INTRINSIC EVIL
INTRINSIC EVIL
Intrinsic in itself
means that it is inherently built in, essential to the act. Intrinsic evil
means that that evil which is inherent, built in or essential in an action. And
so, acts that are described as intrinsically evil are acts that are judged
independently or evil regardless not paying attention to the consequent or
intention of the moral agent.
Intrinsically evil
acts are those acts that offends the dignity of the person whatever that is
hostile to life. Act that violate the dignity, integrity of the human person.
They are acts that contradicts the moral order by affecting the fundamental and
inalienable rights of the human person. They are acts that are completely
forbidden and unjustifiably forbidden. Intrinsically evil act is always evil
(CCC 1753).
A good intention
does not make the act good- it can only diminish to some extent the evil but
does not make the act good. The act by itself is evil. They are irredeemable
evil act and are not ordered to God and to the good of the human person.
(Gaudium et spes 27) eg murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia, voluntary
suicide, actions that violate the integrity of the person, physical mutilation,
physical and mental torture, all offences against human dignity- deportation,
slavery, prostitution, selling of women and children, arbitrary imprisonment,
sex trafficking.
What is proportionalism: Proportionalists state that
intrinsic evil act do not exist in the pre-moral or ontic level when morality
is not well understood).
PRE-MORAL/ONTIC EVIL
This proponents of
pre-moral ontic evil believe that every human action are shrouded in ambiguity.
There is no action that is completely good or completely bad. If this is so,
why are there ambiguity? There are ambiguities because of the finalities in
man. Man is a finite being. For them therefore, every human actions has
features which enhance or restrict our humanity. And so the meaning of ontic evil is the lack of perfection. Once
there is any lack of perfection, which is what we aim for-that which enhance
our humanity, is an ontic evil. And that imperfection is because of our human
limitations. So pre-moral evil will be understood to the extent which these
features frustrates our full realization and potential, we refer to that as
ontic evil. But to the extent that these features promote our good and
well-being, is what we refer to as pre-moral ontic good. So the
proportionalists opines that we cannot say something is good in itself except
one has an experience.
FUNDAMENTAL OPTION AND THE MORAL JOURNEY
This is that choice
that one makes which defines his character and person. This is the exercise of
our freedom in a transcendental and authentic way, because our freedom is only
exercised in the transcendental manner. It goes beyond ourselves to choosing the
one who gave us that freedom. It is ones orientation to God and to ones
desires. It reveals the very depth of our moral identities. Fundamental option
is not just about one act defining us, it goes beyond just an individual act;
but acts which, put together, reveals our fundamental acts. Fundamental action
for the Christian is the genuine and enduring orientation towards the good
under the influence of faith. The psychology of fundamental option is based on
grace, that grace presupposes and supports nature. How we move and desire the
good, this desire is not on our effort but on the grace of God. So Joseph Fuchs says that fundamental
option is not about a single act of self-disposition but he holds that it is at
the root of every moral decision such that every action is sustained by it and
every decision substantiates it. There is a difference between fundamental
option and our daily choices. Fundamental option is those choices we make for
and against God. Your actions shows whatever fundamental option you have made
and every decision you make substantiates it. Fundamental option is the
existential choice or core decision at the root of our daily decisions. Karl Rahner sees it as making decisions
that correspond to the meaning of our lives project which results in the
shaping of our moral identity. In view of our life project; what is that core
decision which corresponds our life project? That is what brings out our moral
decision. John Paul critics Rahner in Veritatis
Splendor 67.
CHRISTIAN ETHICS AND THE MORAL LIFE
The human morality
is about becoming fully what we are created to be. For the person to be human,
he has to be holy because the glory of God is only revealed in holiness. To be
human is to be moral. Holiness is therefore about being authentically human
even ordinarily human. The desire to be good and holy has been put in us by
God. Our human desire for holiness is expressed in three ways: 1. love; and
this is understood not as a feeling but a choice, a decision to act in other to
nurture the all-round growth in ourselves, in others as persons. 2. Holiness is expressed in inner freedom.
Inner freedom is the ability to discern between what is right and wrong, and
the ability to choose what is right. It is also freedom from all fear and
anxiety. 3 Wisdom is expressed in wisdom. Wisdom is the ability to see
yourself, others and the whole world around us as they are.
