently, without in the least denying the influence on morality exercised by circumstances and especially by intentions, the Church teaches that ‘there exist acts which per se and in themselves, independently of circumstances, are always seriously wrong by reason of their object.” (Veritatis Splendor #80) What is Moral?
The notion that good ends do justify evil means is probably the most popular moral heresy in the world. We all believe it to some degree or other. You could argue, in fact, that it’s practically the definition of sin. It is what Adam and Eve attempted when they sought the good end of “wisdom” by the evil means of disobeying God.
For a decision to be moral, it must have a good intention, a good object (act) and good circumstances. Catholic moral theology has always taught that if even one of these three is missing, it is bad decision. In short, the end does not justify the means. Proportionalism and consequentialism are just "Satan’s loopholes" around this.
Proportionalism seems to be a sensible form of moral reasoning; indeed the default position of most people. When assessing an act, many human beings instinctually reach for some version of it. John Paul II gave voice to the Church’s long-held conviction that proportionalism opens the door to moral chaos. If you were to say that assisted suicide is permissible when a sufferer is in screaming pain and within days of his death, what prevents you from saying that it should be permitted when he is within weeks or months of his death, or when his pain is more psychological than physical, or when the state decides it is expedient? To deny the category of the intrinsically evil is to place oneself, inevitably, on a slippery slope to complete moral relativism.
Consequentialism undergirds both liberal arguments for abortion, same sex marriage, and euthanasia, and conservative arguments for atomic weapons and torture. It is how we convince ourselves that our act of theft, or adultery, or false witness is justified this one time - because in our special case, just this once, evil is okay.
Proportionalism Does not Work as a Moral Theory
Modern forms of proportionalism were a theological reaction to an older method of doing and teaching moral theology which had held sway in Catholic seminaries from the late 16th to the mid 20th centuries. That method – casuistry, sometimes referred to as manualism – while providing the Church with plenty of sound moral theology, also engendered a legalistic approach to the moral life which sapped moral truth of its richness and Christ-centered vitality.
With good reason Vatican II called for a renewal in the teaching of moral theology: a robust rooting of moral teaching in Sacred Scripture and a new emphasis on virtue, on the Beatitudes and on Christ-centred discipleship.
And there were some good steps taken in that direction. Yet, by and large, much of mainstream Catholic moral theology caved in to the cultural onslaught of the 1960s. And in that milieu, the first formal proportionalist theories proliferated.
The first problem is that only God can see all the consequences of any moral action. We cannot see them, and so we can’t be expected to make a sound moral judgment based on our assessment of them. Making a moral decision based only on the consequences we think will follow from any particular action places us on shaky ground. We may rightly guess some consequences and completely miss others, or we may look purely toward material or measurable consequences while ignoring spiritual ones, which by their nature cannot be measured. Or we may think that some action will make us happy only to find, in the end, that it makes us miserable and vice versa.
The second problem is even deeper. It is simply impossible to assess the moral relevance of consequences without a prior standard of judgment already in place. After all, whether consequences are good or bad depends largely on how things are designed. In practical terms, of course, the theory of consequentialism is generally used to enable people to have a clear conscience when they feel a conflict between the desirable consequences which recommend an action to them and some ‘cold’ moral principle which tells them not to do it.
How often have we seen this used, for example, in sexual matters? If pre-marital sex (or same sex genital acts) foster “love” and bring you “closer”, then do it! If an unborn child stands in the way of the happiness of an adult, then kill it! In the last analysis, how do we know whether the consequences either of sex outside marriage or of abortion are bad or good unless we first understand the nature of human life, the dignity of the human person, the purpose of sex, and the vocation of marriage? And even if we understand these things to a point, how can we evaluate them properly if we don’t understand that the human person was made for love or, even more commonly, if we don’t really understand what love is?
Moral principles, based on both the natural law and Divine Revelation, enable us to make sound moral decisions despite our own relative ignorance of the nature and purpose of things. (Moral principles also enlighten us about the very structure of reality, so that we might understand it better.)
Based on consequential calculus, it can be argued that dropping an atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the morally right thing to do because the failure to do so would have prolonged the war, resulting in an even greater number of casualties. Thus, the most obvious consequence of the use of the atomic bomb was a reduction in the total dead. Yet it remains morally wrong to deliberately target non-combatants in war, because the non-combatant has not forfeited his right to life by threatening the life of another.
Similarly, it can be argued by consequentialism that the sterilization of the disabled (or of ourselves) is morally good, because by this means we can avoid unwanted problems while promoting sexual freedom and personal prosperity. But sterilization is still a mutilation of the human person and, even when voluntary in ourselves, it involves a spiritual twisting away from love and responsibility.
All sins deaden the soul.
Because we are unable to foresee all the consequences - and even all the kinds of consequences - which flow from any given act, and because we cannot truly judge whether each of these consequences is essentially good or evil without a prior moral standard, consequentialism simply cannot work. Principles drawn from beyond our own immediate perceptions and desires are essential. Moreover, in practice, consequentialists are invariably intent on justifying something they should not!
