Veritatis Splendor: Part 26--Proportionalism

THE "SOURCES" OR "FONTS" OF MORALITY have traditionally been identified as three: (i) the intention of the subject; (ii) the circumstances surrounding the act; and (iii) the object of the act in question. All three sources have to be kept in mind in assessing the moral value of an act and its conformity to man's end, as a defect in any one of these areas renders the whole act morally bad.

In his encyclical Veritatis splendor, Pope John Paul decisively rejects theories of moral analysis that are teleological in character.* These theories assess the morality of an act by measuring the consequences of the act (hence they are "teleological"--looking at consequences--rather than deontological--looking at duties, or ontological--looking at being or nature). Consequentialism or utilitarianism is a classic example of a teleological theory:

The criteria for evaluating the moral rightness of an action [in such teleological moral theories] are drawn from the weighing of the non-moral or pre-moral goods to be gained and the corresponding non-moral or pre-moral values to be respected. For some, concrete behavior would be right or wrong according as whether or not it is capable of producing a better state of affairs for all concerned. Right conduct would be the one capable of "maximizing" goods and "minimizing" evils.

VS, 74.

The Pope clearly rejects consequentialism or utilitarianism, a moral theory which in one way or another appears to be the majority view in the West. It is appreciated by its advocates because it essentially frees man from any absolute prescriptions. Unfortunately, this sort of thinking has been accepted, though with some modification, by some Catholic theologians under the moniker "proportionalism."** While the Pope does not begrudge continued analysis of the fonts of morality and the norms of moral life, finding such exploration "legitimate and necessary," convenient for "dialogue and cooperation" with those outside the household of faith, he insists that any theory have an adequate formulation of the moral act and be true to the Christian revelation. Proportionalists, who focus inordinately upon the consequences of an act, fail, in the Pope's view, to consider adequately the role of the will in assessing a moral act, or fail to consider sufficiently the reality of an objective good, and so present a false solution to the moral assessment.

The Pope distinguishes between classical consequentialism or utilitarianism and the related, though distinct, theory of proportionalism:

[Consequentialism] claims to draw the criteria of the rightness of a given way of acting solely from a calculation of foreseeable consequences deriving from a given choice. [Proportionalism], by weighing the various values and goods being sought, focuses rather on the proportion acknowledged between the good and bad effects of that choice, with a view to the "greater good" or "lesser evil" actually possible in a particular situation.

VS, 75.

Regardless of the theory of proportionalism that may be involved, a common feature they all share with consequentialism as a result of their calculative, teleological focus is that "it is never possible to formulate an absolute prohibition of particular kinds of behavior which would be in conflict, in every circumstance and in every culture, with those values." VS, 75. For a proportionalist, there are no exceptionless or absolute moral norms, at least at the level of categorical or concrete or particular acts. One would think that this view alone would give the theologians who advocate such a position pause, since Jewish and Christian tradition and the best of Pagan traditions (e.g., Aristotle) have always believed in some exceptionless or absolute norms.

How do proportionalists unleash the concrete day-to-day world from the internal, fundamental world? Proportionalists distinguish between the moral order and the pre-moral [or "ontic," "physical," or "nonmoral"] order. Any act of man, they say, can be divided into its moral component and its physical, nonmoral, ontic, or pre-moral component. These two orders are subjected to different means of assessment, one a moral assessment, the other a non-moral assessment. The moral assessment looks at goodness. The physical, ontic, or pre-moral assessment looks at rightness. The moral assessment is made "on the basis of the subject's intention in reference to moral goods." The pre-moral or physical assessment is made "on the basis of a consideration of its foreseeable effects or consequences and of their proportion." VS, 75.

By separating the moral and physical realms, the moral theologians who have adopted proportionalism are able to talk about the good or evil of an act (with respect to its moral quality) and the rightness or wrongness of the same act (with respect to its physical or non-moral effects). So a concrete moral act (say the euthanizing of a terminally-ill parent) can be viewed from the perspective of moral goodness or evil and from the perspective of pre-moral or physical rightness or wrongness. Such concrete behavior can be "described as 'right' or 'wrong,' without it being thereby possible to judge as morally 'good' or 'bad' the will of the person choosing them." VS, 75. Because of this distinction, euthanizing one's terminally-ill parent (which, under traditional moral theology would involve violation of an exceptionless norm--the taking of an innocent human life) can be viewed as morally acceptable if the actor's intention in the moral realm is "good," because, viewed from a pre-moral or purely physical perspective, the euthanizing of one's terminally-ill parent may, from a cost/benefit analysis be "right." Similarly, a scientist experimenting on fetal stem cells--if he intends to benefit mankind through his research and so his "moral" intent is "good"--may legitimately engage in his research since the perceived benefits associated with such research are "right" inasmuch as they are believed to hold hope for future reduction in human suffering. Any absolute negative prohibition which might curb the decision of the euthanizer or the researcher in the area of concrete or particular activity is deftly sidestepped.

The proportionalist theory seems fitted for the prevailing "scientific mentality," and it allows practical men and women of science, of technology, and the other sciences, including politics and economics, to implement their inventions and programs without regard to moral norms that might absolutely proscribe certain activities. The end is everything; the means is simply irrelevant in moral inquiry. By dividing the moral question into moral and pre-moral realms and assessing the pre-moral realm using a sort of cost/benefit empirical analysis, it is able to accord a certain autonomy to the material, physical pre-moral realm and the scientist, technicians, and policy-makers who act in that realm. While the Pope does not begrudge science and technology their proper relative autonomy, he certainly condemns the notion that activities in science and technology (which deal with the physical world) are entirely unleased from the moral realm.

Such theories [of consequentialism and proportionalism] however are not faithful to the Church's teaching, when they believe they can justify, as morally good, deliberate choices of kinds of behavior contrary to the commandments of the divine and natural law. These theories cannot claim to be grounded in the Catholic moral tradition. . . . The faithful are obliged to acknowledge and respect the specific moral precepts declared and taught by the Church in the name of God, the Creator and Lord.

