natural law, intrinsic evil, & moral norms in the moral triangle by james t. bretzke, s.j.,...
TRANSCRIPT
Natural Law, Intrinsic Evil, & Moral Norms in the Moral Triangle
By
James T. Bretzke, S.J., S.T.D.
Professor of Moral Theology
Boston College
Distinctions Between Natural Law And Law of Nature¨ Natural law deals with
morality and character, e.g. right/wrong
¨ Natural law depends for its existence on human beings AND God
¨ Natural law’s “objectivity” needs careful understanding and can only be discovered within the realm of human moral being (conscience)
¨ Laws of nature deal with the physical universe, e.g. gravity
¨ Laws of nature are “objective” and bind irrespective of human beings (e.g. gravity binds even without humans)
¨ Law of nature can be discovered by scientific analysis of the world outside of us.
Location of the Law¨ Natural Law¨ Location is primarily
within the human person(s) in their relation to God
¨ It is not “out there” in the sense of the chemical periodic table of elements
¨ Thomas says it is “inscribed” on the human heart (Lex indita non scripta)
¨ Law of Nature¨ Location is primarily
outside in the operations of the physical universe
¨ Thus, the law of nature is discovered through science and/or observation of the physical universe and its properties
¨ A morally bad person could be a gifted chemist, etc.
Examples of {Im}Possibility
¨ Natural Law¨ Going to confession =
possible for many; difficult for some
¨ Confessing to one’s son (a priest) = difficult for some; “morally impossible” for others
¨ One set of rules does not necessarily fit all (cf. ST 1-II, Q. 94, art. 4)
¨ Law of Nature¨ NaCl + H2O =
Possible¨ Au + H2O = Very
difficult¨ Au + NaCl =
Impossible?¨ One set of rules fits
all
{IM}POSSIBILITY¨ Natural Law¨ Impossibility refers primarily to
moral impossibility, which is necessarily subjective (i.e., related to an individual subject)
¨ Thus what is morally “possible” for one individual may be morally impossible for another
¨ Moral possibility/impossibility is more difficult to determine, since it is necessarily subjective.
¨ Law of Nature¨ Impossibility refers to the
basic laws of physics, chemistry, biology, etc. which are “objective” and apply to all
¨ What is physically impossible is fairly easy to determine.
¨ Thus birds can fly under their own power, but humans cannot
The Ontological Claim
¨ There is, in some sense, an objective moral order
¨ Grounded in a human nature¨ Which indicates a certain way of being¨ And activities consonant with that being¨ As well as actions and ways of being not in
accord with that nature
The Epistemological Claim
¨ Not only does this order exist, but we can in some real and significant sense “know” it
¨ I.e., we can know both the nature of human being¨ And those actions which are consistent with
human flourishing¨ As well as those which are incompatible with
human flourishing
Natural Law Claims Summary
ONTOLOGICAL CLAIM: The Objective Moral Order Exists
EPISTEMOLOGICAL CLAIM: We Can Know It In Some Real Sense
Normative Claim:We must follow the moral norms of this objective moral order
Normable Claim: This moral order can be expressed as moral norms
Universalist Claim: Some of these moral norms bind all peoples in all times in some way
Universalizable Claim:Some of these moral norms can be formulated to apply to all peoples
Notion of Moral Paradigms¨ Only God Can Know the Whole of Reality¨ Thus for the rest of us this knowledge is
necessarily incomplete and partial, and we tend to understand complex realities according to models and paradigms
¨ Can we speak of authentic cultural paradigms, etc., for morality and ethics?
