The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Benedict XVI and proportionalism > Comments

Benedict XVI and proportionalism : Comments

By Brian Lewis, published 5/8/2008

The dignity of the human person and the place of human rights needs to be enshrined as the centrepiece of moral decision making.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All
Sorry, “intrinsically (not inherently) evil” !
Posted by George, Wednesday, 6 August 2008 3:03:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
1. Whether the author intends this or no, this article shows up the woolly thinking that proportionalism embodies:

Statement A:

“It may well be that a percentage of seminary teaching at the time led
to misunderstanding on the part of some students and the conclusion that some actions, including child abuse, were not inherently wrong and could in some situations be justified. However, Proportionalism rightly understood does not lead to such a conclusion.”

So: Proportionalism does not lead to the conclusion that child abuse could be justified.

Statement B:

“However, it is admitted that some moral rules may be “virtual” absolutes, in the sense that it is hard to envisage the possibility of there ever being a proportionate reason for going against them.”

So: Using proportionalist methodology, it is hard to envisage how child abuse could be justified.

But there is a huge and significant logical difference between saying “ I do not conclude that P” and “It is hard to envisage P”.

Moreover, it is simply not true to say that proportionalism comes to the same conclusion as Benedict XVI on child abuse.

Benedict says child abuse is intrinsically wrong. Not just that it is “hard” to envisage that it could be justified, but that, it being always wrong, it is “impossible” to envisage that it could be justified. Radically different positions.

2.The article also shows that proportionalism is inconsistent. If killing an innocent person is justified where one is certain that many more lives will be saved, then why wouldn’t the less invasive act of child abuse be more than justified in the same circumstances?

3. Catholic theology rules out deliberate killing of the innocent in ANY circumstance whatsoever. Proportionalism’s attempt to justify killing in some circumstances – or, alternatively, to explain why killing the innocent can never be justified, is hopelessly muddled. If one tries to follow McCormick, the leading proportionalist, in his reasoning, one ends up in an intellectual mire.

A refutation of McCormick is available in J.M Finnis: “Fundamentals of Ethics” and in his “Moral Absolutes: Tradition and Revision”. See also Germain Grisez: “Against Consequentialism”.
Posted by HH, Tuesday, 12 August 2008 4:44:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ho Hum, I don't think it is fair to make broad sweeping generalisations about Catholics liking to 'split hairs'. That's a billion people united by this common characteristic - quite unlikely. Such generalisations detract substantially from the credibility of your post.

I really don't get how so much anger can be derived from an old man sitting on a plane and saying that there is no justification for abusing children and that, if there are people out there who see some justification, they have been misinformed. Surely this is an example of the Pope acknowledging a problem and looking for its source? Surely that, in turn, is a step towards solving the problem? Maybe I am missing something.
Posted by Otokonoko, Thursday, 28 August 2008 12:49:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy