As I said earlier, we all usually work out the right thing to do by looking at the consequences of different options. But we don’t only look at the consequences. Most of us don’t think any means is permissible, such as rape or torture or killing. Most of us believe some acts are categorically wrong.
But apparently that doesn’t include everyone, and obviously God cannot possibly be the foundation for morality if you can make such complicated arguments to turn evil into good and vice into virtue
.
If you read very carefully the article from Catholic Culture that you cited, you will notice that the reasons that Dr. Mirus dismisses consequentialism as a reliable moral system is not because it is necessarily wrong to connect consequences to the moral wrongness or rightness of an act but because humans cannot reliably do so.
Here is the summary of his argument:
Because we are unable to foresee all the consequences—and even all the kinds of consequences—which flow from any given act, and because we cannot truly judge whether each of these consequences is essentially good or evil without a prior moral standard, consequentialism simply can’t work. Principles drawn from beyond our own immediate perceptions and desires are absolutely essential. Moreover, in practice consequentialists are invariably intent on justifying something they shouldn’t want. So beware: The end really doesn’t justify the means.
Notice the two “becauses” that he gives to argue that case…
- “…because we are unable to foresee all the consequences…”
- “…because we cannot truly judge whether each of these consequences is essentially good or evil without a prior moral standard…”
In the case of 1) the question might be asked whether someone (say God,) in a position to judge all of the consequences could then make reliable use of consequences to justify moral action or inaction.
The answer to that, I would suppose, by Dr. Mirus would likely be that it wouldn’t matter because God would be completely knowing of the “prior moral standard” by which to judge the actions as good or evil.
Which takes us to the necessity of teleology with regard to making moral judgements.
I would argue that moral judgements of any kind cannot be made without reference to the object or ends for which actions are undertaken to begin with. That is, we could not say anything is good or bad completely divorced from the outcomes of the act. The outcome or object of the act is integral to explaining why the action is bad. Otherwise we are left in the position that an action is just bad or just good for no reason other than because it is – which isn’t reasonable, at all.
Thus, killing an innocent person is bad merely because it is, not for any reason whatsoever because, in principle, NO reason is required. It would be unnecessary to claim killing of innocents is bad BECAUSE it takes away or removes some good from their lives, that simply wouldn’t matter Since the consequences of killing an innocent don’t matter at all in the judgement, according to this entailment, then in cannot be that killing an innocent is bad BECAUSE it takes from them their life. This is an absurd claim.
Of course, killing an innocent person is bad because it results in the consequence of taking from them something most precious – their very life. It is bad BECAUSE of the bad consequence. If “killing” someone automatically made them turn into a new being with exactly two times the capacity, creativity and moral goodness they had before, killing them would not be a bad thing, it would become a good thing.
Of course, things are bad because of their consequences, the real problem is properly connecting the consequences to the appropriate teleological end goods, which requires (as Dr. Mirus points out) two key features…
- the ability to see all of the consequences
- the ability to truly judge these consequences as good or evil according to the moral standard provided by true knowledge of the essential teleology built into what things are and why things are the way they are.
Essentially, this means consequentialism is putting the cart before the horse – it proposes judging the goodness and badness of things without reference to the goodness and badness built into the teleology of why things exist in the first place. Absent that knowledge, human beings are merely haphazardly assigning moral goodness or badness based upon consequences that are completely disconnected from and not founded upon the essential teleology built into the very nature of what things are. Making those connections would mean to provide a sound understanding of the essential nature of all things, including Aristotle’s final causality which provides the foundation for why things do exist or how they ought to exist in the first place.
Consequentialism doesn’t provide that framework, it merely assumes it, which is why it doesn’t work – it is incomplete but is blithely unaware of what is missing in its view of morality.
I would submit that it is your lack of comprehending this fact that causes you to assume consequentialism is the same as a robust teleological explanation of morality. You continue to conflate the two assuming you see the entire picture to begin with.
Ask yourself why you would suppose any act is good or bad. If your only answer is “It just is,” then I would suggest you are missing entirely the question of Why? or, at least, don’t see it as a valid one, morally speaking. Sounds like secular blindness to me.
.