This, of course, repudiates the notion that there are any kinds of acts, described in non-moral terms, that are intrinsically evil. It repudiates as well that there are or can be in the practical order 'negative moral absolutes'! In the proportionalist view, an act is only morally evil when one directly intends moral evil. This, they maintain, avoids the condemnation of Rms. 3:8 (the end does not justify the means) because they do not make moral evil the direct object of their will but only a 'physical' or 'ontic', and that, only with alleged reluctance, when a 'great good' can be attained ("consequentialism") or a 'proportionate reason' is present ("proportionalism").
This change in principle engineers a gigantic change in moral practice. Indeed, it is a different morality for these reasons:
1) It is a Subjective morality. After all, who does the counting, weighing, measuring of good and bad consequences; who calculates the proportionalities of grave reasons and their seriousness but the deciding subject. There is no link here with objective morality, it is all a matter of the subject's calculations.
2) It is a Relativistic morality. It is, by definition, a calculation of consequences; a calculus of values and disvalues, a comparison of moral pluses and minuses relative to other values and disvalues.
3) It is an Extrinsic morality. One notes in the above that there is nothing intrinsic to the act that determines its morality; rather, the moral fulcrum on which the theory turns is something extrinsic: external consequences (results) or proportionate reasons determine the morality of acts.
Again, what seems to be a small change turns out to be a revolution: one puts aside a strong and cogent link with objective morality and replaces it with a truly subjective morality.
As Pope St John Paul says:
". . . This teleologism, as a method for discovering the moral norm, can thus be called -- according to terminology and approaches imported from different currents of thought -- 'consequentialism' or 'proportionalism'. The former claims to draw the criteria of the rightness of a given way of acting solely from a calculation of foreseeable consequences deriving from a given choice. The latter, by weighing the various values and goods being sought, focuses rather on the proportion acknowledged between the good and bad effects of that choice, with a view to the 'greater good' or 'lesser evil' actually possible in a particular situation. . . . Even when grave matter is concerned, these precepts should be considered as operative norms which are always relative and open to exceptions." (VS, 75)
". . . Such theories however are not faithful to the Church's teaching, when they believe they can justify, as morally good, deliberate choices of kinds of behaviour contrary to the commandments of the divine and natural law. These theories cannot claim to be grounded in the Catholic moral tradition." (VS, 76)
St John Paul II rejected the notion of conscience being 'autonomous' when it comes to important moral choices and he firmly refuted the proportionalists’ soft stance on intrinsically evil acts. Pope Benedict XVI too was also unrelenting in his critique of proportionalism, describing it as a moral theory which contradicts the very foundation of the Christian faith.
The Modern Appeal
Proportionalism still has a broad appeal among post Vatican II Catholics, including quite a few of the clergy. It is part of the creeping secularism of our times even influencing the Church's stance on the objective moral order which has held sway for centuries. The German and Belgium churches are examples.
St Augustine wrote in his 'Confessions' that “wrong is wrong even though everyone is doing it, right is right even though nobody is doing it”. Yes, moral theology did need revamping after Vatican II and the Council itself recognised this. It was particularly keen to have the teaching of moral theology firmly rooted in Scripture. But most of the mainstream moral theology caved in to the cultural onslaught of the1960s and it was at that time that proportionalist ideas began to take more formal hold among theologians.
Over the decades a certain narrative has arisen around proportionalism, contrasting its adherents with a caricature of its opponents as follows:
• Adherents of proportionalism are reasonable and balanced, opponents are rigid and extreme. • Proponents employ sound moral discernment in order to understand the specific situation of the individual, opponents do not. • Proponents are pastorally realistic and sensitive, opponents not so much.
Proportionalism follows many of the other contours of the modern moral zeitgeist: the subjective trumps the objective, conscience trumps the norm, a good intention trumps intrinsic malice. The theory presumes that virtually all human moral experience is so irreducibly complex that no one moral norm could possibly be generated over time to respond to each situation, and no behaviour in itself could be understood as always immoral in all circumstances.
Proportionalism has a veneer of eminent reasonableness, resulting primarily from its submissiveness to the secular moral zeitgeist. It’s not surprising then that over the decades a certain narrative has arisen around proportionalism, contrasting its adherents with a caricature of its opponents. Adherents are reasonable and balanced; opponents are rigid and extreme. Proponents employ sound moral “discernment” in order to understand the specific situation of the individual; opponents do not.
Pope Francis disagrees with Cardinal Paglia on the question of euthanasia and assisted suicide, according to Sandro Magister in his latest blogpost.
ReplyDeleteMagister says two events have served to restate, in unambiguous terms, the Church’s position on euthanasia and assisted suicide. The first was a statement by Pope Francis, early last year, tacitly contradicting an article that had appeared in a recent issue of the Jesuit publication La Civiltà Cattolica. The second, just last month, was a joint Catholic-Jewish statement issued in Jerusalem by Cardinal Kurt Koch, on behalf of the Holy See, together with and the chief rabbi of Israel.
