Lecture 1

‒ Hand out Syllabus - Class expectations

‒ What is Ethics in your opinion?

‒ What is ethics in your opinion?

‒ From the Greek ethos or Latin mores it is the science that has to do with making good prudential judgments. These judgements are most beneficial to the human person and the common good.

‒ Can Ethics be taught?

‒ Sure they can be taught, if I didn’t think so, I would be wasting my time. There are many approaches to making ethical decisions, I would argue some approaches are more reasonable than others. In this class we will favor a scientific approach and respect the laws of nature, which is distinct from natural law, but is intrinsic it its appropriate understanding.

‒ Perception Exercise - The woman’s picture.

‒ Discussion on Good and Evil

‒ Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter?

‒ Is there a clear demarcation in these popular portrayals?

‒ Luke Skywalker vs. The Emperor or Darth Vader

‒ Gandolf vs. Saramon or Saron

‒ Harry vs Authority

‒ Is Evil some thing? - No! Evil is “no thing” it is a privation, a lack, a nothingness!”

‒ Is Good some thing or person? All that is created is good, in some way, it only can be perverted or distorted for evil purposes - things used in a way that is not appropriate to their nature

‒ Freedom and Love

‒ Is there a difference between Freedom and Licence (e.g. 007 licence to kill)

‒ What is love?

‒ Sexus - copulation, the physical act of reproduction

‒ Eros - attraction to beauty

‒ Filius - brotherly love

‒ Agape - sacrificial love, true love, love at its perfection

‒ How do these relate with Ethics? e. g. life lived in such a way to be satisfying.

Assignment

Read Chapter 1 in the ethics text, with close attention to the Plato dialogue at the end of the chapter

This image was taken from, Seven Habits of Highly Effective People, Steven Covey.

Lecture 2

Moral Reasoning If we are to embark on moral reasoning, we need to build some sort of vocabulary first. It is very important to get a handle on the following terms and their significance.

Virtues - Ultimately the mean between two extremes. For example:

Humility is about true knowledge and its proper use. Knowledge that is used in an abusive way comes off as Arrogance, while knowledge that is ignored would be Ignorance.

It is virtuous to have a positive “self-image”, but if this becomes so “self-centered” it would lead to pride, pride in the sense that it excludes the values of other’s human dignity. The other extreme would be to not value yourself and then enable others to disrespect you and fail to recognize the truth of your dignity as a human.

Anthropology - the study of the human person. The more we learn about the human person, the more we can understand the actions of the human person. This is not an easy task. We need to be honest and engaging and test the insights of others with our own experience and the experience of those around us.

Freud had a profound influence in our world and how people began to make judgements about the human person and the motivations of the human person. He used the scientific method to attempt to draw conclusions about the human mind and its workings. It seems that there is a major flaw in his control group, the people that he was able to study. I believe that large segments of the population of the people he studied were the criminally insane.

If one is trying draw conclusions on how the mind works, it seems that one should study a “healthy” mind as opposed to one that has turned to violence or corrupt behavior. Freud is not alone. There was a book written by a Trappist Monk, who had been Jewish and a clinical psychiatrist, before he converted to Christianity. The name of the book was Hammer and Fire. In, I believe, Chapter 5 he delineates some of the assumptions held by some prominent thinkers of the last 100 years or so. He notes how Freud roots the anthropological core of the human being in the id, or one’s desire for sexual pleasure, (one could think of this as lust for pleasure). Jung, another prominent thinker would see the central aspect of the human person as “self-love”. Self-esteem is important, but it can easily be disordered and could be seen as “pride”, or being overly consumed with one’s own self worth over the worth of others. He also discusses Nietzsche, who sees the “will for power” at the center of man’s existence.

All of these things are drawn from an understanding that the human person has a fundamentally “evil” disposition. These three ways of looking at the human person would also coincide with what Christian tradition would hold to be three of the seven “deadly sins”, namely, lust, pride, and avarice or greed.

I believe that the human person is fundamentally good. And it is not these things that drive the human person, but it is love. I believe it will be fruitful to take a look at another view of anthropology that assumes that the human person is fundamentally good. The thoughts are drawn from John Paul II’s lectures on the Theology of the Body.