NATURAL LAW
When we talk of
natural law, we talk of our application of reason in trying to understand
morality. The catholic moral theology teaches about the accessibility of human
knowledge about critical reflection on human experience. The human person is
the subject of morality, and so this human person has his nature, which means
that morality is derived from the nature of human being. The natural law
provides us for a universal, objective and absolute morality. Our common human
nature and human experience provides the ground for our rationality to reflect.
We can talk of common morality because of our common human nature.
The Old Testament
is a collective moral wisdom of the people. And this is the result of their
human experience reflected in the light of faith. In the New Testament Paul
affirms nature as the source of human knowledge. We can conclude that critical
reflection and reason is sufficient for moral knowledge.
The Greeks and the
stoics were the first to develop the idea of natural law to a significant degree
because they emphasized on nature. The goal of philosophy for the stoics is to
achieve right conduct. Aristotle influence Aquinas emphasized on nature as the
cause and source of activity in being. Thus the law of nature is the orientation
of all being towards their perfection. If nature and cause of the activity in
being, the law of nature therefore is the orientation of being towards their
perfection. The defining characteristic of this being is rationality. Hence
rationality as the defining characteristic of the human being directs human
action towards the full actualization of their potential. The contribution of
the Greeks is that they stressed on nature.
The Romans also has
influence on natural law. Romans by nature are law oriented. Hence, they emphasized
law. Cicero sees natural law as the innate power of reason to direct action.
For him, the law of nature is the command of reason_ what reason dictates.
Gaius distinguished two kinds of law: the
juis civile and the juis Gentuim. Juis
civile is the law that regulate life in the roman state. Juis Gentuim is the law that regulates the relationship between two
autonomous states. Ulpian the Jurist added a third kind of law, and that is the
Juis naturale. He defines it as what
nature has thought all animal. And that is not particular to human, it is
common to every animal. And that results to instinct. In most of the documents
of the church, the magisterium relied on the natural law for the order of
reason but when it comes to sexuality, it changes from the order of reason to physical
order-physicalism.[1]
Aquinas was
influenced by the two condition of order of nature and order of reason. For him
law pertains naturally and essentially to reason. Law is an ordinance of
reason. The reason of an act of intelligence. Ordinatio rationis (the ordering of reason) which is the rule or
measure of act whereby man is induced to or restrained to act. He distinguish
between speculative and practical reason. Practical reason is reason ordered to
action. Reason therefore interacts with nature on the basis of what is moral ethical
within a given context. It is in this encounter that moral norms are derived.
But before then, there is the speculative reason, which is about the reflection
and theoretical thought that provides the necessary principle for action.
Eternal law is the divine reasoning
governing of the universe. This is directed to creation’s common good.
Natural law is participatio legis aeternae in rationale creatura (the
participation of a rational creature in the eternal law).
COMMON GOOD
We cannot talk
about the common good without acknowledging the existence of the self and
others and the one who brought them into existence, which is God. Common good
can only be known in relation to persons.
In Gaudium et Spes; the sum total
of those conditions of social life by which individuals, families and group can
achieve their own fulfilment. Common is about familyhood, friendship,
inter-subjectivity, relationship. To reach human fulfilment, we must
participate in the common good, leaving no one aside. Because we share the same
humanity, we do not seek for our individual fulfilment, we strive for our
communal happiness. In Mater et Magistra
55 it is the sum total of those social conditions that enable individual and
group more readily and fully to reach building of fulfilment through a moderate
handling of goods. The common good is better and more defined than the
particular good of the individual- looking at God as the ultimate Good.
Aquinas
i.
The common good is idealistic and this is because it
is not something one can achieve so that we keep on striving to attain that
good. Else it can reach a point where we have it all and are satisfied.
ii.
Personal well-being is directed is directed to the common
good as the imperfect to the perfect.
iii.
The common good surpasses efforts for personal good.
Features of the common good.
Human right, dignity equality, social justice.
The idea of common
good is tied to social justice and human dignity. It is the good and purpose of
the state. That is why it can be seen as the principle of organization in the
society meant to influence human actions in every way. In common good, we talk about
how the individual good is bound to the good of the community or society. At
the end society becomes a place where everyone is responsible for everyone.
