Proportionalism

Question 1

Introduction to proportionalism?

Answer 1

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.

Question 2

History of proportionalism?

Answer 2

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.

Question 3

Quote from Mcormack?

Answer 3

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

Question 4

Hoose?

Answer 4

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.

Question 5

Ectopic pregnancy example?

Answer 5

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.

Question 6

Proportionalist maxim?

Answer 6

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.