Imputability, Culpability Being morally responsible for a particular action. A person can do something very wrong, but does not realize it and therefore is not “culpable”. Effectively these are synonyms, the relate to moral blameworthiness. A distinction must be clearly made between moral blameworthiness and the objective character of and action. (e.g. premarital sex is always and affront to the dignity of the human person, but because of one's lack of insight or inability to understand the beautiful dignity of sexuality it is reduced to a animal appetite, and therefore this kind of understanding could lessen one's moral accountability in engaging in that activity before marriage, or in homosexual relationships) Even though personal imputability may be lessened, by the nature of the action it hurts or wounds the human person. It is for this reason that it is important to help people understand the objective nature of actions.

Love: For Christian Morality this is the pre-eminent principal. In Greek there are four words for Love, sexus. eros, philios, agape.

sexus (Σεϕυς): the biological reality of the conjugal act

eros: (ερος) erotic would be an english derivative. This is the physical attraction to all that is beautiful.

philios: (φιλιος) Philadelphia is known as the City of Brotherly Love, this word expresses the love that is shared between family. A true deep affection.

agape: (αγαπη) is the love that Jesus refers to when he talks about no greater "love" does anyone have than to lay down one's life for a friend. It is this kind of love that motivates true and legitimate moral behavior.

All these aspects of love are good and holy when exercised in the proper context.

Freedom The human person is made in the image and likeness of God. Freedom in moral decision making in the Catholic context is never understood to mean "license". In other words freedom, true freedom is be who God created us to be, to choose to be like God, Jesus Christ. It can never mean freedom to be or do what ever we want. In lighter terms, I am not free to become a bunny rabbit, no matter how much I would like to be. I am not "free" to do that.

Ontology The study of the essence of things, in scholastic terms the study of both the form (whatness) and matter (material, rock, glass, steel, elements) of things or persons.

Deonotolgical - moral norms resulting from legislation - (e.g. God said so, so this is the way it is!) Often understood in terms of “duty”, not concerned with the consequences of the moral act being considered. This is open to human interpretations that are not always in accord with natural law. (E.G. in Islam a man can take a 9 year girl for a wife - a girl who is not even having here cycle yet - in their religion God said this was ok, so it is ok)

Epistomology The study of truth, how does one understand truth, is it objective, does it exist or is it accessible, can the human person know it or grasp it? This is the study of "truth", the way in which reality is known or perceived, it can be "existential", or "phenomenological", or a simple hylomorphic (form/matter) approach.

Good All that is created, everything is good that exists, or at least not bad, in so far as it is used in its appropriate context. Natural poisons can be used to kill animals that pose a threat to humans, e.g. diseased rats, etc. (It seems plausible to propose that the good is that which promotes and protects human dignity and recognizes freedom as intrinsic to the human person)

Evil Evil has no material existence (no ontology, it is a reality, but has no material existence). Using a Christian framework: God created all things of substance, since God cannot be the source of evil, evil can have no material existence. Evil is a privation, in other words a reality that lacks fullness. For example in the Christian tradition the devil, is believed to be a fallen angel, insofar as the devil is a creature of God, the devil has a quality of goodness, unfortunately the devil had chosen not to exercise his freedom to be what God intended him to be, so he chose darkness rather than light, perversion rather than order. The devil, other than the fact he was a creature created by God, enslaved himself to privation and nothingness.

Conscience This is the sole guide for determining the moral imputability of the agent or “subject”, (the person acting). The Catholic Church places the responsibility on the person to form his or her conscience in a way that is amenable to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. In other words it is difficult to know if there is such a thing as invincible ignorance. Historically could Hitler have been following a well formed conscience? Could a rapist? Or possible a doctor who performs abortions because of the lucrative profit? Only God can ultimate judge, for God can read the heart. It is the human person's responsibility to form his or her conscience in such a way that both Love (sacrificial - willingness to lay down one's life for another) for God and Love for neighbor is seen as the ultimate goal. This is challenging, but I propose its rewards are out of this world! (heaven!)

Intention This is the key element in determining moral imputability or culpability. The human person's intention does however affect there personal responsibility for a specific action, but does not affect the quality of that action. The Catholic Church believes that actions can be judged distinct from the situation and circumstance, however because of a persons ignorance or lack of insight they may not be culpable or responsible for the action which they have done. Two examples:

There was a little boy who had a plant that someone had given him. He had asked some people that he trusted, "how can I best care for this plant". They were uncertain, but they believed in good faith that if one poured oil on the plant one would be well served in caring for the plant. The boy followed their instructions. The plant soon died.

