Transcript Natural Law - Boston College

Natural Law, Intrinsic Evil,
& Moral Norms in the Moral
Triangle
By
James T. Bretzke, S.J., S.T.D.
Professor of Moral Theology
Boston College
[email protected]
Distinctions Between Natural Law
And Law of Nature
 Natural law deals with
 Laws of nature deal with
morality and character,
e.g. right/wrong
 Natural law depends for
its existence on human
beings AND God
 Natural law’s
“objectivity” needs careful
understanding and can
only be discovered within
the realm of human moral
being (conscience)
the physical universe, e.g.
gravity
 Laws of nature are
“objective” and bind
irrespective of human
beings (e.g. gravity binds
even without humans)
 Law of nature can be
discovered by scientific
analysis of the world
outside of us.
Location of the Law
 Natural Law
 Location is primarily
 Law of Nature
 Location is primarily
within the human
person(s) in their relation
to God
 It is not “out there” in the
sense of the chemical
periodic table of elements
 Thomas says it is
“inscribed” on the
human heart (Lex indita
non scripta)
outside in the operations
of the physical universe
 Thus, the law of nature is
discovered through
science and/or observation
of the physical universe
and its properties
 A morally bad person
could be a gifted chemist,
etc.
Examples of {Im}Possibility
 Natural Law
 Going to confession =
possible for many;
difficult for some
 Confessing to one’s son (a
priest) = difficult for
some; “morally
impossible” for others
 One set of rules does not
necessarily fit all (cf. ST
1-II, Q. 94, art. 4)
 Law of Nature
 NaCl + H2O =
Possible
 Au + H2O = Very
difficult
 Au + NaCl =
Impossible?
 One set of rules fits all
{IM}POSSIBILITY
 Natural Law
 Impossibility refers primarily to
moral impossibility, which is
necessarily subjective (i.e.,
related to an individual subject)
 Thus what is morally “possible”
for one individual may be
morally impossible for another
 Moral possibility/impossibility
is more difficult to determine,
since it is necessarily
subjective.
 Law of Nature
 Impossibility refers to the
basic laws of physics,
chemistry, biology, etc.
which are “objective” and
apply to all
 What is physically
impossible is fairly easy to
determine.
 Thus birds can fly under
their own power, but
humans cannot
The Ontological Claim
 There is, in some sense, an objective moral
order
 Grounded in a human nature
 Which indicates a certain way of being
 And activities consonant with that being
 As well as actions and ways of being not in
accord with that nature
The Epistemological Claim
 Not only does this order exist, but we can in some
real and significant sense “know” it
 I.e., we can know both the nature of human being
 And those actions which are consistent with
human flourishing
 As well as those which are incompatible with
human flourishing
Natural Law Claims Summary
ONTOLOGICAL
CLAIM: The Objective
EPISTEMOLOGICAL
CLAIM: We Can Know It
Moral Order Exists
In Some Real Sense
Normative Claim:We must
Normable Claim: This moral
follow the moral norms of this
objective moral order
order can be expressed as moral
norms
Universalist Claim: Some
Universalizable
Claim:Some of these moral
of these moral norms bind all
peoples in all times in some way
norms can be formulated to apply to
all peoples
Notion of Moral Paradigms
 Only God Can Know the Whole of Reality
 Thus for the rest of us this knowledge is
necessarily incomplete and partial, and we tend
to understand complex realities according to
models and paradigms
 Can we speak of authentic cultural paradigms,
etc., for morality and ethics?
 Necessary Openness to Revision of All
Paradigms—especially in light of new insights
The Physicalist Paradigm
 Moral obligation comes from following the
physical or “natural” structure of the given
“faculty”
 Thus, for the “faculty” of speech one must
always communicate the truth
 To do otherwise would be to accept contra
naturam [against the nature] of the faculty
Personalist Paradigm
 Begins with the individual human person
 In his or her concrete situation
 Looking at his or her personal attributes,
needs, goals, desires
 Pays special attention to the relations with
others (especially close relations)
 All these to some extent will be unique
Bob & Carol; Ted & Alice
 DINKs: Gen X,
 Mid-40’s, married for 20
Double Income, No
Kids!
