Ethics and circumstances

  • Thread starter Thread starter Krebsbach
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
K

Krebsbach

Guest
The church, along with St. Tom, teaches that we should evaluate a human act in terms of the object, intention and circumstances. The Catechism says that the circumstances (the who, where, when and how), while they can render a normally good act bad, can’t make an evil act good or right. The circumstances can only increase or diminish the evil of an act.
But I was recetnly told by a authority in our diocese that the circumstances can actually dictate whether or not a moral rule is applied. This, to me, says something different than the Catechism. Any moral theology experts out there?

Thanks

kordially

karl
 
And what about intentions? We are taught that good intentions can’t render a bad act good. Yet the classic example of Jean Valjean stealing bread with the good intention of feeding his family is given as an instance where a good intention will do just that. So what gives?
 
…Positive precepts such as these, which order us to perform certain actions and to cultivate certain dispositions, are universally binding; they are “unchanging”.94 They unite in the same common good all people of every period of history, created for “the same divine calling and destiny”.95 These universal and permanent laws correspond to things known by the practical reason and are applied to particular acts through the judgment of conscience. The acting subject personally assimilates the truth contained in the law. He appropriates this truth of his being and makes it his own by his acts and the corresponding virtues. The *negative precepts *of the natural law are universally valid. They oblige each and every individual, always and in every circumstance. It is a matter of prohibitions which forbid a given action semper et pro semper, without exception, because the choice of this kind of behaviour is in no case compatible with the goodness of the will of the acting person, with his vocation to life with God and to communion with his neighbour. It is prohibited — to everyone and in every case — to violate these precepts. They oblige everyone, regardless of the cost, never to offend in anyone, beginning with oneself, the personal dignity common to all.
Click to expand...
On the other hand, the fact that only the negative commandments oblige always and under all circumstances does not mean that in the moral life prohibitions are more important than the obligation to do good indicated by the positive commandments. The reason is this: the commandment of love of God and neighbour does not have in its dynamic any higher limit, but it does have a lower limit, beneath which the commandment is broken. Furthermore, what must be done in any given situation depends on the circumstances, not all of which can be foreseen; on the other hand there are kinds of behaviour which can never, in any situation, be a proper response — a response which is in conformity with the dignity of the person. Finally, it is always possible that man, as the result of coercion or other circumstances, can be hindered from doing certain good actions; but he can never be hindered from not doing certain actions, especially if he is prepared to die rather than to do evil.
Click to expand...
The Church has always taught that one may never choose kinds of behaviour prohibited by the moral commandments expressed in negative form in the Old and New Testaments. As we have seen, Jesus himself reaffirms that these prohibitions allow no exceptions: “If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments… You shall not murder, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness” (Mt 19:17-18)…
Click to expand...
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_06081993_veritatis-splendor_en.html
Click to expand...
You may want to read the entire encyclical it is very good and very powerful.
 
Some “circumstances” are primary circumstances while others are not. Fornication is an sin that one can commit on a Thursday, and the date usually does not enter into much moral consideration, (-maybe if it were Sunday we would be further profaning the Lord’s day, but anyway…). The fact that in the fornication one of the partners is married is not a incidental circumstance, but rather a primary one, and we no longer call the act formication, but rather adultery. Both fornication and adultery are mortal sins, and destroy the life of grace. Adultery brings with it further damage against a marriage, and all connected with that marriage: a further lesion of justice, with consequences potentially far greater, and harder to repair.

Striking an innocent woman is a sin against the 5th commandment; that she is known to be a vowed religious to the attacker is a further lesion against justice as well. The “circumstance” of her vocation and state is one of the primary determinants of the species of the sin.

Knowing all the circumstances is helpful; knowing all the primary circumstances is essential for conversion and restoring the order of things as well as grace in God’s providence will allow.

Marty
 
Regarding the taking of bread and intentions…

When one intends to steal, that is taking what one knows one has no right to take, even if we take something that turns out to be “free” we had a bad intention and this puts us in a sinful way.

When we are starving and take bread to feed ourselves or others who are starving, the moral object -taking something that is not ours to take- is changed.

Stealing is taking something against the reasonable wishes of the owner. We can assume that the owner of the bread would not want us to die over bread. The only tricky point would occur if EVERYONE were starving, then with everyone in the same situation would respect the others things.

The principle here is the “Universal Destination of Goods”. I paste the Catechism reference at the end.

Saying that a good intention changes the morality of the "moral “object” is not a Catholic approach. It would come down to the “ends justify the means”.