I admit this is much more simplistic than moral actions, but I think it can illustrate a point. If we are open to concrete experience we must recognize that nature has intrinsic immutable qualities that are not contingent upon our own perceptions of those qualities. For example the little boy, and those who told the little boy what to do, were acting in good faith. Good faith did not preserve the integrity of the plant, though it did mitigate or lessen the blameworthiness of the boy's act of pouring oil on the plant. This act, distinct from any agent or subject, would have been equally destructive. One might go so far to say that it has an intrinsically destructive or evil character to it. It may be unfair to assume that our experience concerning the created order is applicable in the moral realm, but it would not seem to be altogether unreasonable.

Ethical Approaches

Moral Realism - would recognize a certain transcendent quality to specific acts independent of the person acting, another word for the moral agent. There would seem to be a distinction between the objective character of the act under consideration and the specific moral culpability of the moral agent. This approach would embrace laws of nature as being instructive in considering appropriate rules or laws of behavior.

Moral Realism (Cont)

‒ Manual Tradition Up until the 1960's this was the dominant way to present Moral Theology. It focused on the intrinsic quality of the action distinct from the human agent. It was organized and clearly stated the analyses of various scenarios. It was structured and today could be and seems to be mis-interpreted to be legalistic(deontological) and unyielding.

‒ Basic Goods Approach Argues that there are basic goods that cannot be compared and ultimately never transgressed. The conflict in moral decision making must be resolved by never directly compromising the "basic goods". Major proponents: Germain Grisez and William May.

The fundamental concept lies in the recognition that certain basic goods can never be transgressed or even compared. In other words you can't compare apples and oranges. This is the allegation. Basic Goods are incommensurable, there is no reasonable ground for sacrificing one basic good for another.

The conflict rests, I propose, in one's epistemology. That is to say it depends on how one views reality. This was mentioned before, but it is a key concept. I would maintain that one of these approaches is more faithful to human experience. Both would make ultimate claims that they are faithful to human experience, I would suggest that proportionalism is more ethereal, (that means up in the clouds), the "basic goods approach" recognizes the concrete limitations of reality. Intention has no bearing on the ultimate quality of the action, though intention does impact one's own blameworthiness. O'Connell suggests a synthesis, that is, he tries to put together or harmonize the two approaches. Ultimately O'Connell is willing to grant one absolute norm, namely, Innocent life can never be sacrificed. This seems to be a balanced approach that is not altogether unreasonable.

Note: Both schools attempt to develop Catholic Moral Theology. Thomas Aquinas summarizes the moral life as doing the good and avoiding evil. He would say that one can never justify doing something intrinsically evil directly even though good would result.

Principal of Double Effect This was a traditional development of the process of moral decision making when there seemed to be evil as the result of actions that were not necessarily moral or immoral. In the determination of a moral or licit act:

1) The action (deed) in and of itself was good, or at least not bad.

2) If as a secondary result, some evil occurred, (circumstance) it must be in due proportion to the evil that would have resulted if some action had not occurred.

3) The direct or immediate result (motive) of the action could not result in something evil.

The standard example would be an ectopic pregnancy (when a child has attached itself to the fallopian tube instead of the uterus. The child has no chance of survival, so by applying the principal of double effect it is allowable to remove the fallopian tube. The removal of the fallopian tube is not the direct killing of a human being, but rather the person's death is a secondary result of the removal of the tube.

Fides et Ratio (Faith and Reason) The link is below or search :

fides+et+ratiohttp://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_15101998_fides-et-ratio_en.html

Some salient points from Chapter III from Fides et Ratio

A quote from n. 25 :

. ““All human beings desire to know””,(23) and truth is the proper object of this desire. Everyday life shows how concerned each of us is to discover for ourselves, beyond mere opinions, how things really are. .... It is this that Saint Augustine teaches when he writes: ““I have met many who wanted to deceive, but none who wanted to be deceived””.(24) It is rightly claimed that persons have reached adulthood when they can distinguish independently between truth and falsehood, making up their own minds about the objective reality of things. This is what has driven so many enquiries, especially in the scientific field, which in recent centuries have produced important results, leading to genuine progress for all humanity.” ....

It is essential, therefore, that the values chosen and pursued in one's life be true, because only true values can lead people to realize themselves fully, allowing them to be true to their nature. The truth of these values is to be found not by turning in on oneself but by opening oneself to apprehend that truth even at levels which transcend the person. This is an essential condition for us to become ourselves and to grow as mature, adult persons.