VS, 76.***

There is, to be sure, a calculative aspect in areas where prudence reigns and where a violation of a negative precept is not involved. This has always been recognized and is the basis behind moral casuistry, a "casuistry which tried to assess the best ways to achieve the good in certain concrete situations." But moral casuistry can be distinguished from proportionalism in that it involved situations in which the law was uncertain and there was not negative moral precept that was being infringed. Casuistry was never used to justify the violation of an exceptionless, absolute negative moral precept. Proportionalism, on the other hand, insists that there are no exceptionless, absolute moral precepts in the particular or concrete day-to-day decision-making. If they exist, they exist in generality; once one leaves the transcendence of generality and goes into the rough-and-tumble flesh-and-blood day-to-day human being, and such exceptionless norm is watered down to an ideal riddled with exceptions.

____________________________________
*There is a difference between a moral theory that views human nature as teleological (having and end or purpose), and a moral theory that measures the morality of act teleologically (viewing only its effects or consequences). The latter is what the Pope views with disfavor, not the former.
**Some of the better-known advocates of proportionalism include: Peter Knauer, Joseph Fuchs, Bruno Schuller, Louis Janssens, Franz Bockle, Gerard J. Hughes, Richard A. McCormick, Bernard Hoose, Charles E. Curran, Timothy E. O'Connell, and James F. Keenan. While proportionalist theories are myriad, the essential feature they share is a sort of moral calculus of benefits and harms in assessing the moral act. Proportionalism goes beyond mere consequentialism or utilitarianism in that it recognizes that more than the consequences of an act ought to be apprised in assessing the moral goodness of an act, including both intent, the object, the circumstances and so forth. These ought to be aggregated and summed up and weighed, and so long as the the proportion of benefit outweighs the harm, the act can be considered moral. Some proportionalists limit the application of the theory to only some acts. The Pope describes the difference between pure utilitarianism or consequentialism and proportionalism as follows. Utilitarianism or consequentialism "claims to draw the criteria of the rightness of a given way of acting solely from a calculation of foreseeable consequences deriving from a given choice." On the other hand, proportionalism "by weighing the various values and goods being sought, focuses rather on the proportion acknowledged between the good and bad effects of that choice, with a view to the 'greater good' or 'lesser evil' actually possible in a particular situation." VS, 75. Proportionalists also distinguish between moral goods (which involve the moral order) and non-moral goods (which involve pre-moral or non-moral goods), with the former having to do with "goodness" of an act and the latter having to do with the "rightness" of an act.
***The Pope cites to the Ecumenical Council of Trent, Session VI, Decree on Justification Cum Hoc Tempore, Canon 19: DS, 1569, and Clement XI, Constitution Unigenitus Dei Filius (September 8, 1713) against the Errors of Paschasius Quesnel, Nos. 53-56: DS, 2453-2456.

Natural Law's Modern Cousin Germain: Respect for Basic Values

THE SEVENTH REQUIREMENT OF PRACTICAL reasonableness, according to the Finnisian presentation of the natural law in Natural Law and Natural Rights, relates to practical reasonableness's relationship to the basic goods (including itself since practical reasonableness is itself one of the basic human goods). The principle may be cast in negatively or positively:

• One should not choose to do any act "which of itself does nothing but damage or impede a realization or participation of any one or more of the basic forms of human good."
• One should always choose to do any act "as a means of promoting or protecting, directly or indirectly, one or more of the basic goods, in one or more of their aspects."
  

Framed in both negative and positive language, this principle leads us into the realm of moral absolutes and distinguishes any ontological ethic from a teleological ethic,* an ethic based upon being and good versus one based upon consequences and utility. This seventh requirement of practical reasonableness is of great importance: it is, in fact, the basis for moral absolutes and the basis for fundamental human rights. This is "the principle on which alone rests . . . the strict inviolability of human rights." NLNR, 121. This is the principle that stands guard, as it were, over the entire moral enterprise, forbidding that self-interest, feelings, emotions, and impulse, or some sort of ends-justifies-the-means irrationality govern a moral choice in lieu of reason. Dismantle or ignore this requirement and you have brought down the entire moral enterprise into a bundle of unworkable relativism and the eventual tyranny that will flow from it. "There is no human right that will not be overridden if feelings (whether generous and unselfish, or mean and self-centered) [or consequences, real, imagined, or speculative] are allowed to govern choice, or if cost-benefit considerations are taken outside their appropriate technical sphere and allowed to govern one's direct engagement . . . with basic goods."** NLNR, 121-22.

It also brings us to the need to discuss the principle of unintended consequences or the principle of double effect.***

La Brea Tar Pits

The requirements of practical reasonableness demand that no chosen act directly damage or impede a basic human good. Any justification for damaging or impeding a basic human good (other than just irrational whim or urge, which cannot be a reason) can only arguendo be justified by an act's consequences, specifically that the good consequences outweigh the act against the basic human good. This, of course, throws us into the morass of consequentialism, which is as difficult to get out of as the La Brea tar pits were for those unfortunate mastodons that found themselves trapped in its black sticky morass. Consequentialist "reasoning" allows such moral enormities to be excused such as the killing of an innocent human (which attacks the basic value of life) so long as the supposed consequences yield a greater good. There is virtually nothing than cannot be justified using consequences, whether it be concentration camps, the death of fetuses and infants and the aged, and the bombing of civilian populations with the atom bomb and with napalm. Consequentialism naturally results in viewing man as an instrument, a tool, a means instead of an end. "[A] man who thinks that his rational responsibility is to be always doing and pursuing good is satisfied by a commitment to act always for the best consequences is a man who treats every aspect of human personality (and, indeed, therefore, treats himself) as a utensil." NLNR, 121. Moreover, it also places upon humans the unreasonable responsibility for consequences they do not even intend, thereby ushering them into a moral neurosis. As an exclusive determinant of right and wrong, the focus on consequences is wrong. The doctrine that the end justifies the means is unreasonable. Evil may not be done so that good may come. The "naïvely arbitrary limitation of focus to the purported calculus" of consequentialism must be rejected as unreasonable, and indeed ultimately inhumane, and dangerously so. NLNR, 119.