Human dignity: this is the sacredness of the
human person as God’s divine light in the person. This is an inalienable right
of everyone. Everyone has to be responsible to everyone else to protect the
dignity we all share. We work together to protect the dignity of the human
person in all ramification.
Human right: these are the practical
expression of human dignity. Human right are essentially communitarian,
intrinsic to human nature. Fundamental to the very being of the person. They
are the basic demands of justice which protect the dignity of the person.
Social Justice is equality of opportunity
and fairness to everyone. Social justice concerns individual debt to the common
good. That is that we promote, protect and ensure participation. Once and
individual does not participate in the common good, then there is injustice. We
are animated by love that is just and human right that respect solidarity and
togetherness. Injustice is a denial of people their right to participate in the
common good. Equality is the recognition of the right and dignity of the
person. Removing all the obstacles that deprives people to participate in the
common good that manifest biases and places peoples at the margins of society.
Common good is about how everyone participate in realizing the good of the
society.
The universal
common: has to do with shared humanity, shared nature, shared origin, shared
destiny and shared vision.
The ultimate common
good: which is God.
The common good is
a complicated concept, it appears to contain something tangible namely a goal
that appears to contain everything while it is not concrete itself. It is
idealistic. The critique now is, how can this idealistic concept regulate the
affairs of real life situations?
VIRTUE ETHICS
Virtue ethics is
focused on the character of the person and not on action. Morality has to do
with the human person. Virtue ethics is that ethical approach that deemphasises
rules, consequences and particular acts but emphasises on the kind of person
who is the acting agent. The primary issue in here is not about correct rules
or consequences of act, but these are not irrelevance, but concern more on the
person acting. It is an ethics that does
not make the notion of right fundamental but the notion of good. With virtue
ethics, we have a shift from what ought to be done to what would be good. The
character of the person is the focus of virtue ethics. And it asks the question
“who am I?”, “who ought I to become? And how do I get there?”
We define virtue as
the disposition to choose those causes of action which contributes to one’s
happiness or flourishes. Aquinas sees virtue as a good habit or a stable
disposition inclining the person toward the good. It can be understood
therefore as the aspect of the personality of the person that result from the
person’s moral choice. To be virtuous therefore, is to embody all the
excellences of human character, that is, to harmonize desires and emotions to
what one knows to be right.
Virtue ethics
focuses on self-knowledge of the moral agent. And it embodies a vision on the
type of person we want to become. This means that the fundamental task of the
moral life is to develop a vision and strive to attain it. It encompasses one’s
entire life so that every action is a moral action meant for acquiring and
developing the virtue.
Building moral character
Building moral
character is primary and essential in life and it ensures that the person
avoids act-centred outlook but on a journey towards maturity as a human being
and a Christian. Building a moral character looks
at the moral goodness and badness of action in relation to character and not on
right and wrong, moral or immoral of human action. Building a moral
character points to the fact that morality is primarily applied to persons and
their character and only secondarily to choices and actions. The focus of
morality is the person and their character.
We can talk of good
moral character in four ways and that means the growth of the person
significantly in moral goodness and character
1.
Being fully human: once we talk of being fully human,
we are talking of a person who has progressed well along the path of
self-fulfilment and has accepted that moral living is not a burden imposed by
an authority but it is what one’s nature as a person pushes one to do.
2.
Being a loving person: this is having an unselfish care
for self, for others and for God.
3.
Being a virtuous person: to be virtuous is to have
acquired those habits, attitudes, affections and beliefs that are called virtue
and practice them consistently in your daily life.
4.
Being morally matured: it is about growth in the
person to the extent that the growth in that person is appropriate to the stage
of life of that person and these concerns emotional, personal, and relational
growth.
Criticisms of Virtue Ethics
i.
Different cultures seem to have provided different
models of moral virtues and sometimes these models are so many that they often
conflict. For instance the ancient Greek sees pride as virtue but for the
mediaeval Christian monks, humility is a virtue. Pride and humility are
opposites so how one chose which one is good. Virtue ethics proposes ideal, how
you evaluate ideal without invoking rules? The virtue ethics in itself is not
complete. It can only be complete when it borrows other ethical theories like
the principle based ethics.
ii.
The reality of virtue ethics does not show how a
virtue person will arrive at a decision in a moral dilemma. Based on the fact
that for moral dilemma, a great deal of careful reasoning and thinking is
required. If there is reasoning, reason has to do with principle. So, simply
having a right character is not enough to making right decision.
iii.
