Good until proven evil or vice-versa or...?

[tractarian]

I was asking if some course of action (doesn’t matter what) was ethical or not. My approach is that if an action is ethical, then an ethical justification for that action should be pretty easy to find and if it isn’t or if a justification for an action is doubtful, then that raises doubts about the action’s morality.
Then someone told me

Actually, in the case of morality it is up to a person to prove that something is morally wrong, not right. We assume good, not evil. If we find evil then we go against it. When you examine if something is mortally sinful you have to say “does it violate one of the commandments?”, and if it doesn’t then it’s not a mortal sin. You have to meet the conditions of it being sinful, not the conditions of it not being sinful.

This makes sense to me, and it certainly is good news for the scrupulous (I don’t think I’m overly scrupulous but I sure have a tendency to over-analyze!) But is it true?

I guess I’m looking for some source in moral theology that backs up this method as opposed to my initial approach to new things. Something Augustine or Aquinas or MacIntyre wrote or something like that.

 

[tractarian]

I just realized I am using the same methodology with the way I worded my query: assuming that something I’ve never heard before is not actual Church teaching until proven otherwise. Maybe I’m overly scrupulous and maybe not, but maybe I’m overly skeptical?!? :hypno:

Oh well, I’m *still *curious about some good sources on the foundations and approaches to moral theology, like this ‘good until shown to be evil’ methodology.

 

[praise_Jesus_1]

Hmmm. I’m not 100% sure about the above comment. It seems to make sense.

I’m curious to see what other posters have to say about this.

 

[Abu]

A slap-happy approach will not do.

Fr Thomas Dubay in Authenticity, Ignatius, 1997, writes: “Many people accept moral norms, not because they have carefully thought them out, but because these norms are easy and ‘everybody is doing it.’…Fear, joy, anguish, elation anger obviously interfere with cool reasoning and therefore with insight.”

We need to have our consciences formed correctly in the family, school, and make our own efforts. Then assenting to Catholic doctrine we can make correct judgments.

Studying the CCC and viewing EWTN will be very helpful.

 

[tractarian]

Yes of course. Since I’m a Catholic, acceptance of Catholic teachings on morals is, for me, a given. My question however is about methodology. I went thru the relevant parts of the CCC I could find and didn’t find an answer there (nor expect to since catechisms are for teaching settled subjects not the methodology used to settle them).

I wonder what approach to ethical questions is more in keeping with the tradition of Catholic theology.

 

[praise_Jesus_1]

These are some candid thoughts I’ve had. I’m curious though if anyone has anything to share from say Aquinas or Augustine.

In Genesis we read that everything that God created was good. I’ve heard it mentioned before that sin often takes something good and perverts it into something evil.

This could make a case for “Good until proven evil”

 

[Abu]

I hardly think so, since our inclinations are prone to taking the easy way out, unless we face reality and truth. And unless we, and our consciences, are formed correctly in our families we tend to stumble along in a confused state.

What God created good was wounded by man’s free-will choosing, through pride, to disobey.

Hence through that Original Sin mankind, as the pinnacle of earth’s creatures, lost Sanctifying Grace, integrity, immortality, immunity from suffering. We now have to discover, with real effort, what is the natural moral law for our actions, and to inform ourselves on Christ’s teaching through His Church which covers faith and morals infallibly.

 

[tractarian]

Abu:
No one is questioning the need to form our consciences; for the sake of argument, I *assume *a well-formed conscience as a starting point.

Conscience, however, is not the same as Prudence nor a replacement for it, so we are never freed from the necessity of utilizing that virtue. The question of methodology - assessing the true nature of some situation, organizing one’s knowledge about it, knowing how to best apply our knowledge of morals and our conscience, and reaching a decision for action, falls under Prudence, which like any virtue must be formed as well.

The creation theology re. all things are created good, I think is an argument for the “good until proven evil” approach. This has practical implications for how we deal with new or apparently new things. Things like the invention of the railroad, television, business practices like credit default swaps, office policies to discourage sexual harassment…all are new once, and none of them were or are intrinsically evil or broke any commandments, which means a well-formed conscience is faced with two broad approaches*:

1. 
   *]Assume they are good *until evidence presents itself *to the contrary
   *]Or assume - given our fallen nature as Abu rightly pointed out - that they probably are in some way corrupt and *take the initiative to look for what is *wrong with them before agreeing to have anything to do with it.
   
   Whenever something turns out to be more bad than good (like those credit default swaps), it’s natural to wish in hindsight that everyone had taken approach #2 and saved us all the headache of dealing with the negative consequences. That, however, is more an emotional (not to mention political in that example!!) argument; even when something turns out bad, it could always be argued that at some point, evidence that a new thing is more bad than good did present itself, but people ignored it until it was too late.

 

[Abu]

tractarian,
We have to avoid assuming that economic laws – such those identified by the Late Scholastics and the Austrian school – are in themselves other than reality, unless disproved. However it is mankind that possesses the ability to behave morally or otherwise. Yes, here as elsewhere, is precisely where prudence should be exercised and moral behaviour or otherwise identified as far as possible, in every sphere.

The blatant misuse of “freedom of expression” in TV shows, in journalism, and the evident confusion of good and evil in politics, the promotion of contraception, abortion and euthanasia, confirm the tendency to corrupt which fallen nature brings, and can bring, into any technological or scientific development.

We always have to be on the watch for, besides our fallen nature, we need to “be sober, be vigilant, because your adversary, the devil, walks about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour.” (1Pet. 5:8).

The two choices you assume as factual are fictitious, for a development in some science has to be rejected or accepted, and applied by human beings, and that’s where the good and/or evil arises. We can and do make honest mistakes, but let’s try to guard against them. After all, “accidents” are caused, they don’t just “happen”.