In today’s blogpost (link below) Magister recalls the “buzz” last year over the position in favour of a pro-euthanasia law under discussion in the Italian parliament, expressed in January 2022 by the Jesuit moral theologian Carlo Casalone in La Civiltà. While recognizing that the law under discussion conflicted with the magisterium of the Catholic Church, Casalone maintained that “the evaluation of a law of the state demands consideration of a complex set of elements with regard to the common good,” and concluded that, to prevent even worse laws, approval might as well be given to the draft legislation then under discussion in Parliament. Just a few weeks later, Magister notes, Pope Francis spoke out publicly in very clear words against assisted suicide and other forms of euthanasia, rejecting the theses of La Civiltà, albeit without mentioning the journal by name.
Last month’s meeting in Jerusalem reaffirmed that both faiths attach importance to “compassionate palliative care and maximal effort to alleviate pain and suffering”, while accepting that:
“human life is sacred precisely because, as the Bible teaches, the human person is created in the Divine Image (cfr. Gen 1:26-27). Because life is a Divine gift to be respected and preserved, we perforce reject the idea of human ownership of life and of the right of any human party to decide its value or extent. Thus we repudiate the concept of active euthanasia (so-called mercy killing) and physician-assisted suicide, as the illegitimate human arrogation of an exclusive Divine authority to determine the time of a person’s death.”
http://magister.blogautore.espresso.repubblica.it/2023/06/07/on-euthanasia-and-%e2%80%9cgender%e2%80%9d-the-catholic-church-gets-along-better-with-the-jews-than-at-home/
http://www.christianunity.va/content/unitacristiani/en/commissione-per-i-rapporti-religiosi-con-l-ebraismo/dialogo-tra-la-commissione-della-santa-sede-per-i-rapporti-relig/incontri/2023-Jerusalem-Jewish-and-catholic-approaches-to-the-terminally-ill.html
Thanks, Ray.
DeleteMy pleasure, Jack.
DeleteAnd the news from the Gemelli Hospital is that today's operation was successful.
The surgery attempted to repair an incisional hernia, a type of abdominal wall hernia at the site of a previous surgical incision. In the pope’s case, this could be the result of the scarring caused by the pope’s colon surgery in July 2021.
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/254511/vatican-pope-francis-out-of-surgery-recovering-in-hospital
Good news, Ray.
DeleteInteresting stuff; the author of this piece is to be thanked; and popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI are again to be thanked for their theological steadfastness.
ReplyDeleteAtomic weapons / the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is the chosen example of moral consequentialism, and it's a subject worthy of discussion, though one might also suggest Dresden, IRA actions against random Britons, Japanese WWII atrocities against civilians to encourage bringing about the rightful world order, etc etc. (Where is Carl??)
Thank you, Gadjo.
DeleteHJ wondered if the article was too long. It's composition is drawn from several articles on theological/apologetic sites.
The killing of innocent civilians is, perhaps, an easy example as no Christian leader HJ knows supports this. More difficult is abortion, divorce and remarriage, same sex 'marriage', sex before marriage, etc.
Carl has abandoned us! From past discussions on Cranmer, he supports the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on consequential/proportionalist grounds.
@ Jack - Carl's position is one of statism and secular phyletism: anything goes as long as it's in my national best interest. It offends against the image of God in others and is tied to the persistent American idea that it is somehow the light of the world.
DeleteGerman and Allied carpet bombing of civilians were war crimes. Dropping atomic bombs on civilian populations was a war crime. Deliberately targeting civilians to demoralise an enemy is a purely evil act. The atomic bombs also effectively annihilated Christianity in Japan: a double victory for Satan.
[After Japan was militarily forced to reopen to foreigners in 1865 and Catholic priests returned] in thanksgiving for the Lord's presence, [the remnant hidden Christians] decided to build a Cathedral on the grounds of the land where they had been forced to trample on Our Lady's image. The Church of the Immaculate Conception that was built there was the biggest in Asia.
The Cathedral was completed in 1925 and became a sign of hope for Christians leading in to the future. 20 years later, 95% of Japan's now blossoming Catholic Church lived in Nagasaki. After 250 years of exile, Japanese Christians finally had reasons for optimism.
Unfortunately, some in the United States had other plans for Japan's Christians. On August 9th 1945, as the local Catholics prepared for the Feast of Immaculate Conception, the pilots of the Boxscar were instructed to look for the spire of the Urakami Cathedral as they dropped the 'Fatman' bomb. Under orders from Harry Truman, a Freemason, the United States dropped its 2nd Atom Bomb in 3 days. The destruction was unimaginable.
Fulton Sheen would later associate the viciousness of the atomic bomb attacks with the moral disorder of the world afterwards, seeing it has having opened up a new system where the ends justified the means in all circumstances and man was capable of using technology to inflict hell on Earth.
The bombing in Nagasaki happened at 11.02 am as many attended Mass.
In the death toll [were]:
- 8,500 of the 12,000 Christians
- 3 separate orders of nuns
- An entire Catholic school
There were stories of nuns singing as they made their way through the streets after the blast, many dropping dead on the street as they did so.
Christians now make up only 1% of the wider Japanese population.
"Fulton Sheen would later associate the viciousness of the atomic bomb attacks with the moral disorder of the world afterwards, seeing it has having opened up a new system where the ends justified the means in all circumstances .... "
DeleteYes, HJ agrees with this. We know from natural law and from the Decalogue that this was the sin of mass murder. For men to choose to kill the innocent as a means to their ends is always murder. And then for it be celebrated as bringing an end to the war, compounds the moral evil.