Accordingly, acts may only be chosen that--directly or indirectly--(affirmatively) advance, promote, or participate in, or (negatively) protect the basic human values (life, knowledge, play, aesthetic experience, friendship, religion, practical reasonableness). The problem of choice, however, brings us to the principle of double effect, a principle which is manifestly different from consequentialism:

The basic values, and the practical principles expressing them, are the only guides we have. Each is objectively basis, primary, incommensurable with the others in point of objective importance. If one is to act intelligently at all one must choose to realize and participate in some basic value or values rather than others, and this inevitable concentration of effort will indirectly impoverish, inhibit, or interfere with the realization of those other values. . . . These unsought but unavoidable side-effects accompany every human choice, and their consequences are incalculable. But is is always reasonable to leave some of them, and often reasonable to leave all of them, out of account.

NLNR, 119-20. Examples prove the necessary point. If I elect to become a doctor (so as to save lives), I exclude the opportunity, at least for a time, to become a professor of music history (and so advance aesthetic appreciation). Selecting one human value necessarily impedes the promotion of the other. If I, as a doctor confronting some catastrophe, have to select between patient X and patient Y, and triage suggests that patient X would be better served, operating on patient X necessarily means patient Y will be unattended and likely die while attending patient X.

Triage during WW I

However, this indirect and unintended damage to a basic value is something drastically different from the consequentialist ethic of the ends justifies the means:

[T]o indirectly damage any basic good (by choosing an act that directly and immediately promotes either that basic good in some other aspect or participation, or some other basic good or goods) is obviously quite different, rationally and thus morally, from directly and immediately damaging a basic good in some aspect or participation by choosing an acct which in and of itself simply (or, we should now add, primarily) damages that good in some aspect or participation but which indirectly via the mediation of expected consequences, is to promote either that good in some other aspect or participation, or some other basic good(s).

NLNR, 120. The problem with doing something that directly acts against a basic human good or directly impedes it is that it measures what is unmeasurable. It seeks to weigh the harm caused a basic human good with the promotion of another basic human good. But the basic human goods cannot be adequately weighed one against the other. They are incommensurable.

To chose and act which in itself simply (or primarily) damages a basic good is thereby to engage oneself willy-nilly (but directly) in an act of opposition to an incommensurable value (and aspect of human personality) which one treats as if it were an object of measurable worth that could be outweighed by commensurable objects of greater (or cumulatively greater) worth.

NLNR, 120. True, such end-justifies-the-means decisions against a human value are frequently urged by feelings, perhaps even feelings of generosity, sympathy, or even altruism (though they may be equally supported by less benign sentiments). But morality cannot be predicated on feelings. "We must choose rationally . . . . [and] [r]eason requires that every basic value be at least respected in each and every action." NLNR, 120. (As Finnis observes, often the application of reason helps shift the wrongful clues provided by misguided albeit generally benevolent feelings; reason "can often promote a shift in our perspective and consequently a realignment of initial feelings." So someone who "feels" that euthanasia is merciful will, if he applies reason, realize that this feeling is misguided, and so will understand that his feelings of sympathy at the suffering of one of his fellows should elicit from him the desire to reduce the sufferings through morally legitimate means. The one-time misguided feelings of a Dr. Bernard Nathanson† for example may be guided into appropriate channels and in fact then feel the opposite of what they originally felt.)

____________________________
*The natural law (in its classical, not necessarily in its Finnisian construct) has, as part of its metaphysical foundations, a concept of nature that is teleological. Nature, in particular the nature of man, has an end toward which it tends. The ontology behind natural law, therefore, is teleological in this manner of speaking. However, the teleological ontology of the natural law should be distinguished from the teleological ethic which measures good and bad not from the teleological ontology (the teleology of human nature), but from the teleology of the human act. A teleological ethic based exclusively upon the consequences of the human act is, as we have seen, unreasonable and, in fact, a cover for evil under the guise of reasonable good. A short summary of the Finnisian critique of consequentialism may be found in the prior post Natural Law's Modern Cousin Germain: Consequences Matter. A more in depth criticism of consequentialism based upon the word of Professor David Oderberg may be accessed under the titles Contra Consequentialismum.
**For the "technical" use of consequences, utility, or efficiency withing the greater requirements of practical reasoning, see Natural Law's Modern Cousin Germain: Consequences Matter.
***The principle of double effect has been extensively treated in the prior posts. See, e.g., The Principle of Double Effect: Introduction, The Principle of Double Effect: The Conditions of Bringing About Evil, and Contra Consequentialismum: Answering Critics of PDE.
†Dr. Bernard Nathanson was an advocate of abortion who later changed his perception. His feelings with respect to abortion were markedly affected by realization that an abortion was an assault upon the fundamental human value of life.

Contra Consequentialismum: Act or Rule?

TWO MAIN RIVAL VERSIONS OF CONSEQUENTIALISM or utilitarianism are generally identified: rule consequentialism and act consequentialism. "Both are incompatible with rights, for overlapping but partly distinct reasons." Oderberg, 69. We shall devote this blog posting to discussing the distinction between act and rule consequentialism, and how neither version supports the concept of right.

The basic difference between act consequentialism and rule consequentialism might be said to be whether one is going to look at the consequentialist world and focus on trees or focus on copses, groves, or motts, or even forests. In analyzing an act's goodness, or at least its permissibility, the act consequentialist asks the question: is this act X-maximizing? The answer to that question will tell him whether the act is right or wrong, or permissible or impermissible. On the other hand, the rule consquentialist, trying to make up for deficiencies in act consequentialism, asks the question, not whether an individual act is X-maximizing, but whether the act conforms to a rule that, if followed, is X-maximizing. Some consequentialists go even further than rule consequentialists and talk about systems, which are a sort of cluster of rules.

This is the act,
That determined the rule,
That informs the system,
That makes the foundation
Of the house that Jack built.