 Desire to maintain a
certain life-style
 Artificial
contraception is the
most convenient
means of avoiding
children
years, 5 children:
 College freshman, 2 in
high school, one in grade
school, one Downs
syndrome
 Alice advised to have no
more children
 Have tried
(unsuccessfully) NFP
Paradigms Analysis
 Physicalist Paradigm
– Bob and Carol
– Ted and Alice
 Personalist Paradigm
– Bob and Carol
– Ted and Alice
Strengths& Weaknesses of Each Paradigm
Physicalist Paradigm
Personalist Paradigm
Issues Angle
Moral
Triangle
Based
Analysis & Application
Truth Claims
Judgment Angle
Goals
Application Angle
Right Reason (Recta Ratio) in
Thomas Aquinas
 Speculative Reason
 Practical Reason
 Abstract, “logical” truth
 Reason put into concrete
 “Necessarily” true
 Universally true for all
 Exercise of logical
wisdom and reasoning
 Some examples…





practice
Affected by “contingency”
Affected by “fallibility
Not universally true for all
in the same way
Exercise of prudential
wisdom
Some examples…
Moral principles operative in this issue
How these principles are grounded and established
Truth claims connected to these principles
How these truth claims are verified and validated
How the judgment angle connects to application
(Do Not Murder)
Judgment Angle
Truth Claims
(Human Life is Sacred)
The same questions can be addressed to the judgment angle
Are several moral principles operative in this issue?
Or does it seem to be only a single principle issue?
How are potential conflicts among the principles resolved?
What truth claims are connected to these principles?
Which of the moral sources are used to verify the truth claims?
Judgment Angle
Truth Claims
Levels of Moral Norms Summary
 Universal Precepts
 Middle Axioms
 Concrete Material
Norms
 Always binding, expressed
as abstract truths, such as
“drive safely” or “Do not
murder”
 Generally true, in most
cases (ut in pluribus) but
exceptions exist, e.g.
“follow the speed limit”
 Apply to a specific situation
but are more open to both
change and fallibility ,
e.g.“15 MPH in School
Zone:
Universal Moral Principles
 Bonum est faciendum et prosequendum et
malum vitandum (ST I-II, q. 94)
 The good is to be done and fostered, and
evil avoided
 Look carefully at the grammar…
 Knowable by all as principles of truth,
according to speculative reason
 E.g., Drive safely, as in the following?!
Even at the Level of Universal Precept “Error” Is Still Possible!
Middle Axioms
 Moral norms which are generally true and
not easily altered
 Lex valet ut in pluribus (the law/norm is
valid “in most cases”)
 Yet, according to circumstance and time
these norms might be changed or have
“exceptions”
 E.g., drive according to the speed limit
We should note the “natural” human resistance to norms
Concrete Material Norms
 Particular and specific, often tied to a particular
understanding of time and/or circumstance
 These may be “incomplete” and/or necessary to
alter according to time or place
 Thus, more “fallible” and more “contingent”
 E.g., drive 15 mph in a school zone
Absolute Moral Norms?
 Universal principles ? (Speculative Reason)
 Middle Axioms ?{Speculative & Practical
Reason combined}
 Concrete Material Norms ?{Primarily
practical reason}
 Logically only “Universal Principles” can
be “absolutely” and “unchangeably”
binding
What Kind of a Rule is This? Universal Precept or ?
Is There Something We Need to Know, like “Circumstances”
Does the Big(ger) Picture Help Us Interpret the Norm?
“No Smoking/Eating
Allowed”
But Is This Norm “Absolute” Even for This Context??
Universal Precept? Middle Axiom? Concrete Material Norm?
Now Have We Found a Moral Absolute at Last??
“Traditional Fonts of Morality”
Action in se (“objective” aspect of the act)
Intention of the moral agent
Circumstances in which the agent’s intention
was made and in which the action was
performed
While in the tradition these aspects were
treated “separately,” in reality they exist
only together, and “simultaneously”
Moral Acts in the Catechism of
the Catholic Church
 1755 A morally good act requires the
goodness of the object, of the end, and
of the circumstances together. An evil
end corrupts the action, even if the
object is good in itself (such as praying
and fasting "in order to be seen by
men").
Thomas Aquinas on Intention &
Circumstances in Moral Acts
 Now moral acts take their species according to
what is intended, and not according to what is
beside the intention, since this is accidental as
explained above (43, 3; I-II, 12, 1). ST II-II, q. 64,
art. 7
 Circumstances are key on human acts: “a
circumstance makes a moral action to be
specifically good or bad. …[a] circumstance gives
the species of good or evil to a moral action, in so
far as it regards a special order of reason.” ST I-II,
Q. 18, arts. 10,11
Moral Acts in Veritatis Splendor
 The morality of the human act depends primarily
and fundamentally on the "object" rationally
chosen by the deliberate will, as is borne out by
the insightful analysis, still valid today, made by
Saint Thomas. [ST I-II, Q. 18, art. 6]
 In order to be able to grasp the object of an act
which specifies that act morally, it is therefore
necessary to place oneself in the perspective of the
acting person. [VS #78]
Concern over Moral Relativism
Intrinsically Evil Acts
 Intrinsice malum in se
 A different species of moral act?