Herman Melville in 1850 wrote:
"Americans are the peculiar, chosen people - the Israel of our time; we bear the ark of the liberties of the world. . . . God has predestinated, mankind expects, great things from our race; and great things we feel in our souls. . . . Long enough have we been skeptics with regard to ourselves, and doubted whether, indeed, the political Messiah had come. But he has come in us." (White-Jacket).
HJ,
DeleteNot too long for such an important and interesting subject, though it was quite a job to digest it all! For the sake of balance I felt that the catchment area for moral consequentialism needed to be widened a bit.
Heaven knows I disagreed with Carl on a number of issues, but his was a distinct and somehow important voice on Cranmer, especially considering his military background. Not being a huge fan of communism, I can no doubt thank him for his service (though I'm not sure what his actual role was), though I wonder if the US hasn't changed a little since his was in uniform. I hope he is well.
雲水,
Fulton Sheen would indeed be worth reading on this subject; thanks for the heads up.
@ Gadjo: He made the remarks in a speech. This article about John Paul II and Sheen's views on Hiroshima links to a YouTube video of his talk. The whole thing is worth reading.
Delete[JPII]: The cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are a message to all our contemporaries, inviting all the earth’s peoples to learn the lessons of history and to work for peace with ever greater determination. Indeed, they remind our contemporaries of all the crimes committed during the Second World War against civilian populations, crimes and acts of true genocide.”
...
Ven. Fulton Sheen cuts right to the heart of these effects [of the bombings], ironically when talking to school students about sex. The talk, “Youth and Sex,” pinpoints the moral turning point of [the] country [i.e., America] to “8:15 in the morning, the 6th of August, 1945,” when, he says, the world changed. The dropping of the bomb on Hiroshima
[extract from speech] ... blotted out boundaries. There was no longer a boundary between the military and the civilian, between the helper and the helped, between the wounded and the nurse and the doctor, and the living and the dead. For even the living who escaped the bomb were already half dead. So we broke down boundaries and limits and from that time on the world has said we want no one limiting me. … You want no restraint, no boundaries. I have to do what I want to do. [ends]
Sheen makes the connection between the bomb and the moral chaos, which would follow in America, especially in the sexual revolution, when we initiated a culture of death.
Why did the dropping of the bombs obliterate boundaries? The key moral question comes down to the principle that the end does not justify the means. A noble intention to end the war does not make immoral acts moral. The same is true in the moral life more generally. Chris Stefanick sums it up quite well in his piece, “The Fruit of the Bomb”:
It has been said that “the fruit of abortion is nuclear war.” The logic is that abortion creates a society where human life isn’t valued above all else, where the end justifies the means, and where moral absolutes can be obliterated by good intentions. All of that was engrained in our nation’s psyche 30 years before Roe v. Wade. I think it would be more accurate to say, “The fruit of nuclear war was abortion.”
The link doesn't seem to work.
Deletehttps://www.catholicworldreport.com/2014/08/06/the-anniversary-of-hiroshima-john-paul-ii-and-fulton-sheen-on-the-bomb-and-conversion/
雲水,
DeleteWe can certainly consider the bombing of Hiroshima & Nagasaki as examples of moral consequentialism and also a watershed in human self-perception as we saw what powers we had acquired. But if I were you I really really wouldn't reach for the stats; some bright spark with an appreciation of history will post far worse from the Nanjing Massacre and more; and regarding Catholicism, the actions of the Japanese in the (Catholic) Philippines were equally horrendous, and from which it took the islands years to recover.
Truman may indeed have been freemason when the bombs were dropped; and it was on the first of January 1946 that Hirohito "denied any and all claim to divinity... and debunked the idea that the Japanese held a holy mandate to rule the world."
Perspective.
P.s. I had almost forgotten what a magnificent old bird Fulton Sheen was when on camera! May his legacy continue.
DeleteAnd that is moral consequentialism in a nutshell. 'It's ok for me to do evil because someone else is doing it'.
Delete雲水,
DeleteOk. But you were talking about much much more and somebody needed to give some context and perspective. Societies often function by trying to stop people doing evil in the first place or trying to ensure that don't do it any more.
It is never morally permissible from any perspective to set fire to women and babies for things that people who share their nationality have done/are doing - something that I find myself having to point out with depressing regularity.
DeleteAs for context, Japan only became embroiled in the war because
America interfered in Japanese expansionism and modernisation. Modernisation and aggressive expansionism were, again, two things that were perfectly acceptable for the British and Americans to do: there was no problem with the British subjugating half the globe and violent suppressing native populations, nor with the American dehumanisation and destruction of the Native American peoples.
All of these are examples of the dangers of moral consequentialism, i.e., the gains to my national interests (the putative 'good') outweigh the moral evils of subjugating and killing other people. Add into the mix the rank hypocrisy of lionising those in the west who did these things v demonising those in the east for doing the exact same thing, and one ends up with the moral nonsense that is spouted in defence of Dresden and Nagasaki/Hiroshima (not to even mention the possibility that, as some historians believe, the purpose of bombing Hiroshima was not to break Japanese resistance, but to 'intimidate the Soviet Union').