Jack's house of rights, by the way, is built upon sand (cf. Matt.7:24-27).

The act consequentialist clearly cannot entertain the existence of any rights. Everything is negotiable in the quest of X-maximizing. Promises may be broken, people may be enslaved, mothers may be killed, adultery may be engaged in . . . anything may be permissible if its outcome is to maximize X. Confronted with the obvious distastefulness of such a conclusion, some consequentialists have come up with the theory of "prima facie" rights. In other words, rights that need to be factored into the X-maximizing equation. But these "prima facie" rights are not rights in sensu stricto, because they continue to be negotiable, and negotiability is counter to the notion of fundamental, natural, or human rights strictly so called, which are absolute or exceptionless. The "prima facie" rights of the consequentialist are, at best, quasi-rights, pseudo-rights, para-rights, rights pro tanto.*

Consequentialists are often keen to point out that they recognize one or other of traditional moral categories, such as rights or justice: but merely saying so does not make it so. It is necessary to be sensitive to the definition of the concept as used by the consequentialist. . . . So, if the consequentialists insists on speaking of rights, but defines them as just another thing to be placed into the melting pot of general calculation of whether an act is maximizes X, then whatever he is talking about, it will not be rights.

Oderberg, 70-71.

Rule and system consequentialists seem to have a better purchase on rights than act consequentialists, but this is a deceptive purchase. Because rule consequentialists generalize their analysis into rules, they can re-frame these into rights-based language.

A rule consequentialist will propose something like the idea that there are rights on his theory because an agent has a right to do whatever a given rule sanctions. . . . Typically, he will work backwards from duties not to interfere with actions of others: A has the duty not to do F to B if not doing F accords with a rule to which obedience is X-maximizing. From this he concludes that B has the right not to have F done to him.

Oderberg, 71.

The problem with this whole line of reasoning is in the rule. Since the right is based upon the rule, if the rule is questionable it follows that the right is questionable.

In crafting a rule, the rule consequentialist faces insurmountable problems. The first is perhaps the most notorious. How far into the future should the maximizing effects of a rule be calculated? Ad infinitum? If so, how can it be determined? If not, on what basis, and where is the arbitrary cut-off date where X-maximizing no longer matters? Second, the rule itself would be contingent because it would vary with the circumstances. What may be an X-maximizing rule in context A, may not be so in context B, and so what may be a right in context A may not be a right in context B. "Thus, whatever rights end up being recognized by the rule consequentialist, they are certainly not going to be the traditional ones." Oderberg, 72.

If the rule consequentialist tries to circumvent the contextual or conditional nature of rules by insisting that the X-maximizing rule must consider not only all existing but also all possible contexts, then a calculative nightmare imposes itself upon him: how on earth is man going to determine a rule when he has to consider not only all time, but all possible contexts? Besides, it is self-defeating because to X-maximize makes "maximization logically necessary," but X-maximization, by definition, means to maximize in context and not to maximize as an exercise in logic. And why should speculative contexts affect real contexts? More, if the rule is to be framed so as to recognize all possible contexts, how on earth is the rule going to be framed? Instead of the right to property, one will have such monstrosities as a "right-to-the-peaceful-use-and-enjoyment-of-one's-chattels-as-long-as-they-cannot-be-put-to-better-use-by-the-state-or-by-other-people-and-so-on-and-so-forth." Oderberg, 72. Yada, yada, yada.

Finally, if all contexts are considered, the rule consequentialist begins to look a whole lot like an act consequentialist, and so we have engaged in a sisyphean exercise, only to end up in the bottom again.

The Sisyphean Task of the Rule Consequentialist:
Punishment for His Hubris?

Some consequentialists are aware that their theories do not support rights as understood in any traditional sense, and, to their credit, try to accommodate or modify their theories to encompass them. To their debit, however, they not only fail to do what they set out to do, but fail to see that it's not by tinkering with a faulty theory that one fixes the problem.

Take for example the consequentialist who insists that respect for rights can be knitted into the fabric of consequentialist theory. (Oderberg cites the Hindu and atheist Economist and Noble prize winner Amartya Sen and the Scottish ethicist W. D. Ross as examples of those espousing this sort of theory.) But the theory infects the rule. It is sort of like expecting a drop of water put in a gallon of gasoline to make the gasoline potable. The problem is that, injected into the theory, the respect for rights itself becomes a consequence to be maximized. The result is that an act that, of itself, respects rights, would be considered morally objectionable, to the extent that it does not maximize respect for that right in general. So if not killing one's mother (which respects the mother's right to life) would fail to maximize the respect for that right in general (suppose an unruly mob that insists that, unless the actor kills his own mother, mayhem will ensue, which would include killing of a number of mothers), the actor would be forced to maximize the right of a number of mothers, at the expense of the right of his own mother. One right, then, become negotiable, if for no other reason, when other rights of the same kind can be maximized. These consequentialists wearing "rights" garb, then are no more lambs than a wolf wearing sheep's clothing. For all their talk about rights, their notion of right is infected by their consequentialist cancer, and there will never be such a thing as an exceptionless or absolute right. Rights can be violated so long as their violation results in the maximization of a greater number of rights, which means that the consequentialist's rights are not rights.

Beware of the Consequentialist Wearing Rights Language!

To solve the problem regarding rights, the consequentialist needs to jettison his defective theory altogether, and start afresh. He needs to quit clothing his defective theory with the language of rights. Perhaps he ought to adopt a theory based upon the natural law, a theory ever ancient, ever new?

Perhaps, following St. Augustine, our consequentialist ought to open the Book of Romans, and reflect on Romans 13:13-14. (Can he hear the divine voice, tolle, lege, tolle, lege, "take and read," "take and read"?):

Let us walk honestly, as in the day: not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and impurities, not in contention and envy: But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh in its concupiscences.