¨ Necessary Openness to Revision of All Paradigms—especially in light of new insights
The Physicalist Paradigm
¨ Moral obligation comes from following the physical or “natural” structure of the given “faculty”
¨ Thus, for the “faculty” of speech one must always communicate the truth
¨ To do otherwise would be to accept contra naturam [against the nature] of the faculty
Personalist Paradigm¨ Begins with the individual human person¨ In his or her concrete situation¨ Looking at his or her personal attributes,
needs, goals, desires¨ Pays special attention to the relations with
others (especially close relations)¨ All these to some extent will be unique
Bob & Carol; Ted & Alice
¨ DINKs: Gen X, Double Income, No Kids!¨ Desire to maintain a certain life-style¨ Artificial contraception is the most
convenient means of avoiding children
¨ Mid-40’s, married for 20 years, 5 children:¨ College freshman, 2 in high school, one in grade school,
one Downs syndrome¨ Alice advised to have no more children¨ Have tried (unsuccessfully) NFP
Paradigms Analysis¨ Physicalist Paradigm
– Bob and Carol– Ted and Alice
¨ Personalist Paradigm– Bob and Carol– Ted and Alice
Strengths& Weaknesses of Each Paradigm
Physicalist Paradigm Personalist Paradigm
Issues Angle
Judgment Angle Application Angle
Ass
umpt
ions Features
StrategiesPrin
cipl
es
Truth Claims Goals
Moral
Triangle
Based
Analysis & Application
Right Reason (Recta Ratio) in Thomas Aquinas¨ Speculative Reason¨ Abstract, “logical” truth¨ “Necessarily” true¨ Universally true for all¨ Exercise of logical
wisdom and reasoning¨ Some examples…
¨ Practical Reason¨ Reason put into concrete
practice¨ Affected by
“contingency”¨ Affected by “fallibility¨ Not universally true for all
in the same way¨ Exercise of prudential
wisdom¨ Some examples…
Judgment Angle
Mor
al P
rinc
iple
s
Truth Claims
Moral principles operative in this issueHow these principles are grounded and establishedTruth claims connected to these principlesHow these truth claims are verified and validatedHow the judgment angle connects to application
(Human Life is Sacred)
(Do Not Murder)
Judgment Angle
Mor
al P
rinc
iple
s
Truth Claims
The same questions can be addressed to the judgment angleAre several moral principles operative in this issue?Or does it seem to be only a single principle issue?How are potential conflicts among the principles resolved?What truth claims are connected to these principles?Which of the moral sources are used to verify the truth claims?
Levels of Moral Norms Summary
¨ Universal Precepts
¨ Middle Axioms
¨ Concrete Material Norms
¨ Always binding, expressed as abstract truths, such as “drive safely” or “Do not murder”
¨ Generally true, in most cases (ut in pluribus) but exceptions exist, e.g. “follow the speed limit”
¨ Apply to a specific situation but are more open to both change and fallibility , e.g.“15 MPH in School Zone:
Universal Moral Principles
¨ Bonum est faciendum et prosequendum et malum vitandum (ST I-II, q. 94)
¨ The good is to be done and fostered, and evil avoided
¨ Look carefully at the grammar…¨ Knowable by all as principles of truth,
according to speculative reason¨ E.g., Drive safely, as in the following?!
Even at the Level of Universal Precept “Error” Is Still Possible!
Middle Axioms
¨ Moral norms which are generally true and not easily altered
¨ Lex valet ut in pluribus (the law/norm is valid “in most cases”)
¨ Yet, according to circumstance and time these norms might be changed or have “exceptions”
¨ E.g., drive according to the speed limit
We should note the “natural” human resistance to norms
Concrete Material Norms
¨ Particular and specific, often tied to a particular understanding of time and/or circumstance
¨ These may be “incomplete” and/or necessary to alter according to time or place
¨ Thus, more “fallible” and more “contingent”¨ E.g., drive 15 mph in a school zone
Absolute Moral Norms?
¨ Universal principles ? (Speculative Reason)¨ Middle Axioms ?{Speculative & Practical
Reason combined}¨ Concrete Material Norms ?{Primarily
practical reason}¨ Logically only “Universal Principles” can
be “absolutely” and “unchangeably” binding
What Kind of a Rule is This? Universal Precept or ?
Is There Something We Need to Know, like “Circumstances”
Does the Big(ger) Picture Help Us Interpret the Norm?
“No Smoking/Eating Allowed”
But Is This Norm “Absolute” Even for This Context??
Universal Precept? Middle Axiom? Concrete Material Norm?
Now Have We Found a Moral Absolute at Last??
“Traditional Fonts of Morality”
Action in se (“objective” aspect of the act)
Intention of the moral agent
Circumstances in which the agent’s intention was made and in which the action was performed
While in the tradition these aspects were treated “separately,” in reality they exist only together, and “simultaneously”
Moral Acts in the Catechism of the Catholic Church¨ 1755 A morally good act requires the
goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself (such as praying and fasting "in order to be seen by men").