One cannot condemn the Coventry Blitz while ignoring Dresden, nor does one get to condemn the Japanese treatment of their opponents and turn a blind eye to the incendiary and nuclear bombing of civilians in Tokyo, Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Evil is evil, no matter how nobly intended it is, or how just its cause, or whether it's 'us' or 'them' doing it.
雲水
DeleteWell, it seems that it doesn't matter how many die in a first manifestation of evil as the death of just one innocent in an (evil) attempt to stop would trigger the principle of moral consequentialism. And the principle may be sound on a personal level. 'Peace Churches' such as the Amish and the Mennonites pursue it by avoiding the dangers of personally participating in evil acts which are always a risk in any army.
I was the one who first mentioned Dresden, because I was avoiding being partisan. I'm actually not concerned about 'us' or 'them', I'm concerned about evil in the world and how it might be curtailed.
Anyway, thank God it's the weekend now, and thank God we haven't had to dig into any more upsetting stories about WWII etc.
Well, it seems that it doesn't matter how many die in a first manifestation of evil as the death of just one innocent in an (evil) attempt to stop would trigger the principle of moral consequentialism.
DeleteThis is a form of utilitarianism, a type of hedonism which is largely incompatible with Christianity: popularised as it was by one of the first openly atheist philosophers, it removes God from the formulation of moral principles and replaces him with human self-interest (the idol of modern times).
It's also the reasoning that Caiaphas used to falsely condemn Christ to death.
Then many of the Jews who had come to Mary, and had seen the things Jesus did, believed in Him. But some of them went away to the Pharisees and told them the things Jesus did. Then the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered a council and said, “What shall we do? For this Man works many signs. If we let Him alone like this, everyone will believe in Him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and nation.”
And one of them, Caiaphas, being high priest that year, said to them, “You know nothing at all, nor do you consider that it is expedient for us that one man should die for the people, and not that the whole nation should perish.”
I'm concerned about evil in the world and how it might be curtailed.
The answer to curtailing the amount of evil in the world is never adding more evil.
雲水,
DeleteWell, you should be an Amish then!
I wasn't making a case for utilitatianism, I was laying out the realities of moral consequentialism; people, as always, can do as they think best and live with their consciences. Reminds me of that Graham Greene (I think) story where a man prays that he will give up even the thing he values the most to save the life of a child who is dying, so his faith is taken away from him - did he do the right thing?
I should be Amish because I think that it's morally wrong to do evil - something that's been undisputed Christian moral teaching (albeit not always followed) until it became inconvenient in the 20th century? That's an interesting take.
DeleteI'm not familiar with the story you reference, and contrived thought experiments are never really much help in the real world, especially ones that make God seem like a pagan trickster deity and which have logical inconsistencies (God taking away one's faith would be proof of God and thus of faith, etc.). However, Christ says that there is no greater love than laying down one's life for one's friend, and St. Paul says 'I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren [Israel]', so it doesn't seem to me that the man has done anything wrong.
The key difference here is that one's life (or faith or salvation) are one's own to offer as sacrifice, and no evil is committed. What is evil is demanding that others make that sacrifice. It's one thing to sacrifice myself to end the war, it's another to demand that the civilian population of Dresden does so.
If I see a mugger about to stab an old lady and I jump in the way and take the blade myself, I'm committing no evil. I'm preventing the mugger's evil through self sacrifice (as Christ did). If, on the other hand, I see the mugger, run to his house and threaten to kill his children, then I'm committing evil to prevent his evil. The first is a Christian response, the second is consequentialist, which involves a kind of moral arithmetic, rooted in self interest, that ranks the values of human life and is therefore immoral.
雲水,
DeleteThe real world? You're clearly a philosopher! I would hope that they still teach contrived thought experiments about morality at the faculty and not just utilitarianism. Yes, we Protestants also have never believed in doing evil, For It Is Written. But on occassions, presumably, some might have to discover what exactly constitutes evil depending on church teaching and hope for the best, but the sun is shining here in Transylvania and God is in His heavens. Happy weekend.
Most modern philosophers acknowledge that contrived thought experiments are rather limited in their application to the real world - the trolley problem (or rather, its later adaptations) being a relevant case in point dealing with utilitarian ethics.
DeleteYes, we Protestants also have never believed in doing evil, For It Is Written.
And It Is Ignored. 'Thou shalt not kill' is right there in black and white, as one of the earliest absolutes in the Bible; yet it's been primarily 'Bible believing' Protestants who I've heard wishing to append 'except when it suits me' to that commandment and defending such moral evils as Dresden, Nagasaki, widespread capital punishment, infanticide and so on.
I think Protestantism has done itself a great disservice in its suspicion of theology and philosophy, which has resulted in it lacking a coherent metaphysical thought structure and instead relying on an individualist and atomist approach to any given situation, where virtually anything goes, even if it's mutually contradictory to a given stance on a separate issue.
Honestly, if one's system of morality answers the question 'is it moral to set fire to babies' with 'maybe', it's not a system worth keeping.