 Seriously morally evil act always wrong in
and of itself, by virtue of its object
 Regardless of further consideration of
intention and/or circumstances
 Though these can reduce moral culpability
on the part of the moral agent
True & False Understandings of
Intrinsically Evil Acts
 False Understandings
 Always wrong
 True Understandings
 Wrong by nature of
regardless of any
consideration of
intention
 Always wrong
regardless of any
consideration of
circumstances
its object (which
presumes/demands
“intention)
 Wrong “in se” (which
presumes/demands an
act that occurs in
specifiable time &
space (i.e.,
“circumstances)
“IF” the False were True…
 Each & every
 Including resolving
termination of fetal
life would be morally
wrong
 Each & every killing
would be morally
wrong
 Each & every
contraceptive effect
would be morally
wrong
the ectopic pregnancy
 Including selfdefense, just war, and
even accidents
 Including therapeutic
uses explicitly
accepted in Humanae
vitae #15
Problematic of Intrinsic Evil in
Veritatis Splendor
 These are the acts which, in the Church's moral
tradition, have been termed "intrinsically evil"
(intrinsece malum): they are such always and per se,
in other words, on account of their very object, and
quite apart from the ulterior intentions of the one
acting and the circumstances. Consequently, without
in the least denying the influence on morality
exercised by circumstances and especially by
intentions, the Church teaches that "there exist acts
which per se and in themselves, independently of
circumstances, are always seriously wrong by reason
of their object" [VS #80]
Intention & Circumstances in
Veritatis Splendor #80
 "Reason attests that there are objects of the human act which are
by their nature `incapable of being ordered' to God, because they
radically contradict the good of the person made in his image.
These are the acts which, in the Church's moral tradition, have
been termed `intrinsically evil' (intrinsece malum): they are such
always and per se, in other words, on account of their very
object, and quite apart from the ulterior intentions of the one
acting and the circumstances.“
 "If acts are intrinsically evil, a good intention or particular
circumstances can diminish their evil, but they cannot remove it.
They remain `irremediably' evil acts; per se and in themselves
they are not capable of being ordered to God and to the good of
the person.“
 "Consequently, circumstances or intentions can never transform
an act intrinsically evil by virtue of its object into an act
`subjectively' good or defensible as a choice."
Deus impossibilia non iubet
 "God does not command of humans things which
are impossible to do“
 Thus, God’s grace was understood to always be
present to enable people to do the morally correct
thing.
 Yet, we must keep in mind that if something is
impossible then it cannot be commanded by God.
 Remember John 10:10 on the Mission of Jesus: “I
have come that they might have life, and have it to
the full.”
Issues Angle
What are the assumptions brought to the issue?
What are all the morally relevant features of this issue?
How do these intersect to frame the issue?
How will this frame connect to moral judgment?
Issues Angle
Are the assumptions narrowly or broadly focused?
Do they open up or close off further discussion?
What morally relevant features are decisive?
What features are considered irrelevant?
Is the issues angle too broad or narrow?
The Virtue of Epikeia
 From the Greek word for “fitting”
 Source of some debate among medieval
theologians, some of which saw it as a
grudging “dispensation”
 But according to Thomas it is “virtue”
which ought to become habitual
 Since it seeks to “perfect” the law
3 Applications of Epikeia
 To correct an impossible law
 To correct an inhuman law
 To correct a law which did not foresee this
particular set of circumstances (the socalled “reading the mind of the legislator”
 Some examples of each…
What are the primary and secondary goals hoped for in the response?
How are the strategies devised to reach these goals?
How do these goals and strategies relate back to the
Issues and Judgment Angles?
Goals desired
Application Angle
Is the Application Angle likewise too narrow or too broad?
Are there several goals involved, or just one or two?
How is the hierarchy of values of the goals judged?
How are the strategies devised to reach these goals?
Is there room for gradualism and/or compromise?
Goals desired
Application Angle
Issues Angle
Moral
Triangle
Basis for Ongoing
Moral Discernment
Truth Claims
Judgment Angle
Goals
Application Angle
Where Do We Go From Here?
 Morality is always and only lived in the
concrete
 Therefore, individuals must discern, decide,
and act, in freedom, in order to be moral
 Traditionally this is where conscience
comes into play
Three Legs of Moral Discernment
Openness to God’s Spirit
Individual Effort
Community Discussion