Where does this initial prompting come from: The document states:

26. The truth comes initially to the human being as a question: Does life have a meaning? Where is it going? At first sight, personal existence may seem completely meaningless. It is not necessary to turn to the philosophers of the absurd or to the provocative questioning found in the Book of Job in order to have doubts about life's meaning. The daily experience of suffering——in one's own life and in the lives of others——and the array of facts which seem inexplicable to reason are enough to ensure that a question as dramatic as the question of meaning cannot be evaded.(26) Moreover, the first absolutely certain truth of our life, beyond the fact that we exist, is the inevitability of our death. Given this unsettling fact, the search for a full answer is inescapable.

Regarding scientific aspects of truth the document says:

29. It is unthinkable that a search so deeply rooted in human nature would be completely vain and useless. The capacity to search for truth and to pose questions itself implies the rudiments of a response. Human beings would not even begin to search for something of which they knew nothing or for something which they thought was wholly beyond them. Only the sense that they can arrive at an answer leads them to take the first step. This is what normally happens in scientific research. When scientists, following their intuition, set out in search of the logical and verifiable explanation of a phenomenon, they are confident from the first that they will find an answer, and they do not give up in the face of setbacks. They do not judge their original intuition useless simply because they have not reached their goal; rightly enough they will say that they have not yet found a satisfactory answer.

Read Chapter 2 : Relativism pp. 20-31

Lecture 3 - Why be moral, or what does it mean to be a Ethical person?

Relativism - recognizing that the quality of the act in question can only be assessed by the person who is at the time engaged in the action and the specific context or situation that the individual finds oneself in. In other words this approach would not see moral absolutes as useful in determining the objective or transcendent quality of a specific act.

‒ Diversity of Moral views (“your truth vs. my truth)

‒ Individual vs. Social or Egoism vs. Altruism (The needs of the one, out weigh the needs of the many vs. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one) Star Trek Example? Spock?

‒ Moral Uncertainty (No intrinsic quality to particular human acts)

‒ Situational Difference (it just depends on the situation, sometimes this, sometimes that)

‒ Proportionalism/Consequentialism/Relativism Schools of moral decision making that see prudence as the paramount virtue. One must use proportionate reason to determine the quality of an action in a particular context and situation. The intrinsic quality of some action or moral act is not seen as distinct from the moral agent ( e.g. the person who does the action) Questions, maybe not so much the possibility of determining the intrinsic quality of an action, but certainly questions the value of such a determination. Some proponents of this approach may be Richard McCormick, Charles Curren, and Daniel MagGuire.

Actions are seen to have both good and bad effects. In other words its always a mixed bag, so one must use proportionate or commensurate reason to determine how to act. An act admittedly must be judged, but in a historical or situational context. This attempts to be sensitive to historical insight. History is seen as radically developmental. In other words insight is relative to historical context. With this understanding concrete insight into "intrinsically evil acts" is untenable, or unreasonable for the proponents of this school. [see pp. 204-205]

Using this methodology it would seem to permit slavery in some situations or social contexts, abortion, even a radical nationalism, such as Nazism or Facism.

A few more terms

Commensurate Reason This is the fundamental element in the proportionalist/ consequentialist schools. The Basic Goods approach suggests that it is impossible to use commensurate reason when it comes to choosing between basic goods. (Do we ever have the right to do what is wrong?)

Prudence is a virtue that is the practice of good judgement, in the proportionalist or consequentialist school prudence and conscience are both very important. All moral decision making must rely on prudence.

Social Justice It concerns relational living, living in a world with people, where their needs are recognized and served, and not exploited. The world must learn to cooperate as a little village does. It should become a "global village".

Theology The science or study of God.

Humility A virtue that enables one to recognize the truth as something more than dependent upon themselves. In other words one's ability to recognize the transcendent character of truth. The balance between arrogance and ignorance.

Assignment :Read Chapter 4 : Utilitarianism

Lecture 4

Utilitarianism - based on “utility” or that which will make the most people “happy”. In the desire to make a judgment about some human act, one attempts to determine if this will make most people happy, most of the time. If the majority seem to think that something should be allowed, even at the expense of other persons, so long as they are in the minority, a person is making a “good” moral choice. (See page 59 cf. in the text)

‒ Concepts of Happiness

‒ happiness is understood as “intended pleasure” and the absence of pain

‒ Physical pleasure/pain

‒ emotional pleasure/pain

‒ societal well being would be a factor as well as individual well being

A Few more Terms

Sin Ultimately is some concrete action done with explicit intention which alienates one from God. Sin's result is alienation. Traditionally the Catholic Church has broken down a discussion of sin into two categories, Deadly or Mortal sin (see 1 John 5:16-17), which is truly sin that severs one's relationship with God, and Venial Sin which is not "sin" in the strict sense of the term. Venial sin does not sever one's relationship with God. Thomas Aquinas saw venial sin as sin only by analogy.