@ Lain
DeleteThe problem is that Protestantism rooted itself in Nominalism. Luther’s viewed philosophy as being opposed to theology, yet embraced one - the non-existence and irrelevance of universals. Hence the doctrine of sola scriptura. Since knowledge of reality could not be attained apart from revelation from God, any other source (especially scholastic theology, based as it was on Aristotelian philosophy) had to be rejected.
@ Jack - quite so, and it doesn't help that later scholasticism became rather self indulgent and there were various clashes between rival schools of theology/philosophy that seemed to lose sight of what the point of it all actually was. But the baby was well and truly thrown out with the bath water.
DeleteBut much modern Reformed thinking also regards theology with suspicion (while somehow not counting the work of the Reformers and the volumes of commentaries on their pastor's shelf as theology). Presumably because, as I was told on Cranmer, one requires no outside assistance to interpret the Bible (except for a team of translators, literary critics and historians), and theology is a vain papist endeavour.
What bearing does Kant's 'categorical imperative' concept have on moral proportionalism / consequentialism? It's often framed as e.g. "Should I lie to the Gestapo when they come knocking at the door asking if I have any Jews hiding in the attic?" (Prince Philip's deaf mother had the perfect answer by staying silent, I understand, but I don't think that is considered to be an option in regular circumstances).
ReplyDeleteKant's CI has to be situated within his metaphysics, which held that God/the universe are fundamentally unknowable and that's all that can be said. His moral philosophy is, crudely speaking, an attempt to reconstruct Christian morality from a rationalist viewpoint. 'Demystifying' morality tends to lead either to utilitarianism or mechanistic legalism (Kant falls in the latter for me), which both produce absurdities when pushed to their limits. There's usually nothing wrong, per se, in choosing the course of action that creates the most happiness (utility); and there's usually nothing wrong, per se, with only doing those things that one would be happy to see universally adopted.
DeleteThese ideas make good guidelines (usually), but poor absolutes: strict utilitarians end up valuing animal lives over humans (Mills worked some philosophical gymnastics to make utilitarianism more palatable, with debatable results); strict Kantians wouldn't lie to the Gestapo because they wouldn't want lying to be a universal norm, and so on.
In contrast, Christian metaphysics holds that God is knowable and knows us, and has given us a living example of moral thinking in the earthly ministry of Christ, who was neither reduced to utility or laws.
@ Lain
DeleteIn addition to Divine revelation, we have the natural law
Catholic (Christian?) teaching is that moral laws are based on human nature. That is, what we ought to do is based on what we are. "Thou shalt not kill," for instance, is based on the value of human life and the need to preserve it. "Thou shalt not commit adultery" is based on the value of marriage and family, the value of mutual self-giving love, and children's need for trust and stability.
The natural law is known by natural human reason and experience. We don't need religious faith or supernatural divine revelation to know that we're morally obligated to choose good and avoid evil or to know what "good" and "evil" mean. Speaking of pagans, St. Paul says that "they show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness." (Rom 2:15)
"This law is called 'natural,' not in reference to the nature of irrational beings [that is, animals - it is not a law of biology], "but because reason, which decrees it, properly belongs to human nature." (CCC #1955. For example, the Church teaches that artificial contraception is against the natural law, not because it's a rational human intervention rather than an irrational biological process, but because it's contrary to right reason. It violates the integrity of human nature by divorcing the two naturally united aspects of the essence of the sexual act - the unitive and the procreative - that is, personal intimacy and reproduction.
"The natural law, present in the heart of each man and established by reason, is universal in its precepts and its authority extends to all men." (CCC #1956) It's not universally obeyed, or even universally admitted, but it is universally binding and authoritative.
"The natural law is immutable and permanent throughout the variations of history" (CCC#1958) because it is based on God-made essential human nature, which does not change with time or place, rather than man-made cultural developments, which do.
Because man's essence does not change, but his circumstances and situations do, "application of the natural law varies greatly" (CCC #1957). For instance, capital punishment may be morally necessary in a primitive society but needlessly barbaric in a society with secure laws and prisons; and the moral restrictions on warfare today, with its weapons of mass destruction, must be far stricter than those in the past.
Natural law "provides the necessary basis for the civil law" (CCC #1959), for civil law forbids many acts, such as rape and torture and slavery, because they are morally wrong and harmful to human nature's health and flourishing. Without a natural law basis for civil law, civil law becomes based on power.
Catholic (Christian?) teaching is that moral laws are based on human nature.
DeleteI think all Christian traditions have some implicit concept of natural law, but it's most explicitly developed in Catholic teaching, particularly in Aquinas and the classical works of Cicero and Aristotle before him.
As you'd expect, it was rejected by most mainstream Protestant thinkers for being too Catholic, although there are now calls to rediscover it. More recently, Barth believed it was insufficiently Christocentric, Hauerwas thought that it was an ideological justification for 'the assumption that Christians have a responsibility to fulfil the demands of the state and institutions associated with it', and thereby undermined a Christian's loyalty to Christ. Broadly, Reformed thought sees natural law as unnecessary, when everything we need is in the Bible, and our fallen natures would render us unable to understand natural law even if it did exist. Obviously, what we 'are' in some Reformed traditions is so repulsive that one wouldn't want to base any kind of law on it!