Thomas Aquinas on Intention & Circumstances in Moral Acts
¨ Now moral acts take their species according to what is intended, and not according to what is beside the intention, since this is accidental as explained above (43, 3; I-II, 12, 1). ST II-II, q. 64, art. 7
¨ Circumstances are key on human acts: “a circumstance makes a moral action to be specifically good or bad. …[a] circumstance gives the species of good or evil to a moral action, in so far as it regards a special order of reason.” ST I-II, Q. 18, arts. 10,11
Moral Acts in Veritatis Splendor
¨ The morality of the human act depends primarily and fundamentally on the "object" rationally chosen by the deliberate will, as is borne out by the insightful analysis, still valid today, made by Saint Thomas. [ST I-II, Q. 18, art. 6]
¨ In order to be able to grasp the object of an act which specifies that act morally, it is therefore necessary to place oneself in the perspective of the acting person. [VS #78]
Concern over Moral Relativism
Intrinsically Evil Acts
¨ Intrinsice malum in se¨ A different species of moral act?¨ Seriously morally evil act always wrong in
and of itself, by virtue of its object¨ Regardless of further consideration of
intention and/or circumstances¨ Though these can reduce moral culpability
on the part of the moral agent
True & False Understandings of Intrinsically Evil Acts
¨ False Understandings
¨ Always wrong regardless of any consideration of intention
¨ Always wrong regardless of any consideration of circumstances
¨ True Understandings
¨ Wrong by nature of its object (which presumes/demands “intention)
¨ Wrong “in se” (which presumes/demands an act that occurs in specifiable time & space (i.e., “circumstances)
“IF” the False were True…
¨ Each & every termination of fetal life would be morally wrong
¨ Each & every killing would be morally wrong
¨ Each & every contraceptive effect would be morally wrong
¨ Including resolving the ectopic pregnancy
¨ Including self-defense, just war, and even accidents
¨ Including therapeutic uses explicitly accepted in Humanae vitae #15
Problematic of Intrinsic Evil in Veritatis Splendor¨ 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" [VS #80]
Intention & Circumstances in Veritatis Splendor #80¨ "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.“
¨ "If acts are intrinsically evil, a good intention or particular circumstances can diminish their evil, but they cannot remove it. They remain `irremediably' evil acts; per se and in themselves they are not capable of being ordered to God and to the good of the person.“
¨ "Consequently, circumstances or intentions can never transform an act intrinsically evil by virtue of its object into an act `subjectively' good or defensible as a choice."
Deus impossibilia non iubet¨ "God does not command of humans things which
are impossible to do“¨ Thus, God’s grace was understood to always be
present to enable people to do the morally correct thing.
¨ Yet, we must keep in mind that if something is impossible then it cannot be commanded by God.
¨ Remember John 10:10 on the Mission of Jesus: “I have come that they might have life, and have it to the full.”
Issues Angle
Ass
umpt
ions
Relevant Features
What are the assumptions brought to the issue?What are all the morally relevant features of this issue?How do these intersect to frame the issue?How will this frame connect to moral judgment?
Issues Angle
Ass
umpt
ions
Relevant Features
Are the assumptions narrowly or broadly focused?Do they open up or close off further discussion?What morally relevant features are decisive?What features are considered irrelevant?Is the issues angle too broad or narrow?
The Virtue of Epikeia
¨ From the Greek word for “fitting”¨ Source of some debate among medieval
theologians, some of which saw it as a grudging “dispensation”
¨ But according to Thomas it is “virtue” which ought to become habitual
¨ Since it seeks to “perfect” the law
3 Applications of Epikeia
¨ To correct an impossible law¨ To correct an inhuman law¨ To correct a law which did not foresee this
particular set of circumstances (the so-called “reading the mind of the legislator”
¨ Some examples of each…
Application Angle
Strategies employed
Goals desired
What are the primary and secondary goals hoped for in the response?How are the strategies devised to reach these goals?How do these goals and strategies relate back to theIssues and Judgment Angles?
Application Angle
Strategies employed
Goals desired
Is the Application Angle likewise too narrow or too broad?Are there several goals involved, or just one or two?How is the hierarchy of values of the goals judged?How are the strategies devised to reach these goals?Is there room for gradualism and/or compromise?
Issues Angle
Judgment Angle Application Angle
Ass
umpt
ions Features
StrategiesPrin
cipl
es
Truth Claims Goals
Moral
Triangle
Basis for Ongoing
Moral Discernment
Where Do We Go From Here?
¨ Morality is always and only lived in the concrete
¨ Therefore, individuals must discern, decide, and act, in freedom, in order to be moral
¨ Traditionally this is where conscience comes into play
Three Legs of Moral Discernment
Individual Effort Community Discussion
Openness to God’s Spirit