In the Manual Tradition there were four criteria to help one discern the gravity of action, Namely:

1) Grave Matter, objectively was the action intrinsically wrong or disordered?

2) Serious Reflection, did the agent (person acting), knowing the gravity of the action, consider it, and reflect on the results?

3) Full consent of the Will, did the person without force, but freely give him or herself over to the action without inhibition?

4) Did one after these considerations do the action or have every intention of doing the action?

If all of these criteria were fulfilled, then one could be certain that their soul was in mortal danger, that they had chosen a creature or thing (a person, money, power, career, lust) and placed it above God and His Goodness. On the other hand if any of the last three things were lacking, personal imputability was mitigated. In other words the person's own responsibility before the judgement throne of God may not merit eternal damnation.

Some contemporary authors seem to take issue with this approach because they believe that it is impossible to know or make judgements about actions distinct from a personal agent and circumstance. Unfortunately the moral theologians, often times seem to argue viciously with one another, and it seems unfortunate that a discipline that is fundamentally motivated by love often appears to lack such charity in their scholarly debates.

In my own mind the fundamental battleground is over one's (sorry for the big word) epistemology, that is to say the way they understand reality is fundamentally different. At the risk of painting with very broad strokes the proportionalists or consequentialist school operates from and existential philosophical framework. Existentialism seems to believe (their faith) that reality is ultimately inaccessible. In other words, meaning can only be derived by the intention of the human person, hence it is impossible to make judgements about a specific action distinct from a person acting in a particular context and situation. This is a philosophical development which more or less began with Rene Descartes around the 16th century, and culminated into the philosophy of Nietzsche which significantly influenced the rise of National Socialism. One of Nietzsche's books, Beyond Good and Evil, argues that truth is merely convention, in other words truth is that which the human person defines.

Traditional Catholic philosophical foundations are a radical realism. In other words the human person cannot define reality. The human person's intention has nothing to do with the reality. If the human person never was, the truth would not be affected. The virtue of humility lies in the human person's ability to recognize that he is not master of the universe, but rather God has created all things and established an ordered universe. The human person is to discover meaning rather than impart it. The scriptural support for such a position is clear; it was God, not the human person who said, "Let there be Light and there was light". It is God's word that governs reality and truth, not the human person's. That is why the ten commandments take on a special significance, for they are believed to be God's word.

This perspective runs counter to some of the contemporary arguments that suggest that sin is somehow only derived from a persons transgressions against neighbor. (an infliction of "ontic" evil). One can transgress God, by putting objects or things before Him, or by not holding God's Sacred Name in respect, or not fulfilling one's obligation to give worship and praise to God. It is on these principals that the Catholic Church teaches that one has a serious obligation to attend Mass on every Sunday and Holy day of obligation, and why there are guidelines for fasting and abstinence in Lent and on all Fridays for Catholics.

Another aspect of Sin Sin has both a personal and social dimension. Not only regarding the big social justice issues, but "personal" sins impact the world, if it be stealing a pen at the office, or hitting on men or women in bars. "Personal" Sin is ultimately that which causes amoral structures to be corrupted.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church

n. 1849 Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods. It wounds the nature of man and injures human solidarity. It has been defined as "an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law."

Superfluous Goods In Catholic social teaching these are things that are not necessary for survival. They are things that are often sought after in developed countries at the expense of developing countries. (e.g. speed boats, VCR's, exotic Sports Cars, etc.)

Happiness Key criteria in a Utilitarian ethical approach. Key to the principle of “utility”, namely that which will make most people “happy”. Usually seen as pleasure or a state of well being, the difficulty arises when different things seem to make different people happy.

Utility Principle The operative concept in the Utilitarian approach to ethics. It relates to a sense of “usefulness” or that which seems to be expedient of useful for the majority of people.

Lecture 5

Kant’s Categorical Imperative

This is his attempt to provide a tool to assess actions and their moral worthiness. There are two aspects or “tests” to assess a specific act under question, namely:

‒ If universally applied, does it benefit humanity as a whole? (If everybody did this act would the world be better for it?)