The Orthodox Church has a concept of natural law, but doesn't have the same kind of formal categories of that Aquinas developed. It wasn't the direction that Eastern thought traditionally needed to go in. Generally, what the West calls natural law is regarded as simply one part of God's revelation, since all creation is in itself a revelation of God (the law 'written' on pagan hearts in Rom. 2. implies an author). St. John Chrysostom said 'we were given two teachers from the beginning, nature and the conscience, their's being an impartial voice which teaches human beings in silence', and St. Cyril of Alexandria identified 'three laws: the natural, and the Mosaic, and the evangelical'. We naturally have a conscience, then, but it's only reliable inasmuch as it is in submission to Christ (which is ultimately that Catholic position, too).
Aquinas (ST II.I Q91 Art. 4) acknowledges that natural law has four limitations which necessitate a revealed divine law: 1) law orders mankind to a certain end - natural law can only order mankind to natural ends, rather than divine ends; 2) different people can reach different conclusions on how to act, therefore an objective divine law is necessary; 3) mankind can only judge things he is competent in judging, which are exterior acts - only God can judge the heart; 4) human law cannot punish all evils, since it would also do away with many goods. Divine law is needed to ensure that all evil is punished.
One notes our 'friends' David Bentley Hart, here, and Edward Feser, here, are in disagreement over natural law.
DeleteI do find Feser hard going when he's responding to someone else; he seems to forget to write theology and slips in to a persona not unlike the overly smart defence lawyer in a courtroom drama. For all the hand waving, I can't see an actual counter-argument to Hart's central claim that natural law theory is ineffective in the modern public square.
DeleteI'm inclined to agree with Hart that general public discourse is now too wildly divorced from the metaphysical framework that natural law presumes (although it is a useful tool for Christians). Natural law theory even understands the term 'natural' in a different way to its common use - the argument that homosexuality is moral because it's 'found in nature' hinges on this misunderstanding. I'm also not overly confident in appealing to 'human reason and experience' in an age where neither of those have been informed by anything remotely transcendent for a long time - and where they've both led to the bloodbath that was the 20th Century and the insanity that we're currently living through.
Tbh, much of Feser's argument went over HJ's head!
DeleteWhilst Hart's central claim that natural law theory is ineffective in the modern public square is sound, he seemed go further than this.
Bentley Hart writes:
Delete"I certainly believe in a harmony between cosmic and moral order, sustained by the divine goodness in which both participate. I simply do not believe that the terms of that harmony are as precisely discernible as natural law thinkers imagine."
And this is where he gets confused:
"But insuperable problems arise when—in part out of a commendable desire to speak to secular society in ways it can understand, in part out of some tacit quasi-Kantian notion that moral philosophy must yield clear and universally binding imperatives—the natural law theorist insists that the moral meaning of nature should be perfectly evident to any properly reasoning mind, regardless of religious belief or cultural formation.
"Thus, allegedly, the testimony of nature should inform any rightly attentive intellect that abortion is murder, that lying is wrong, that marriage should be monogamous, that we should value charity above personal profit, and that it is wicked (as well as extremely discourteous) to eat members of that tribe that lives over in the next valley. “Nature,” however, tells us nothing of the sort, at least not in the form of clear commands; neither does it supply us with hypotaxes of moral obligation. In neither an absolute nor a dependent sense—neither as categorical nor as hypothetical imperatives, to use the Kantian terms—can our common knowledge of our nature or of the nature of the universe at large instruct us clearly in the content of true morality."
He's slipped from "secular society" to a wider attack on natural law and, although he states them, overlooks the key qualifiers, i.e., a "rightly attentive intellect" and a "properly reasoning mind".
Yes, neither of them argue their point particularly well in those pieces IMO; which is a shame, as Hart's main point is, I think, valid. How we explain traditional Christian teachings in a secular world that's not just post-Christian, but post-faith and in many ways post-truth, is an important and difficult conversation that nobody's having.
DeleteI think the debate about moral consequentialism illustrates this nicely. Historically, the idea of being faced with two evil choices would induce much soul searching and struggle. Now, even many Christians seem to have no problem with carrying out an evil act to either bring about 'good' or prevent a 'bigger' evil; and many more just seem perplexed that anything done in one's own interests could be regarded as evil in the first place, be that abortion or the 'collateral damage' of war.
HJ and Lain, I think Harts point with regards natural law, is a good one, even if he has missed some of the 'qualifiers'. I think particularly in our post faith, post truth society, his point is a good one.
Delete@ Clive - agreed. I don't think you can argue for natural law without any concept of God whatsoever.
DeleteHope you're keeping well.
Maybe ....
DeleteGod’s universe is an orderly, rational one, and we are rational creatures. There’s a lot we’re able to rationally discern about what we should and shouldn’t do. Natural law gives us a secular framework in which to evaluate the morality of legislation and court rulings by human governing institutions.
We can use the natural law to show non-believers that murder is wrong, and that murder is the killing of an innocent human being, and that human life (scientifically speaking!) begins at conception. This is likely to be more effective than haranguing them about the fact that, from our perspective, they are wrong.
