Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
ETHICS: HOOSE'S PROPORTIONALISM - Coggle Diagram
ETHICS: HOOSE'S PROPORTIONALISM
WHAT?
proportionalists believe proportionate reason is central to decision making
roots of proportionalism are found in aquinas' double effect (aka law of proportionate reason), but proportionalists are unsure of its application
hoose's proportionalism somewhat comes in conflict with catholic approaches to natural law, wi opposition arguing proportionalism doesn't prevent any actions as long as it's in proportion to the action's goal/ purpose
a teleological perspective; an action is right if there is proportionate reason to do it, so some wrong actions can be done depending on circumstance and its seriousness
allows ontic goods (e.g. dignity, integrity, justice) - desirable qualities and should be considered when making a moral decision
proportionalism says natural law fails to recognise humans' holistic nature as it sees the body and soul as different, instead of being a psychological oneness of reason + nature
focuses on moral compromise, not moral perfection - some non-moral evils have to be allowed for a greater good - there needs to be proportionate level of good + evil
proportionalism sees natural laws should be able to change and is impossible to identify laws that are eternally valid w/o adaptation
PROPORTIONALIST MAXIM
calculation of proportion between all goods + evils involved in an action is one of the most important parts of proportionalis
aquinas explains when an action contains accidental evil (e.g. killing in self-defence), the good done by the action must outweigh the evil - the action must be in proportion
proportionate reasoning is a form of practical reasoning specific to the double effect at the heart of 'maxim' (main principle of proportionalims
a principle should never be disobeyed unless there is proportionate reason to justify it
proportionalism accepts moral laws are good + shouldn't be broken, but sometimes double effect can be applied as reasonable way of managing conflict between laws
e.g. killing in self-defence would violate preservation of life (primary precept) but killing the attacker is a violation too
a deliberate evil can't be justified, but agents can weigh up elements of an act in conflict to establish proportionate reason to apply double effect to justify what's right
good achieved by an action should be equal/ greater than the unintentional evil it creates, but proportionalists haven't agreed on any one way to do this
DISTINCTIONS
BETWEEN A GOOD & RIGHT ACT
aquinas + catholic church suggest a good act is the concrete action performed in accordance wi intention of the person acting
natural law gives guidance needed to distinguish what's good/ bad
rightness/ wrongness of an action deals wi whether the action should be done, and makes moral judgement
a good action should always be the right thing to do, but proportionalists argue it isn't always the case
HOOSE
uses
BRUNO SCHULLER
's example of a doctor who develops treatment that would be widely beneficial but is motivated by business interests
making the treatment is right (it's widely beneficial) but the act becomes wrong due to the doctor's selfish intentions
SCHULLER
gives another e.g. - a person using their agape tries to help someone but accidentally harms them - a wrong action, good nonetheless
the person had good intentions, but the harm created means the action should've never been done
proportionalists say an act can be morally good but wrong and vice versa
BETWEEN EVIL & PRE-MORAL/ ONTIC EVIL
pre-moral/ ontic evil
- unavoidable lack of perfection present in all human actions, incl. natural disasters, unintended evil part of any action
catholic church recognises ontic evil as more physical than moral
natural evils occur independently from actions of humanity
catholic church considers pre-moral evil as related to the human doing the act
an inclination to evil is part of our natural tendency due to the original sin, e.g. selfishness, injustice
proportionalists combine pre-moral + ontic evil being the result of the fall so part of the fallenness of human nature
proportionalists say eliminating pre-moral/ ontic evil should be a primary intention but is basically impossible as evil can never be entirely removed
recognising pre-moral/ ontic evil exists means we may need to do an action with said evil as the lesser evil to be able to do good
it shouldn't be the objective of our action but can be in the action itself; pre-moral/ ontic evil isn't the same as moral evil (sin)/ immorality
for something to be a morally evil act, a person's intentions matter - if an action is done unnecessarily/ disproportionately then it could still be considered wrong
BETWEEN DIRECT & INDIRECT ACTIONS
HOOSE
believed this distinction is crucial to understanding the double effect, but recognises the distinction isn't always clear
some see an indirect action to be the accidental result of a good action
others (e.g.
KNAUER
) understand it to be one of two immediate aspects of an action - an action intended thus direct, and action tolerated so indirect
an indirect action is a known by-product, not an accident
KNAUER
focuses on intention of the moral agent rather than their physical actions and its results, and the need to weigh up whether evil done is proportional to good done
e.g. using natural law, abortion with intention to abort is always evil, but if a person's life is in danger by ectopic pregnancy, double effect allows direct action to remove tubes
the indirect action would be the fetus dying
the abortion is direct - not accidental but an accepted by-product of cutting tubes
proportionalists say removing the fetus while the tube is intact is allowed as even though evil is in the act, more good is proportionally achieved
this is still abortion, so catholic church thinkers object this
proportionalists say directness of the act doesn't matter - what matters is that more value is achieved
PROPORTIONALITY BASED ON AGAPE
agape describes charity + selfless action, central to all christian morality, so intrinsic to natural law
also what proportionate moral decision making is based on
love is what's needed to perform good, but an act done wi love isn't always right if it brings more disvalue
proportionalism will override law if love demands it
proportionalists believe love for God and God's laws is essential in moral decision making, and recognise sometimes an agent needs to consider facts of a situation to determine whether it values/ devalues morality of an action
love can be mistaken, seen through
HOOSE
's example of burning heretics during the crusade, done out of love for God, but horrific nonetheless
this shows how love can't justify any action on its own, differentiating proportionalism from situation ethics