‒ Is this something that one would like to happen to themselves? (Do unto others as you would have them do unto you!)

Roe vs. Wade The famous court case that set precedence by the supreme court justices that made abortion on demand a “right to privacy” despite the study by a panel of doctors which stated that it was unreasonable to suggest a beginning of life at any other time other than conception.

Conception When the ova (egg of the female) and the sperm (from the male) come together to define complete the genetic makeup of a human person.

Populorum Progressio A document on social justice that deals with the development or progress of peoples. Progress is never limited to technological advancement, true progress entails become more human, more like the humanity of Jesus Christ.

Humanae Vitae A document that discusses the great dignity of the human person and the value of human life, it discuss a licit or morally allowed technique for the regulation of birth when serious circumstances suggest such action. These reasons would be eugenic=health, economic=most basic needs of the children will not be able to be met, or societal reasons, region population density may suggest a need.

NFP Natural Family Planning is a technique to regulate birth based on insight into the reproductive cycle of the woman. It entails a period of 3 to 5 days of refraining from sexual intercourse. It is a method which require cooperation of both spouses, and mutual respect and the exercise of self control. No foreign substances are introduced into the body and no limitation of any aspect of oneself is realized. Artificial birth control places a barrier, either physical or chemical between the spouses. This is the fundamental reason for the prohibition of artificial contraception. Couples who use artificial contraception are holding back an aspect of themselves, and thus are limiting there love and trust in both God and their spouse. The divorce rate among those who practice natural family planning is under 2%. I would suggest that it is because people who use this method must practice mutual respect and self-control, these things are necessary for good solid relationships. Artificial Chemical contraception cannot be considered medicine in the true sense of the term; the reason is that it is not aimed a preserving health or a restoration of a bodily function. It is the opposite, its direct purpose is to frustrate the normal functioning of the human body. Dr. Jerome Lejune, a geneticist, suggests that 1 out of 10 women who take the pill will never ovulate again. The church's position against the pill also rests on the way it functions. The pill is supposed to suppress ovulation, if that fails it is to prevent fertilization, it that fails it prevents the genetically complete human person from attaching to the wall of the uterus, therefore in the third aspect the drug acts as an abortifacient (causes a spontaneous abortion).

Where to Go from Here We can experience evil, and be touched by it all around us. It can drive us almost to the point of despair. Ultimately we must always be sensitive to the fact that we must concern ourselves with the things we can change or positively influence. The remaining portion of the class will briefly look at a fundamental structure that will ultimately have the power to influence the whole world, the family. We learn how to relate with others, love, and act in the family. We will look at the document, Familiarus Consortio.

Ph 155 - Ethics Paper assignment

Paper Assignment: Write a 3 to 6 page paper, double spaced, Times Roman 12 point font, One inch margins about the following.

Topic: An ethical issue of interest, e.g. the death penalty, abortion, artificial contraception, taxes, welfare, pre-marital sexual relations, legal/illegal use of drugs, business ethics, environmental ethics, animal rights, software pirating, affirmative action, war, terrorism, etc.

Purpose: First describe the basic ethical approaches, namely

1) Relativism (Situation Ethics - Proportionalism/Consequentialism)

2) Utilitarianism

3) Moral Realism

Commit to one approach in your paper and defend your ethical position by applying the respective methodology

Topic due for review two weeks from today

Due Date - See Syllabus

Presentations of the Paper

Five to Eight minute presentation of the paper you wrote about the respective issue you chose to defend.

Lecture 6

Natural Law and Virtue

‒ The Law of Gradualness vs. the Gradualness of Law

‒ What is the function of Law

Terms

Law of Gradualness this is a profound appreciation of the human person's ability to progress slowly towards and objective ideal. This is not to be confused with a concept of a gradualness of law.

Gradualness of Law is a misguided understanding that suggests that there is no ideal, but rather law is merely subject to the situation. This implies that people cannot be guided by objective norms.

Natural Law Natural Law is that which recognizes the laws of nature and the human person’s capacity to make rational decisions that realize the good.

‒ The good is something that is not objectively detrimental to the person or persons who will be impacted by the actions

‒ The good is something that is more than what can be ascertained by intention, but is subjected to absolutes or the laws of nature or objective truth

Laws of Nature - is nothing more than the way things are and can be determined to be by sound scientific exploration and experimentation.