Due to the law written on their hearts, nonbelievers still want to be moral. The American Humanist Association’s slogan is “Good without a God,”, meaning, “You can behave morally without knowing whether or not God exists” Catholics would, to some extent, agree. But if they mean that there can be objective morality without a Divine Lawgiver, the answer is no. The desire for moral goodness points us directly toward God as the source and ground of objective morality.
Natural law is simply another term for the universal moral law inscribed on the heart of every human. It applies to all people and in all eras without exception. The Catechism says: “The natural law expresses the original moral sense which enables man to discern by reason the good and the evil, the truth and the lie” (#1954).
If we behave against our nature or design, things don’t go so well. Human history operates to eventually force moral choices upon recalcitrant cultures. When we act according to our nature and design, humans flourish; we see virtue, strong families, and thriving societies. When we act against our nature and design, we get confusion, disorder, and sin.
Pope Leo XIII says of the natural law:
"The natural law is written and engraved in the soul of each and every man, because it is human reason ordaining him to do good and forbidding him to sin. . . . But this command of human reason would not have the force of law if it were not the voice and interpreter of a higher reason to which our spirit and our freedom must be submitted." (Libertas Praestantissimum).
Today people are adrift and disoriented. “Progressivism,” specifically sexual progressivism, is redefining morality so rapidly that we can’t be sure that what is acceptable today will still be acceptable tomorrow. When we institute consequentialism and relativism as the norm for morality, nothing is fixed, everything is shifting beneath our feet.
As Martin Luther King, Jr. said in his 1963 Letter from a Birmingham Jail:
"How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: an unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law."
We need this language and way of teaching to return!
@lain,
DeleteUp and down at the moment. It's a major pain in the arse. I'm struggling to do very much with my right hand, but such is life.
@HJ
The problem as I see it is a lot of what we believe to be universal under moral law, is in fact cultural.
The Romans had little compunction in building an empire, ditto the ottomans, ditto the British, french etc.
Indeed their various justifications were seen as moral, Islamic, Christian etc. It's only relatively recently has the morality of empire building been properly challenged.
And the shift has been caused by cultural changes, not by moral law, that has often been bended to suit the requirements of an individual or country..
Hmm ...
DeleteIt’s possible for our understanding and following of the natural law to become better (or worse) over time, but natural law itself doesn't change. We all have an intuitive understanding of the human person and what's just. That nations haven't, and don't, follow this is not a proof against natural law. What moral yardstick do we use to judge the past and the examples you've given? The whole idea of morality is that it binds us whether we like it or not and whether we're fully aware of it or not.
Natural law arguments on specific questions have rarely ever won unanimous and universal acclamation. This is because they often involve judgments about what St. Thomas Aquinas called the secondary precepts of the natural law, and such judgments are subject to all the vicissitudes of human fallenness that bedevil every individual and culture. As Aquinas notes, the secondary precepts of “the natural law can be blotted out from the human heart, either by evil persuasions, just as in speculative matters errors occur in respect of necessary conclusions; or by vicious customs and corrupt habits, as among some men, theft, and even unnatural vices, as the Apostle states (Romans 1), were not esteemed sinful.”(Aquinas, 1920, I.II, Q94, art. 6, respondeo).
Nevertheless, because, as St. Thomas puts it, the general principles of “the natural law, in the abstract, can nowise be blotted out from men’s hearts.” (Aquinas, 1920, I.II, Q94, art. 6, respondeo)
"We all have an intuitive understanding of the human person and what's just."
DeleteI think there is precious little evidence for that.
A rock doesn’t ask itself whether it should fall, and the hungry mouse doesn’t ask itself whether it should eat! Human beings have rational natures, so they deliberate and make choices. Sometimes they deliberate badly; sometimes their choices are bad
DeleteNatural law theory doesn’t claim that every precept of natural law is evident in itself. For example, it is evident in itself that good is to be done, that life is good, and that we should not commit undeserved harm to my neighbour. The proximate implications of such principles are also self-evident, for example the wrong of murder. But, as Aquinas notes, people can become confused about the details, or deceive themselves.
You're argument, is almost the same argument that Protestants use for the importance and accessibility of scripture.
DeleteWhat you also seem to be saying is that moral law is understood intuitively by all, except when it isn't. That we all have an innate understanding, except when we don't.
According to St. Paul, the Gentiles find the requirements of morality which conscience discerns written in their hearts, i.e., objective principles originating in human nature.
Delete"For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them."
(Romans 2:14-15)
People are naturally disposed to understand some basic practical principles - the “primary principles of natural law.” Everyone knows them naturally. They are the law written in one’s heart - the law whose voice is conscience,
@ Clive - I'm sorry to hear about your hand. I prayed for you during the Liturgy today.
Delete@ Jack - ... we are rational creatures. I'm not convinced that we are. We are creatures who rationalise, and we can occasionally be capable of making ration decisions (which aren't always correct - as Chesterton noted, insane asylums are full of the most rational people one could meet), but we are rarely rational and we're usually thrown back and forth by our passions.
If there is a natural law, I don't think it's fully discernible to the egotistical hearts of fallen creatures - therefore, we require a conscience formed by the divine 'law' to enable us to see the natural one.
@Lain
DeleteThank you, I appreciate that