You may have noticed a current in moral theology called "proportionalism." That's the formal name for the fallacy that 'you can do X for the "greater good,"' or--in short--"the end justifies the means."
Bp. Strickland noticed it, too.
...The rise of proportionalism (sometimes called consequentialism) was, and is, predicated upon a thin notion of freedom as a “freedom from” any kind of absolute moral norms which govern our choices. It provided a cover of sorts for misguided moral theologians within the Catholic Church. They confused many of the Catholic faithful who accepted their teaching, presuming that they spoke for the Church.
The proponents of proportionalism maintained that there were what they called “ontic” or “pre-moral” evils which one may choose when considering the morality of an action, if such a choice was made for the sake of a greater “pre-moral” good.
In this approach to the exercise of human freedom and choice the promoters of proportionalism rejected longstanding Christian teaching concerning the existence of intrinsically evil actions that are always and everywhere wrong. They simply cannot ever be chosen. One cannot do evil to achieve a good end.
Though there were variances within their language, and an almost chameleon-like quality to their rhetoric, most held that it could be a moral course of action — at least in what was perceived to be a “complex” or “difficult” decision — to choose what promised to realize a greater proportion of this “pre-moral good” over a “pre-moral evil.”
One finds that a certain worldwide Order of priests which operates a number of "prestige" universities in the US often uses 'proportionalism' (consequentionalism) in their published blatherings.
Use your critical-thinking when reading their stuff.
2 comments:
They seem to dress up "The ends justify the means" as "the lesser of two evils", with the second, *greater* evil occurring sometime in the ethereal future. They present the to-be-avoided future greater evil as a certainty, even though it may not even be a probability. Examples could be aborting crack babies because they'll have miserable lives, or starving billions today to keep the oceans from boiling.
Who has ever suggested starving people to alleviate the hazards of global warming? And if the oceans do come to a boil the issue will be moot. All life itself will be extinguished.
Post a Comment