Whether proportionalism is better suited to our fallen world

Question 1

What is considered a strength of Natural law in ethical decision-making?

A strength of Natural law is its flexibility due to the doctrine of the double effect.

Answer 1

Natural law’s flexibility is highlighted by the doctrine of the double effect, which allows for nuanced ethical reasoning in complex situations.

Question 2

How has the doctrine of the double effect been applied in modern Catholicism?

A strength of Natural law is its flexibility due to the doctrine of the double effect.

Answer 2

In modern Catholicism, the doctrine of the double effect has been utilized to justify practices such as passive euthanasia, abortion to save the life of the mother (albeit controversially), and contraception to prevent the spread of AIDS.

Question 3

How does the doctrine of the double effect contribute to the flexibility of Natural law?

A strength of Natural law is its flexibility due to the doctrine of the double effect.

Answer 3

The doctrine of the double effect enables Natural law to accommodate various ethical dilemmas by allowing for the consideration of both intended and unintended consequences of actions, leading to greater flexibility in ethical decision-making.

Question 4

What is a weakness of Natural law ethics highlighted by B. Hoose’s proportionalism?

Weakness: B. Hoose’s proportionalism

Answer 4

B. Hoose’s proportionalism challenges traditional Natural law ethics by introducing a more flexible and coherent framework that allows for the consideration of proportionate reasons in ethical decision-making.

Question 5

How do proportionalists differ from traditional Natural law ethicists in their approach to ethical dilemmas?

Weakness: B. Hoose’s proportionalism

Answer 5

Proportionalists, like B. Hoose, argue that it is acceptable to deviate from the primary precepts of Natural law if there is a proportionate reason to do so, wherein the action will bring about more good than harm.

Question 6

What conditions of the doctrine of double effect do proportionalists consider invalid?

Weakness: B. Hoose’s proportionalism

Answer 6

Proportionalists reject the validity of the nature of the act condition and the means-end condition of the doctrine of double effect. Instead, they emphasize the importance of proportionality, wherein the action’s overall value outweighs its disvalue.

Question 7

Provide an example illustrating the application of proportionalism in ethical decision-making.

Weakness: B. Hoose’s proportionalism

Answer 7

According to proportionalism, it may be morally justifiable to kill a baby to save the lives of its family if the overall value of saving the family outweighs the disvalue of killing the baby. This example highlights how proportionalists prioritize proportionate reasons over adherence to traditional primary precepts.

Question 8

What is considered a strength of proportionalism in ethical decision-making?

A resulting strength of proportionalism is it’s far greater flexibility.

Answer 8

Proportionalism offers significantly greater flexibility compared to traditional Natural law ethics, as it allows for the consideration of proportionate reasons to justify actions that may otherwise be deemed morally wrong.

Question 9

How does proportionalism approach actions that are traditionally considered wrong according to Natural law ethics?

A resulting strength of proportionalism is it’s far greater flexibility.

Answer 9

Proportionalism contends that there are no intrinsically evil actions and that the morality of an action depends on whether there is a proportionate reason for performing it in a particular situation. Thus, actions such as euthanasia, abortion, or genetic engineering could be morally permissible under proportionalism if a proportionate reason is present.

Question 10

What does proportionalism prioritize in ethical decision-making?

A resulting strength of proportionalism is it’s far greater flexibility.

Answer 10

Proportionalism prioritizes the consideration of proportionate reasons over adherence to traditional ethical principles, allowing for a more flexible approach to determining the morality of actions.

Question 11

What is Hoose’s main critique of Aquinas’ view on the double effect?

Hoose’s argument for the greater coherence of proportionalism.

Answer 11

Hoose argues that an overall good act cannot consist of bad parts, such as breaking the primary precepts. He believes moral evil cannot be a component of moral goodness.

Question 12

According to Hoose, how should we view the parts of an action in terms of good and evil?

Hoose’s argument for the greater coherence of proportionalism.

Answer 12

Hoose posits that the parts of an action are good or evil in a factual or physical sense, regarding their enabling or disabling of flourishing (eudaimonia), rather than in a moral sense.

Question 13

What are ‘ontic goods’ and ‘ontic evils’ according to Hoose?

Hoose’s argument for the greater coherence of proportionalism.

Answer 13

‘Ontic goods’ are physical or factual goods, such as health, life, and knowledge, which enable flourishing. ‘Ontic evils’ are the deprivation of such goods.

Question 14

How does Hoose suggest we determine whether an action is overall morally good?

Hoose’s argument for the greater coherence of proportionalism.

Answer 14

Hoose suggests judging whether the action produced more ontic good compared to ontic evil. If the ontic goods outweigh the ontic evils, then there is a proportionate reason for performing the action, making it morally good.

Question 15

What example does Hoose use to illustrate his point against Aquinas’ view, and how does he reinterpret it?

Hoose’s argument for the greater coherence of proportionalism.

Answer 15

Hoose uses the example of killing a baby to save a family. Aquinas would call it morally evil, but Hoose calls it an ontic evil that must be weighed against the ontic good of saving the family. If the ontic good outweighs the ontic evil, it is morally good.

Question 16

What does Hoose say about the moral rightness or wrongness of an act?