Humans are bound by the laws of nature and will suffer when the fail to limit themselves by these constraints. The laws of nature transcend personal beliefs. (e.g. I believe I can fly, so I will jump off the building - NOT ) Decisions that are made when not considering the laws of nature can lead to devastating effects.

If we as humans can be humble enough to seek out and discover the limits of nature, we will be well served in promoting happiness for ourselves and for those around us.

Read Veritatis Splendor, Chapter II, nn 28-83

Lecture 7

The Hermeneutics of Suspicion - Liberation and the political agendas

‒ Who is the oppressed and the oppressor?

Terms

Hermeneutics - the art of interpretation. It relates to how information is processed and understood. Typically there is what is termed a hermeneutical circle, namely

To understand things clearly we need to both give information and get information to more fully comprehend the issue under study.

Example: During the cold war it was supposedly reported in the newspaper “Pravda” literally “Truth” that the results of a contest concerning technology that the Russians had taken 2^nd place while the United States finished second to last. The information that the article failed to provide consisted of the fact that there were only two contestants. So while the United States indeed finished “second to last”, it happened also to be first place! The deception in clear, but technically the article did not lie, it just failed to present the facts in such a way that an accurate conclusion could be made.

Semiotics - this relates to the meaning of words or phases that are more easily discerned when speaking in person because of tonal inflection, facial expression, or other subtle factors that add nuance to the attempt at communication. Depending on the context, “Oh Great!” can mean anything from “how wonderful” to “what a disappointment that was!

Liberation Theology - These approaches tend to use what is termed the hermeneutic of suspicion. In other words they assume that the status quo, or those attempts at understanding in the past are to be assumed to be fundamentally flawed, and therefore one can more easily be less restrained or more open in looking for new and what would be more viable solutions.

The feminist branch of this ideology tends to see everything as being subject to male domination and the term “patriarchy” is seen always in a pejorative (really bad or negative) sense.

It tends to divide humans as those who have power, and those who don’t. Often wants to deliver the oppressed, a very noble goal, however their solution seems to be to become the oppressor. Power, manipulation and control are seen as good things, so long as their understanding of “good people” are in power. It seems to fail to grasp the deeper implications of human dignity and the complementarity of the sexes and even the biological and scientific differences that objectively cannot be denied.

Read Veritatis Splendor, Chapter III, nn 84-end

Lecture 8

Veritatis Splendor, Truth, Good and Evil

Sin from the Judeo-Christian Context

Also recall: From the Catechism of the Catholic Church

As we have already mentioned the Greek word for sin has connotations suggesting that we have “missed the mark”, while virtue implies “hitting the mark”. A lot can be learned from understanding ancient peoples views. I believe the ancient Hebrews had four categories of “sinners”.

Type One: Sinners who fail as the result of weakness and are saddened immediately by their weakness. These would be Venial Sinners. (Why did I eat too much, or Why did I let my anger cause me to be unkind to that telemarketer!!! or my friend or my brother, sister etc.)

Type Two: Sinners who know what they are doing is seriously wrong, reflect on it, and do it anyway, but after the act repent and are sorry. People who are culpable of Mortal or Deadly or Serious Sin. (For a Catholic this would be missing mass on Sunday, more generally speaking it would include acts such as stealing, pre-marital sex, getting drunk, masturbation, etc.)

Type Three: Habitual Sinners, they are so drawn to the pleasure or perceived “good” of their sin that they are to the level of an addict. Alcohol, drugs, sex, power, whatever, they have given themselves over to some other object and are enslaved or controlled by it.

Type Four: They have become so calloused that they no longer derive pleasure from some grievous act, but only get there pleasure in seeing another fall, by bringing someone else into their darkness. (These would be the drug dealers, the pimps, sexual predators, the devil himself would be this kind of sinner) For humans (not the devil) there is room for repentance, but it is more difficult. The Hebrew word that is used in this category I believe would be translated as “pervert” This is the perfection of perversion.

Freedom vs. License - Love and Truth vs. Hatred and lies

‒ True liberty

The World View in Review

The Development of the Western Mind

Its impact on the perception of Truth and Freedom

We begin our reflections with some of my common assumptions. We first try and put charity first and strive for honest and civil dialogue. We also try and use just some basic principles of logic, such as, yes means yes and no means no, and “is” really means “is”. Something cannot at the same time be two different things in our experience. There are absolutes, for example, it would never be permissible to put a cigarette out in a child’s eye. To understand these basic assumptions we need to have a little background in the development of the Western Mind. The heritage comes from the Greeks. Before any of the stuff that we will talk about will make any sense, it will be very helpful to understand what truth has meant in the past, and what many mistakenly understand it to mean today.