The Cathechism reference on Universal Destination of Goods:

I. THE UNIVERSAL DESTINATION AND THE PRIVATE OWNERSHIP OF GOODS
2402 In the beginning God entrusted the earth and its resources to the common stewardship of mankind to take care of them, master them by labor, and enjoy their fruits.187 The goods of creation are destined for the whole human race. However, the earth is divided up among men to assure the security of their lives, endangered by poverty and threatened by violence. The appropriation of property is legitimate for guaranteeing the freedom and dignity of persons and for helping each of them to meet his basic needs and the needs of those in his charge. It should allow for a natural solidarity to develop between men.
2403 The right to private property, acquired or received in a just way, does not do away with the original gift of the earth to the whole of mankind. The universal destination of goods remains primordial, even if the promotion of the common good requires respect for the right to private property and its exercise.
2404 “In his use of things man should regard the external goods he legitimately owns not merely as exclusive to himself but common to others also, in the sense that they can benefit others as well as himself.” The ownership of any property makes its holder a steward of Providence, with the task of making it fruitful and communicating its benefits to others, first of all his family.
2405 Goods of production - material or immaterial - such as land, factories, practical or artistic skills, oblige their possessors to employ them in ways that will benefit the greatest number. Those who hold goods for use and consumption should use them with moderation, reserving the better part for guests, for the sick and the poor.
2406 Political authority has the right and duty to regulate the legitimate exercise of the right to ownership for the sake of the common good.

Marty
 
Thanks Marty and Fix,

You’ve been helpful.

It take it then, with regard to circumstances, that the church teaches:
  1. Circumstances can both diminish the good and enhance the evil of an act.
and
  1. Circumstances can render an otherwise good act bad. e.g. A husband and wife performing the marital act is good, but not if they want to do it in public.
  2. Circumstances can fundamentally change the object so that a different rule applies, as in the case of stealing the bread to feed starving children.
How is this different than situational ethics? (I need to explain this to my confirmation class)
 
Krebsbach said:
Thanks Marty and Fix,

You’ve been helpful.

It take it then, with regard to circumstances, that the church teaches:
  1. Circumstances can both diminish the good and enhance the evil of an act.
and
  1. Circumstances can render an otherwise good act bad. e.g. A husband and wife performing the marital act is good, but not if they want to do it in public.
  2. Circumstances can fundamentally change the object so that a different rule applies, as in the case of stealing the bread to feed starving children.
How is this different than situational ethics? (I need to explain this to my confirmation class)
Click to expand...
I am no expert. It seems from my reading that moral acts have an intention, a means, and an end. All must to be good. If one part of that equation is evil the act is bad. Also, certain actions are always evil called intrinsic evil. Such actions may never be done for any reason and at any time.

Situational ethics seems to be a philosophy that determines rightness or wrongness based on the situation one finds themself in with no regard to absolute norms.

The taking of food when one is starving and no other means are available would not rightly be called theft. The definition of theft would be taking another’s goods against the reasonable will of the owner. So, the circumstances of such a case do not transform theft into a good act. Theft does not apply in such a case as it is not rightly theft.

Circumstances do influence the goodness or evilness of an act and culpability, but they cannot make evil acts good.
 
Hi Fix,

“Situational ethics seems to be a philosophy that determines rightness or wrongness based on the situation one finds themself in with no regard to absolute norms.”

I eventually consulted a book by Joseph Fletcher, a modern proponent of situation ethics. He would say “with no regard to absolute norms save the the norm of love.” In other words, always try and do the most loving thing in any situation. With a rule that general, this means that the individual does all the weighing and deciding in the end. So we arrive back at subjective ethics.

At least with St. Tom’s system we still have unchangable rules. Although it does appear that they aren’t applied nearly so inflexibly as I once thought.
 
Krebsbach said:
I eventually consulted a book by Joseph Fletcher, a modern proponent of situation ethics. He would say “with no regard to absolute norms save the the norm of love.”
Click to expand...
The difficulty with Fletcher’s norm is that he does not see love as an absolute norm; it apears to be not much more than an emotional feeling that “What I am doing is loving”. True love is self giving, not self taking, and it is based on a belief that there are absolutes. Without that, two separate but identical acts between the same two individuals can have different valuations based on the view at the moment of the decider. Fletcher doesn’t deal at all well with a conflict between the two actors wherein one sees the act as loving and the other doesn’t. The actor of first consequence is making the decision, as if the other actor(s) either see the act also as loving, or have no opinion.
 
Krebsbach said:
Thanks Marty and Fix,

You’ve been helpful.

It take it then, with regard to circumstances, that the church teaches:
  1. Circumstances can both diminish the good and enhance the evil of an act.
and
  1. Circumstances can render an otherwise good act bad. e.g. A husband and wife performing the marital act is good, but not if they want to do it in public.
  2. Circumstances can fundamentally change the object so that a different rule applies, as in the case of stealing the bread to feed starving children.
How is this different than situational ethics? (I need to explain this to my confirmation class)
Click to expand...
First off…some great answers here.

The situational ethicist would say that an act can only be evaluated individually taking into account ALL circumstances not just the principal circumstances. St. Thomas Aquinas notes that there are particular circumstances and principal circumstances. The particular can push an object toward good or evil while the principal fundamentally alters the object itself to good or evil. The the situational ethicist there can be no intrinsically evil acts, that is acts that are always evil no matter what. So, for this ethicist abortion, fornication, homosexual acts, etc. can theoretically sometimes be moral. We know from the teaching of the Church there are intrinsically evil acts (see Veritatis Splendor).

A good way to make them realize that intrinsically evil acts do exist contrary to the situational ethicist is with an example. Ask your class to think of a situation where rape or infanticide would be moral. According to the relativist, sometimes it would have to be. Only with the Catholic position do we see that such acts are never permissible even if in some bizarre situation great good effects could come from such a thing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top