Then perhaps we may hope, that with a little bit of grace and a little bit of good will, the Lord Jesus Christ can introduce the consequentialist to His law, which is also the law within the consequentialist. And the consequentialist may leave his vain pretensions, see what his heart is yearning for, and cry à la St. Augustine: Sero te amavi, lex naturalis tam antiqua et tam nova. Too late have I love you, natural law, ever ancient, ever new!

For every moment spent as a consequentialist is a moment too much.

____________________________
*"Pro tanto" is Latin phrase meaning "for so much, for as much as one is able, as far as it can go." "Prima facie" is Latin for at first appearance, at first blush, at first sight. The former implies limit, the second implies rebutability. Neither prima facie rights or rights pro tanto are the sorts of traditional exceptionless, absolute human rights that others may not violate at all times and in all circumstances without incurring moral guilt. The Commandment, "Thou shalt not kill," is exceptionless, not a prima facie commandment, or a commandment pro tanto.

Contra Consequentialismum: There Ain't No Such Thing as Absolutes

WE NOW REACH THE HEART OF DAVID ODERBERG'S BOOK Moral Theory: A Non-Consequentialist Approach: his criticism of the majority theory in the West: consequentialism. In getting to this point, Oderberg discussed the notion of rights, and how they relate back to obligations (duties) and eventually to law, a law that pre-exists man, and which he discovers, but does not make. Though some rights may be based upon custom, the foundation of rights is not custom. Though some rights may be based upon contract, the foundation of rights is not contract. Though some rights may be held by the common consent or opinion of men, the foundation of rights is not opinion. The fact that customary or contractual or deeply felt rights exist does not impugn the fact that rights, in their most fundamental sense, are not customary, conventional, or emotional, but go beyond such relative bases and reach backward to a pre-existing, given reality of good and right, an objective order, the compliance with which human happiness depends. Any moral theorist who builds the foundation of his ethics on something other than natural law will always come to a failure of his theory as it collapses to relativism.

The fact is any objective moral order requires that a moral order pre-exist us. We have to be blind to miss the pre-existing, objective order. The Schleiermarcherian notion of Sichselbstnichtsogesetzthaben, "not-having-posited oneself," and of Irgendwiegewordensein, a "somehow-having-come-to-be," which cannot be gainsaid, compel us to face the objective fact that there is an objective reality, including a reality of right and wrong, of which we are not master, but which we have been given by Another, namely God, and which we discover, not make.*

What about the consequentialist's or utilitarian's efforts to describe morality?** Are they an exception to the rule? Can they escape the ineluctable conclusion that morality is not made by man, but is given us by our Creator?

David S. Oderberg

The consequentialist theories of morality are, ultimately, incompatible with a notion of natural right.

According to consequentialism, the criterion of rightness and wrongness of actions is whether they maximize good consequences. What are those good consequences? This is one of the first matters on which consquentialists differ.

Oderberg, 66. Many competitors vie for first place among the consequentialist theories for what ought to be the measure to be maximized: pleasure, the satisfaction of people's interests, some plurality or ensemble of goods that aggregately measure "well-being" are frequent suggestions. Consequentialists seem hopefully divided. Whatever that one measure is--take your pick--the analysis of consequentialism's defect is the same. Call that measure "X" and the consequentialist's goal to maximize X.

Consequentialists are also divided into "act" consequentialists (where and individual act is analyzed to see if it maximizes X) versus "rule" consequentialists (where a rule of action, and not the individual act itself, is analyzed to see if it maximizes X).

Regardless of the particular color and stripes of the theory, consequentialists are dedicated to a number of propositions, one of which may called the calculative principle, and the other which may be called the impersonality or agent-neutrality principle.

First, the calculative principle proposed by consequentialism asserts that "it is possible," in fact it is always possible, "to evaluate states of the world in terms of the goodness of the consequences present in those states as a result of actions." Oderberg, 67. The consequentialist is therefore committed to the ability to calculate of consequences caused by an act or rule, and hence the calculations that are determinant of an act's goodness are always possible. "Whether a crude numerical approach is used, or an intuitive one, or something in between, the consequentialist is committed to the idea that everything can be compared with everything else, in order to arrive at a judgment of what action is X-maximizing in the circumstances." Goods are therefore commensurable. Both this calculative aspect, and the necessary corollary of the commensurability of goods, is problematic.

Second, the impersonal or agent-neutrality feature is that consequentialists all believe that "[e]very moral agent's overarching rational duty is to maximize X." Oderberg, 67. "It can never be the case that an agent is placed in a situation in which he has a specific duty that is incompatible with this maximization." Oderberg, 68. In short, an agent has a duty always to do good, as good is defined by the consequentialists (maximizing X, whatever X may be), all else be damned. In this regard, consequentialists all seem to suffer from an overdeveloped sense of duty and hence a sort of moral neurosis follows. They are burdened with a millstone caused by the banishment of intent from the moral equation. All is outside in this theory; nothing is inside in this theory. It is hideously inhuman, and in fact leads to the justification of the most immoral behavior. Invariably, as a result of his false theory of morality, a consequentialist will turn into a neurotic whitened sepulcher, complete with the unattended inside full of a rotten corpse and black heart. The moral neurosis arises from what is an impossible proposition, and that is that one's intent makes utterly no difference in the moral calculus that determines right or wrong:

[I]t does not matter for the morality [of a person's] action how [he] fails to maximize X in a given situation: he may deliberately choose an act that is sub-optimal (less-than-X-maximizing), or he may simply refrain from performing the act that is optimal (X-maximizing), with the result that, in one way or another, a sub-optimal state of the world eventuates; either way, he is equally guilty of immorality.

Oderberg, 67. Here is consequentialism's viciousness, here is its demonic kernel, here is it's black heart:

[T]he defining feature of consequentialism . . . is hat there is no such thing as an action that is wrong whatever the consequences, and conversely, there is no such thing as an action that is right irrespective of the consequences. No actions are absolutely right or absolutely right: they take whatever moral complexion they have from their contribution, in the circumstances, to the maximization of X.