Virtue ethics rejects moral absolute like do not lie
but they value the virtue of honesty. Critics are saying that virtues are
really another ways of stating moral rules and virtue themselves depends on the
existence of these rules.
iv.
Another criticism is that virtue ethics does not give
clear guidance on how to act in certain circumstances.
v.
Virtue ethics is self-centred because it is concerned
with the agents own character whereas morality is supposed to be about other
people and how our morality is supposed to affect other people. And so any
theory of ethics should require us to consider others for their sake and not
that what we do should benefit us.
Responses to this criticisms.
Some
people like Alex Makingtine say that the problem with principle ethics has
distances itself from real persons, issues and focusing on debates at a point
that we cannot reach an agreement. Virtue ethics asks much more important
question about morality, that is, “what kind of person ought I be?”
Matta
Nussbaum will say that virtue have values not rules. For her, we should strive
for justice, temperance etc rather than looking absolute rules. We don’t need
absolute but we need virtue.
Proponents
of virtue ethics counter that virtue in themselves is concerned with how we
respond to others and the good of the agent and the others are not two separate
ends both have the same end.
William
Frankena distinguishes virtue based ethical system from principle based ethics
and he contends against virtue ethics that character without principles are
blind. Virtue ethics that is character that does not have principles is blind.
Virtues, which is character, must have principles which corresponds to it.
Actions principle (action) without character are impotent because they cannot
explain morally by themselves anything. A virtue is not a principle, it is a
disposition, a habit, traits of a person. He proposes that we as moral beings
regard the morality of duty and principles and the morality of virtue and trait
not as rival kind of morality between which we must choose. So, duty and
principle should not be considered antithetical to traits and character but
that the two morality of principles and well as character are complimentary
aspect of the same morality. That is why you cannot separate being good from
being good. You do good to be good. You are good by doing good. For every
principle there is a morally good trait. And for every good trait there will be
principle defining the kind of action in which it is to express itself. For him, being involves at least trying to do.
Being without doing is like faith without work and it is dead.
Actions
are right or wrong according to principle behind them. They are good or bad
depending on the agent’s motive and intention or disposition.
FEMINIST ETHICS
Feminist
ethics can be traced back to the time of enlightened, before then the church
think for people. During the enlightenment ages, people started thinking for
themselves. It is around this time that one can trace feminism to. People
became more aware of their rights and their dignity. Before then, society was
more patriarchal in the sense that men make decisions and even wrote the Bible.
Man even went to the extent of describing God as man. Enlightened marked the
period when reason was glorified. Looking also in philosophy, people like
Immanuel Kant stressed the respect of the person and that the person is an end
in him/herself rather than means. And so modernity saw the growing trend of
recognition of the worth and recognition of the worth of the person- the person
has right and should not be subjected to injustice. Then all these rights were
of the individuals but at the expense of slaves and children. But there was this growing awareness of
freedom that liberal commitment to personal freedom was stressed at the expense
of public autonomy. After the World War II, postmodern thinkers debunked the
scientific objectivity. They also debunked the philosophical delegitimization
of historical continuity. They even debunked objective knowledge, everything
wasd more or less subjective.
Postmodernity did not totally abandon reason but gave it a more
historical and pluralistic twist. It celebrates plurality and resist
uniformity.
Feminist
ethics is an aspect of morality that is rooted in feminism. Feminism
fundamentally expresses a position, a belief, a perspective, a movement that is
opposed to discrimination on the bases of gender. True feminism fights for the
liberation of everyone in the society. Feminist ethics opposes gender patterns
of domination and subordination as well as gender role differentiation. It is
also opposed to gender based unequal assess to goods and services. It aims at
equality of respect and human wellbeing by paying attention to women being
disadvantaged. Talking about morality, there is a human moral experience.
Liberal
feminism stresses on the liberal tradition, that is, freedom of person.