Hoose’s argument for the greater coherence of proportionalism.

Answer 16

Hoose asserts, “An act is either morally right or morally wrong. It cannot be both. If we talk of morally evil (meaning morally wrong) elements in an act that is morally right and is performed by a morally good person, we confuse the whole issue.”

Question 17

How does Hoose redefine the components of an action in terms of moral judgment?

Hoose’s argument for the greater coherence of proportionalism.

Answer 17

Hoose redefines the components of an action not as morally good or bad but as ontic goods or evils. The moral judgment of an action depends on whether the ontic goods outweigh the ontic evils.

Question 18

How does proportionalism differ from Aquinas’ natural law regarding the primary precepts?

Hoose’s argument for the greater coherence of proportionalism.

Answer 18

Proportionalism allows for breaking the primary precepts if there is a proportionate reason, focusing on the balance of ontic goods and evils, unlike Aquinas’ more rigid adherence to the precepts.

Question 19

What is John Paul II’s main critique of proportionalism?

Evaluation defending Natural law

Answer 19

John Paul II argues that proportionalism misunderstands the objective and intention required for ethical action. It misdirects our ethical purpose towards balancing ontic goods and evils rather than following the primary precepts.

Question 20

According to John Paul II, when is acting considered morally good?

Evaluation defending Natural law

Answer 20

“Acting is morally good when the choices of freedom are in conformity with man’s true good and thus express the voluntary ordering of the person towards his ultimate end.”

Question 21

How does natural law determine the morality of human actions according to John Paul II?

Evaluation defending Natural law

Answer 21

The morality of human actions under natural law depends on the “object” rationally chosen by the deliberate will, which aligns with the primary precepts discovered through reason.

Question 22

What does John Paul II say about the role of primary precepts in natural law?

Evaluation defending Natural law

Answer 22

John Paul II states that God designed us to intuitively know the primary precepts, and our telos or ethical purpose is to follow them.

Question 23

How does John Paul II view the ethical goal of natural law compared to proportionalism?

Evaluation defending Natural law

Answer 23

John Paul II believes the ethical goal of natural law is to follow the primary precepts, while proportionalism misdirects our goal towards balancing ontic goods and evils produced by our actions.

Question 24

What does John Paul II mean by saying proportionalism misdirects our ethical purpose?

Evaluation defending Natural law

Answer 24

Proportionalism shifts focus from following the primary precepts to considering the overall balance of ontic goods and evils, which deviates from the intention designed by God for human action.

Question 25

How does John Paul II's view on the morality of human acts relate to Saint Thomas Aquinas? ## Footnote Evaluation defending Natural law

Answer 25

John Paul II upholds that the morality of human acts, as analyzed by Saint Thomas Aquinas, depends primarily on the rational choice of the object by deliberate will, which aligns with following primary precepts.

Question 26

Why does John Paul II reject the idea of proportionalism providing flexibility in ethical decision-making? ## Footnote Evaluation defending Natural law

Answer 26

John Paul II rejects proportionalism because it deviates from the God-given purpose of following primary precepts and instead focuses on the balance of ontic goods and evils, which he sees as a misdirection.

Question 27

What assumption do defenders of traditional Natural law like John Paul II make about our ultimate end? ## Footnote Evaluation criticising Natural law

Answer 27

They assume that our ultimate end is simply to follow the precepts of natural law in a rigid deontological way.

Question 28

How might calculating the ontic goods over evils be part of our ultimate end? ## Footnote Evaluation criticising Natural law

Answer 28

Calculating the ontic goods over evils of our actions could actually be part of our ultimate end, as it helps in making ethical decisions that contribute to overall human flourishing.

Question 29

What did Aquinas believe about the list of primary precepts? ## Footnote Evaluation criticising Natural law

Answer 29

Aquinas accepted that his list of primary precepts was not final and could be added to as our understanding of human nature's telos evolves.

Question 30

Why can’t developments like proportionalism be dismissed according to this critique? ## Footnote Evaluation criticising Natural law

Answer 30

Developments like proportionalism cannot be dismissed simply because they differ from the traditional approach; they represent an ongoing project to understand the telos of our nature.

Question 31

What is a key critique of John Paul II’s interpretation of Natural law? ## Footnote Evaluation criticising Natural law

Answer 31

A key critique is that John Paul II’s rigid deontological approach may overlook the importance of calculating ontic goods and evils, which can be integral to achieving our ultimate end.

Question 32

How does this critique view the project of understanding human nature’s telos? ## Footnote Evaluation criticising Natural law

Answer 32

The project of understanding human nature’s telos is seen as ongoing and evolving, allowing for new ethical theories like proportionalism to refine our moral understanding.

Question 33

How does this critique challenge the traditional Natural law's rigidity? ## Footnote Evaluation criticising Natural law

Answer 33

This critique challenges the rigidity by suggesting that ethical decision-making should incorporate the balance of ontic goods and evils, which can align with our ultimate telos.

Question 34

What does this critique imply about ethical developments and traditional approaches? ## Footnote Evaluation criticising Natural law

Answer 34

It implies that ethical developments should not be dismissed for differing from traditional approaches but should be considered as part of the ongoing exploration of human nature and ethics.