Oderberg, 68-69. Breaking one's promise, committing adultery, homicide, lying, bombing innocent populations with an atom bomb . . . you name it. There are no moral absolutes.*** All is negotiable so long as X is maximized. X, whatever X may be, becomes the new deity, the irrepressible Juggernaut and moral tyrant. It is apparent that if all is negotiable to the moral calculus, it follows that consequentialism is "incompatible with the existence of rights which prohibit certain kinds of act no matter what the consequences are." A consequentialist would never say: fiat justitia ruat caelum. Do justice, though the heaven's fall. A consequentialist would say, to keep the heaven's from falling, do injustice.

The upshot of consequentialism--that there are no such things as absolute rights--is admitted by the more candid of the consequentialists, and Oderberg provides a smattering of representative quotes.**** Even if they use the word "right," they have re-defined it to conform with their theory, and so cannot be regarded as "right" in any traditional sense. They are about as much "rights" as Satan's promises are promises: Faustian bargains both.

(continued)
_______________________________________
*See Sichselbstnichtsogesetzthaben and the Natural Law. Throughout this posting, the spelling from quotes from Oderberg's works are Americanized. Thus, maximise is rendered maximize, judgement rendered judgment, etc.
**Essentially, utilitarianism and consequentialism are synonyms. As Oderberg notes, "consequentialism" was a derogatory term used by the philosopher Elizabeth Anscombe to describe the utilitarian theory of morality. The utilitarians have taken to wearing that badge with pride, sort of like Ultramontanes enjoy being called Papists.
***Perhaps one of the best monographs on this issue, and certainly one of the bests I have encountered, is John Finnis, Moral Absolutes: Tradition, Revision, and Truth (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University Press, 1991).
****Peter Singer: "I am not convinced that the notion of a moral right is a helpful or meaningful one." J. J. C. Smart: "[H]owever unhappy about it he may be, the utilitarian must admit that he draws the consequence that he might find himself in circumstances where he ought to be unjust." John Harris: "I do not accept that there are any 'absolute' or 'natural' rights . . . the use of the word 'right' more often serves to obscure the rights and wrongs of an issue than to elucidate them."

Contra Consequentialismum: Skeptical of Skepticism

SKEPTICISM ABOUT THE OBJECTIVE NATURE of good and evil, right and wrong--moral skepticism--runs rampant in the Western world. Advance the notion of objective right and wrong in any conversation, or insist on an absolute exceptionless rule, and people become unsettled, and they tune you off, even ridicule you as an obscurantist, since such a position seems to be contrary to the primary virtues of the day: open-mindedness, tolerance, pluralism, relativism. But moral theory--which concerns itself with right and wrong--would be a poor science indeed (and it claims to be a science, though obviously not an empirical or experimental science such as chemistry or sociology) if its subject matter--moral right and wrong--were so amorphous and shapeless, so unbased upon reality, as to have no objective, intelligible substance; or if its method, teachings, and expression were irreparably and fundamentally nothing but an expression of the proponent's subjective opinion. If morality is like poetry or like painting, then it is not a science, and it yields not knowledge, but is an art at best. If morality is based upon nothing else but subjective feeling, then it is analogous to the Eucharist being just a symbol, and not the Real Presence of Christ. "Well, if it’s a symbol, to hell with it," the writer Flannery O'Connor famously said. And if morality is not based upon objective reality, if there really is not an objective, real moral world, a moral realm "out there" or "within us," then to hell with morality! That's, of course, what relativists and moral skeptics basically say.

As an applied science, moral knowledge (not necessarily behavior) ought to progress or converge upon truth, advancing from relative ignorance, and there ought to be significant agreement among its adepts as to proper teaching. If it doesn't move towards greater knowledge and agreement, then its lack of progress or the lack of agreement ought to be able to be explained. That people generally disbelieve that moral knowledge has progressed or converges upon truths and its advocates have reached consensus is the result of a prevailing spirit of moral skepticism.

Moral skepticism denies the existence of objective right and wrong--which necessarily means it advances moral relativism: all moral thought is relative, there is no one single truth on the matter that all must hold with regard to the good and the right. Wrested away from modern biases, or perhaps better, ideologies, however, the case for an objective moral reality is very strong. And the case against moral skepticism is unanswerable, since, from an intellectual point of view, moral skepticism is intellectually baseless.* In other words, modernly, we have put ourselves in the shade of skepticism, and so are unable to appreciate the light of objective moral truths. Moderns are blinded by irrational bias; they are diseased with the cancer of skepticism and have made the foolish diagnosis that the cancer is the healthy tissue, and the healthy tissue is diseased.

Though moral knowledge is objectively-based, true knowledge, it would be wrong to expect it to be as precise as, geometry or chemistry. A "crucial point, one made by Aristotle" long ago, must be kept in mind by us moderns: "every science is only as precise as its subject matter allows." Oderberg, MT, 3. Moral theory, by its very nature, is therefore inexact, often, though not always, dealing with probable or approximate answers.** But being inexact is not equivalent to being unknowable. We ought not be misled by the inexactitude of moral knowledge:

There is an essential element of inexactitude in moral theory, corresponding to the elusiveness and unfathomability of man of the predicaments people find themselves in. It stems also from the mysterious depths of the human soul, with its often dimly understood thicket of motivations, desires, beliefs, and emotions. . . . The moral theories should minimize these where possible, but they cannot be eliminated and should indeed be welcomed as indicators that morality is about people, not machines.

Oderberg, MT, 4. Moral knowledge is also hampered by social influences, personal desires, prevailing ideology, in ways that the empirical sciences are not (though empirical sciences are not absolutely immune from these influences either).*** Moral knowledge, then, is knowledge about what is right and wrong, good and evil. It is applied or practical knowledge, that is, it tells us how we should act to do right and advance the good, to avoid doing wrong and so shun evil. It informs us how to be good humans. If one is a moral "realist," then morality is "real," and there is a "moral realm" which is real, true, objective, intelligible, and binding upon us.