Socialist feminist focuses on changing structures for the society for equality
and autonomy for women. The radical
feminist seek that the gender power relation be exposed and society
transformed. Behind all these strides of feminism is the fundamental principle
that women are fully human and should be valued as such. These brings about a
universal moral imperative which is justice for women. It is a destruction of hierarchy of sects. So
feminist ethics is a liberation struggle which seeks social transformation on
the basis of dignity, based on rights and potentials of those held captives by
very particular forms of structural oppression with a goal for social justice. Feminism
is the call for economic and political equality, the widening of the horizon of
capability as well as free women from the chain of dehumanization, and
ultimately full humanity of everyone. It is a systematic challenge to
patriarchy. It is a rejection of any dominant culture superiority. Feminism
does not intend to overturn the pyramid but to overturn injustices in a world
of domination, deepen commitment and solidarity of all persons.
Ethics and women Agencies
Central
to feminism and women agency is the
dignity of women. While feminism will critic sexual domination, changes and
restructuring of all denigrating structures in the society women agency
advocate a focus on empowerment for women economically- empower women to
struggle for themselves. Feminist will focus more on issues that bother about
sexual abuse, domestic violence, harassment, prostitution and the need for
consciousness raising on women; women agency will talk more on creating land
rights and structures.
Feminist
will consider lesbianism as a choice of women to resist male domination. But
women agency will see lesbianism as immoral- there should be economic
sufficiency for women.
Relationship between morality
and spirituality
{Morality and spirituality are
related. We are moral beings as well as spiritual being and so there is a
relationship between our morality and spirituality. Morality is not only about
norms and decision making, virtue and character; moral theology serves the
Christian life. It aims at sharing together in the divine life of the Trinity.
Moral theology, for it to be a discipline that has something to offer the human
person, it must continue to point to a Christian moral life that is empowered
by grace, made possible by God’s gracious presence and action in the
individual, community and the world. You cannot be moral and unspiritual
neither can you be spiritual and immoral. Because spirituality has to help
people integrate all their desires and virtues into God. Morality is about
human experience and the authentic human experience is the one that drives the
person to self-transcendence. It will make the person to focus on both
spirituality and moral theology. Self-transcendence can only come in prayer and
action. Prayer is spirituality and action is morality. Once there is a
separation without any connection between these two, it is said that morality
will become minimalistic; and that will reduce all ethical questions to
principles (John Stuart Mill says one can live one’s life as long as no harm is
done to the other)- minimalistic ethic. Spirituality will become more of a
talk- talk about the importance of one’s interior life. Focusing on the
interior life forgetting that Christ was born to bring joy and hope to the
whole world. We have to bring joy and our interaction has to affect the lives
of people around us. When morality is devoid of life, it becomes legalistic.
The
human person is made in the image and likeness of God. That is the fundamental
dignity of man. Since we are made in the image of God, we perfect ourselves in
that image.
·
The first principle of spiritual life is that our
inherent, inviolable dignity does not depend on human achievements but it is a
gift of divine love. The Trinity is the foundation of Christian inter-dependent
as it sustains our relationship. And so both morality and spirituality hold on
the importance of relationship. Living moral life helps to cultivate spiritual
values. Just as the spiritual values are
evidences of good moral life. It is impossible to be moral and not spiritual.
REVISION
Moral
theology is a reflection by believers (a reflection of human persons and their
experiences) where people ask questions from different perspectives- actions
and behaviours, being. it makes a distinction betweem doing and being. doing
means looking at actions and seeing how those actions follows on norms. The
other focuses on the orientation character and orientation of the person.
Understanding
moral theology from the perspective of the scripture. “Good teacher what must I
do to enter the kingdom of heaven”. The moral life of a Christian understanding
of Moral theology from the perspective of scripture. Eternal life is our home
and it is connected with our doing good and being good. The Christian moral
life is a call to come and follow. This invitation is given ti us without
merit, and it is for us to make a decision. What lead us to fall is sin.
QUESTION
Explain
conscience as the whole person’s commitment to value and the judgement one
makes in the light of that commitment of who one wants to be and what one ought
to be and not to be.
What
is natural law, how would you explain it as the principle of reasonable human
action
How
is human freedom vital for a good understanding of fundamental option
How
is the call to disciple a call to enter into communion and therefore an
invitation into a moral community.
Discuss
the idea of sin and conversion as it realtes to Christian moral life
Virtue
ethics is an ethic that does not make the notion of right fundamental but the
notion of good. It typifies a shift from what ought to be done to what would be
good as it places ones own character at the center of the ethical reflection”
explain the above statement and show the weaknesses of virtue ethics.
Comments
Post a Comment