Proportionalism Flashcards
Introduction to proportionalism?
Proportionalism, based on Aquinas’ principle of double effect, involves weighing moral actions based on proportional reasoning. While its origins are clear, definitions vary among scholars. Most agree it stems from Aquinas’ fourth condition, which addresses actions with conflicting outcomes. Father Garth Hallett sees proportionalism as an ethical norm, advocating proportional reasoning in decision-making, though its application can differ. It provides a framework for resolving moral conflicts by considering the act, intention, and circumstances.
History of proportionalism?
Proportionalism’s origins trace back to Peter Knauer’s 1965 article, The Hermeneutical Function of the Principle of Double Effect, where he argued that “proportionate reason” was key to understanding Aquinas’ principle. The article emerged during a time when moral issues like contraception, abortion, and divorce were hotly debated, especially among Catholic theologians. Although proportionalism was not initially a response to these debates, it addressed how Christians could navigate complex moral dilemmas in a modern context. Proportionalists critiqued Joseph Fletcher’s situation ethics, which had been condemned by the Pope. The concept evolved post-Vatican II, particularly through Gaudium et Spes, which emphasized human dignity and moral response in the contemporary world.
Quote from Mcormack?
McCormick: “Fletcher has not made up his mind on how moral judgments are made. As long as this remains unclear, he can squeeze out of any epistemological ( knowledge and origins—where something comes from) corner because he has none to call his own.
However, just as within protestant Christianity in the 1960s, there was the same sense of uneasiness within the Roman Catholic moral theology.
In response to the changing social and moral views, some of which can contradict traditional catholic teaching
Hoose?
Hoose, a British-Italian moral theologian, published Proportionalism: The Moral Debate (1987), analyzing proportionalism rather than contributing directly to the theory. He explores three key areas: the distinction between moral goodness and rightness, the teleological vs. deontological views in natural law and proportionalism, and the direct vs. indirect effects in the principle of double effect. While neutral in tone, Hoose evaluates these debates, focusing on how proportionalism applies to ethical issues, particularly the justification of acts like self-defense. He outlines Aquinas’ four conditions for justifying actions like killing in self-defense, emphasizing that indirect harm may be acceptable if outweighed by a greater good.
Ectopic pregnancy example?
The principle of double effect is applied differently in cases like ectopic pregnancies. In the 1960s, the traditional approach involved removing the fallopian tube, indirectly ending the pregnancy, but directly removing the fetus was seen as impermissible. However, this strict interpretation may ignore broader consequences, like future infertility. The development of methotrexate in the 1980s introduced a new dilemma, where proportionalists argued that directly removing the fetus could be more ethical than removing both the tube and fetus. Proportionalists prioritize deontological reasoning and overall balance between good and evil, while traditionalists reject this due to concerns about “doing evil to achieve good,” referencing Romans 3:8. The debate hinges on how the four conditions of the principle of double effect are interpreted.
Proportionalist maxim?
Proportionalist maxim: It is never right to go against a principle unless there is a proportionate reason that would justify it.
This maxim has two aspects:
Deontological emphasis (first part)
Commensurate/proportionate reasoning
Proportionalism balances natural law and Catholic theology, which uphold absolute deontological principles. Proportionalists don’t reject these rules but argue that in conflicting situations, a greater good can justify a lesser evil, as in Aquinas’ self-defense example. They interpret Romans 3:8 as “Let us do the greater good in preserving life, even though this may result in unavoidable but proportionately lesser evil.” The key proviso is that actions can only be justified by proportionate reasons, a specific type of practical reasoning. Misunderstanding this leads to ethical relativism, which Walter and Knauer warn against.
Walter quote?
Walter: “ one should not mean by ‘reason’ some serious reason which one might offer in order to justify the pre-moral evil in the act.“
What did Knauer argue?
Knauer argued that proportionate reasoning, as defined by Walter, leads to the most extreme form of ethical relativism. This approach focuses on weighing the moral values and disvalues in an act, considering every aspect of the moral act without dismissing any through judgment. It creates a formal relationship between the act, the agent’s intention, and the circumstances, allowing all elements to be valid without direct or indirect distinctions.
Misintepretation of the maxim?
The maxim in proportionalism can be misinterpreted as justifying breaking natural law for a greater good, leading to concerns that it may excuse evil actions. Critics, like Majestrium, accuse proportionalists of misusing Romans 3:8 to rationalize evil. However, proportionalists argue they focus on evaluating what is morally right, not just what is good, considering all elements of a moral decision (the act, intention, and circumstances). They argue that certain acts, like killing in self-defense, may be morally right in specific contexts, not good, but justified through proportionate reasoning. McCormick states that proportionate reason must equate to a value at least equal to the harm caused.
Good and right?
The distinction between “good” and “right” in ethics is important. “Good” refers to actions that follow moral rules and describe moral qualities, while “right” involves evaluative judgments based on context. Proportionalists argue that moral goodness is not always the same as being morally right, and actions must be assessed by weighing good and evil elements along with contextual factors. They reject absolutism, believing that rules should be applied thoughtfully to achieve the best outcomes. Hoose emphasizes that while conscience can guide moral goodness, it can be misleading when determining what is morally right.
Evil moral act vs ontic evil?
In traditional ethics, an evil moral act is considered intrinsically evil, always wrong, and never justifiable. Proportionalism, however, allows for a re-evaluation of such acts based on proportional reasoning. For example, an act like killing, traditionally seen as evil, could be morally justified in self-defense if the circumstances outweigh the intrinsic evil. Ontic evil refers to physical or natural evil, such as human nature’s flaws or original sin. Proportionalists extend this idea, considering moral shortcomings as part of ontic evil, though some may find this inaccurate. The key issue is balancing what is good and right versus bad and wrong, as denying intrinsically evil acts challenges core Catholic doctrines.
Agape?
Agape, as identified by Aquinas’ natural law, is considered the highest virtue and essential in natural law ethics. It is linked to developing a godly character, exemplified by Jesus, and aimed at the Beatific vision. In the 20th century, Joseph Fletcher’s situation ethics emerged as a response to the questioning of ontological approaches, incorporating agape principles while offering more flexibility than traditional views. The debate also led to discussions on the principle of double effect. Unlike situation ethics, proportionalism is not solely based on agape but respects it as the highest virtue, integrating it into ethical behavior while emphasizing practical applications of Christian life.