David Hume, Empirical Philosopher and Advocate of the "Natural Fallacy"

The modern penchant toward rejecting moral realism and instead adopting a moral skepticism is largely the result of the "empiricist tradition in philosophy." Oderberg, MT, 9. One of the most significant sources of modern moral skepticism is the critique of moral knowledge resulting from the fact-value distinction (also called the naturalistic fallacy, "is/ought" distinction, or Hume's guillotine).

The distinction finds its classic statement in the philosophy of David Hume: He famously remarked: 'In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remarked that the author . . . makes observations concerning human affairs; when of a sudden I am surprised to find, that instead of the usual . . . propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not.'

Oderberg, MT, 9 (quoting Hume's Treatise on Human Nature, III.I.I). The fact-value distinction states that it is logically wrong to jump from fact (is) to obligation or value (ought). Since moral matters involve obligations and duties (oughts and ought nots), they cannot be based on fact. (ises or is nots). And so they must be based upon something else, choose your poison: perhaps feeling, tastes, emotions, in any event, something other than fact. Since facts are the only objective reality (and the only basis for sciences, narrowly understood empirically) it follows, Hume insists, that morality is not about objective reality. So teaches Hume, and the whole Western world seemed to have swallowed Hume's pill. Ingemuit totus orbis, et Humeanum se esse miratus est. The modern world groaned and has found itself Humean. Has swallowing Hume's pill been wise or foolish?

Foolish. Foolish because the advocates of the fact-value distinction have put themselves on the horns of a dilemma which reflects the absurdity of their main philosophical tenet regarding the moral world. The dilemma comes from their understanding of "fact." They have to define "fact" to exclude "ethical facts," but in doing so they simply beg the question, that is, avoid the confrontation of the "ethical realist"** who insists that there are such things as "ethical facts." So how can they argue with the ethical realist to prove that the Humean position that all there are is empirical fact is the assumption to make? "If the skeptic about moral facts wants to use the notion of a fact to cast doubt on [moral] realism, then, he must not rely on a conception that the moral realist does not share in the first place." There are no givens shared by the Humeans and the non-Humeans from which argument between them can be based. So where does the Humean go to establish his argument?

Humeans in fact, are doom to fail based upon their presuppositions. There is no empirical "fact" that exists to which the Humeans can point to that "ethical facts" do not exist. Where, in the concrete reality they say is the entirety of reality, is the fact that says there is no such thing as an ethical realm? To argue that empirical facts are the entirety of reality, and that moral or ethical facts are not facts, the Humeans must leave the empirical world of empirical facts, thus disproving their insistence that all there are are empirical facts. The Humeans, in other words, are in the predicament of having to prove (from empirical fact alone) the proposition that "one ought not to believe in ethical facts, but only in empirical facts," but to argue such a proposition they violate their basic assumption by having to depart the world of empirical facts. In other words, there is no way for them to prove, given their assumptions, that there are no such things as "ethical facts." They can only endeavor to prove their assumption by violating it. Their fundamental oughtness that all there is is isness cannot be proved from the fundamental assumption that all there is is isness. Hence their dilemma.

Empirically, Reason Why One Gives Alms Doesn't Exist

There is, however, more. The Humean assumption that only empirical facts exist poses real problems, as it excludes a whole demimonde of facts we routinely accept as description of reality. "[T]he distinction [between fact and value] does imply an unbridgeable conceptual gap between facts and values--but the cost of forging it, for the Humean, is that he loses his grip on reality." Oderberg, MT, 13. In his insistence on empirical reality, the Humean loses out on the reality of things like human intent, or human assessment. The Humean, sort of like Oedipus but for less noble reasons, blinds himself, gouges out his eyes, and then suggests he sees better than the rest of folks. He is Aesop's fox without a tail, arguing to his fellows that tails are cumbersome extremities. Therefore, Hume can empirically equate the sapling growing up and overtaking its parent tree robbing it of the sun, to a son being ungrateful or even a son killing his father. For a Humean, the "relations are the same." Both descriptions of the event, from an empirical point of view, are identical in the Humean world looked at with gouged-out eyes. Empiricism cannot distinguish the obvious difference between the two. The Humean cannot distinguish between the man who gives alms in charity and the man who gives alms in vanity: empirically, they are both doing the same thing: putting money in the poor box. The Humean world clearly involves "a radically impoverished apprehension of reality; not [only] an impoverished conception of morality, but of what exactly is going on." Oderberg, MT, 14. It is a Humean trait to describe abortion as the "termination of pregnancy," instead of murder. It is a Humean trait to describe lies as "misstatements" or being "economical with the truth." The world of reality extends far beyond the Humean world of empirical fact:

With a more complete appreciation of reality, there will still be a distinction between facts and values; there will still be a way of describing the world that only pays attention, say, to microphysics, to chemistry, to the movements of particles, to the interaction of objects, to pure cause an effect, and so on. But these descriptions will only capture a segment of reality, one which has a definite but limited place in ethical theory.

Oderberg, MT, 15. In other words, the moral realist can accept empiricism while yet recognizing that there is an entire reality outside of it; the moral realist can see (he has not gouged out his intellectual eyes like the Humean Oedipus, though he may see enough figuratively to pluck one of his eyes out so that he does not get cast into Hell if that eye causes him to sin, cf. Matt. 5:29; 18:9; Mark 9:47). The moral realists can see that empiricism, while valuable in its sphere, fails to describe the entirety of reality. Empiricism can only describe a part, a small part, and perhaps the least important part of the cosmos. It is wholly blind to the pearls of great price which are seen in the moral realm.
_________________________________
*Since true philosophical and moral knowledge (e.g., the existence of God, the existence of objective moral truth) is based upon certain self-evident principles, which cannot be certainly proved, as by definition self-evident principles cannot be proved; however, with enough patience and effort, any thought that rejects such self-evident principles can be shown to be certainly false, baseless, or lead to absurdity.
**Hence the fight among probabilists, probabliorists, and equiprobabilists.
***See Mark Walker, ed., Science and Ideology: A Comparative History (New York: Routledge, 2003).

Contra Consequentialismum: Introduction

IN THIS NEXT SERIES OF BLOG POSTINGS, we shall look at the moral theory of consquentialism or utilitarianism, a teleological ethic which probably, in its various varietals, is the ascendant, prevailing moral theory in the West. Consequentialism is a theory of morality that is at odds with the natural law and with virtue-based ethics.* Its only viable competitor in the secular world is perhaps some sort of Kantianism or deontological (duty-based) ethic, although the natural law and virtue-based ethics are making a sort of comeback perhaps because of the felt inadequacies of the other theories. Consequentialism or utilitarianism finds its modern beginnings in the thought of the likes of James Mill (1773–1836), Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832), and John Stuart Mill (1806-1873). Though the consequentialist moral theory has roots in the early 19th century, it has developed from its primitive beginnings as a result of attacks from its critics, and is alive and well and finds such modern exponents even propagandists such as the Australian moral philosopher and animal rights activist Peter Singer (1946 - )

In writing this series, we will be relying heavily on the two works of David S. Oderberg, Moral Theory: A Non-Consequentialist Approach"The doctrine of the sanctity of human life has come under merciless attack in recent years, and is the first principle that most applied ethicists seek to undermine. Without it, there is no traditional morality."
--David S. Oderberg and its companion volume, Applied Ethics: A Non-Consequentialist Approach.*

David Oderberg, an Australian with a PhD from Oxford, is Professor of Philosophy at the University of Reading, in the United Kingdom. He is the author of a number of articles regarding metaphysics, ethics, philosophical logic and other subjects. His metaphysics is Aristotelian, and his morality is based upon traditional concepts of natural law.

Professor Oderberg realizes that, contemporaneously, his is the minority report, but he also realizes that, viewed historically, his is the theory with the better pedigree. Viewed historically, the consequentialist theory, and the moral skepticism and relativism and rejection of human nature as a standard that comes with it, is a moral upstart, a moral parvenu, the new kid on the block. Neither of these facts, or course, establish the veracity or lack of veracity of either theory, but the fact that the traditional morality has been held by so many for so long gives one some psychological assurance that perhaps there is more to it than meets the eyes of moderns who scoff at it and its supporters.

David S. Oderberg, Professor of Philosophy at Reading University

[E]ven if the bulk of moral philosophers find the conclusions I reach unpalatable, disagreeable, absurd, anachronistic, barbaric, bizarre, or just plain wrong, I console myself with the following thought: that every single one of the major positions I defend was believed by the vast majority of human beings in Western society for thousands of years, right up until some time in the 1960s, when the Western Cultural Revolution took place. (I do not speak of the non-Western societies, which even today subscribe to most or all of the views defended here.)

Oderberg, MT, viii. We shall follow the structure of Oderberg's Moral Theory. He first addresses the issue of skepticism and the skeptical prejudices that color, or perhaps better blind, the majority of men in Western societies, and which makes them believe that morality is purely subjective and without objective basis. Then he addresses the principal foundations of traditional morality. Following that, he addresses some of principles of the rival schools, specifically contractualism and consequentialism. Finally, he focuses on the moral principle of the sanctity of human life, a principle that "has come under merciless attack in recent years, and is the first principle that most applied ethicists seek to undermine. Without it, there is no traditional morality." Oderberg, MT, x.

These works of Oderberg are unapologetically anti-consequentialist. In his words, they "concentrate on [consquentialism's] incompatibility with the basic demands of rights and of justice (due primarily to its 'maximising' and calculative nature), and hence its fundamentally inhuman character." Oderberg, MT, x. His arguments for traditional morality and against consequentialism are based upon reason alone. In fact, it is impossible for me to tell from these two works alone, what his religious confession is, or if he even has one.*** While his positions are largely consistent with the moral doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church, they seem to be based on, or at least argued from, foundations that are entirely areligious, principally upon Aristotelian principles.

__________________________________
*In fact, not only is it unreasonable, as we will endeavor to argue, it is unfaithful to the Church's teaching. It has reared its ugly face in modified form in Catholic circles under the name "Proportionalism." Cf. Pope John Paul II, Veritatis splendor, Nos. 75-76: ". . . This "teleologism", as a method for discovering the moral norm, can thus be called--according to terminology and approaches imported from different currents of thought--"consequentialism" or "proportionalism". The former claims to draw the criteria of the rightness of a given way of acting solely from a calculation of foreseeable consequences deriving from a given choice. The latter, by weighing the various values and goods being sought, focuses rather on the proportion acknowledged between the good and bad effects of that choice, with a view to the 'greater good' or 'lesser evil' actually possible in a particular situation. The teleological ethical theories (proportionalism, consequentialism), while acknowledging that moral values are indicated by reason and by Revelation, maintain that it is never possible to formulate an absolute prohibition of particular kinds of behaviour which would be in conflict, in every circumstance and in every culture, with those values. . . . Even when grave matter is concerned, these precepts should be considered as operative norms which are always relative and open to exceptions. . . . These theories can gain a certain persuasive force from their affinity to the scientific mentality, which is rightly concerned with ordering technical and economic activities on the basis of a calculation of resources and profits, procedures and their effects. . . . Such theories however are not faithful to the Church's teaching, when they believe they can justify, as morally good, deliberate choices of kinds of behavior contrary to the commandments of the divine and natural law. These theories cannot claim to be grounded in the Catholic moral tradition." [N.B. The "teologism" referred to by John Paul II should not be confused with the teleology that is part and parcel of the traditional natural law doctrine. The "teologism" here refers to the end or consequences of the act as the determinant of its morality, whereas the teology in the natural law theory refers to the final end or intrinsic end of a nature.]
**David S. Oderberg, Moral Theory: A Non-Consquentialist Approach (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 2000) (herein "MT") and Applied Ethics: A Non-Consequentialist Approach(Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 2000) (herein "AE").
***The only clue is in the selection of cover art, The Adoration of the Magi (by Fra Angelico and Filippo Lippi) for MT and The Massacre of the Innocents (by Fran Angelico) for AE.