The Ancient World View

Creation - Matter (the stuff of things) was never created. Matter was eternal. This simple principle even drives modern physics today, e.g. Matter can neither be created nor destroyed. Einstein kind of threw a monkey wrench into this with the equation: E=mc², still this only showed how matter was now proportional to the speed of light squared. Matter was not just either matter or pure energy. The point is that this stuff points to some ancient assumptions. Stuff always was. This led to a world view that the gods somehow came from what is often called the primordial chaos. When the gods came onto the scene they got a little bored and decided to fashion some humans from the eternal matter and these beings were totally subject to their fate which was totally controlled by the gods. The human person became a distant second in their significance in the world. The gods must be served so that the human person’s fate may not be dismal. The gods needed to be appeased.

Plato, through his writings, questioned some aspects of this world view and had a character named Socrates who ultimately died because he favored the “One” or the “Good” as opposed to the gods of the ancient Greek world. He died in the view of the Greeks as an Atheist, (atheist literally means against god). Plato in his reflections had some profound insights and the ancient Greeks recognized truth as something that did not depend on opinion, rather it was something to be uncovered. The word in Greek is αλεθεια. This word had clear connotations of that which is to be uncovered or discovered. It was “objective”. It could be known.

A student of Plato was Aristotle. He developed Plato’s thought and suggested that once a person understood both “form” and “matter” one could then “know” the truth. Thomas Aquinas discovered Aristotle’s writings and found them helpful. Aristotle ultimately described “the One”, what we might call God as, “the unmoved mover”.

Judeo-Christian World View - Matter is not eternal, but was created by God out of nothing. God now is the source of the world. God is also, “other” than the world. It is God now that is believed to be eternal, and the world is passing away. The world has a destiny and that destiny is rooted in the one God’s plan for the world. In this world view the human person is the best creation “in the world”, because God is other than the world. God has entrusted man to be the steward of creation and care for the world and for each other. Ultimately God so loved the world that indeed He sent His only Son, Jesus Christ to show us the way and be able to follow God’s designs more adequately. This world view dominated the scene for 1500 years.

Modern World View The modern world view, it could be argued, finds its seminal stages in DeCartes. He was the one who coined the phrase, “I think, therefore I am”. He tried to rid his mind of all things, but ultimately could not do it, so he recognized the cognitional process as “proving” his existence. Soon other thinkers, such as Machivelli, then Fuerbach, and ultimately Nieitchze drew the conclusion that God was not really a factor and it was the human person who really mattered. “God, was pronounced dead”. This lead to the rise of totalitarian regimes that unleashed on human history unspeakable crimes, such as the Russian Gulag, the Holocaust and the scourge of abortion that still plagues the world to day. Many people have come to live their life believing, “I think this is the truth, therefore IT is!” This is not good. Truth can never depend on what we believe, even if it is the majority, but rather what is objectively true.

Lecture 9

Christian Anthropology - The Human person

- A reflection on the Good and the human person’s end

1) Freud’s view of the Human person and Christian Anthropology, Handout

All of these things are drawn from an understanding that the human person has a fundamentally “evil” or “self-centered” disposition. These three ways of looking at the human person would also coincide with what Christian tradition would hold to be three of the seven “deadly sins”, namely, lust, pride, and avarice or greed. Loosely one could also separate them into three catagories of pleasure, possessions and power.

I believe that the human person is fundamentally good. And I am suggesting that it is not ultimately these things that drive the human person, but it is love. I believe it will be fruitful to take a look at another view of anthropology that assumes that the human person is fundamentally good. The thoughts are drawn from John Paul II’s lectures on the Theology of the Body.

Read Evangelium Vitae Chapters 1 & 3

Lecture 10

Original Solitude/ Original Innocence/ Original Shame - The Theology of the Body

John Paul II and the Theology of the Body

Soon after John Paul II was selected as pope, he entered into a reflection on the theology of the body. Much of his reflection is spawned from a reflection on Genesis and the creation of man and God’s plan for humanity. The following is a brief overview of some of the main topics of his reflection.

Original Innocence - this is the state of man, before the fall. The fall of humanity, the experience of original sin is something that unfortunately has twisted our good nature that God created and intended from the beginning.

Shame - a reality that results from the fall of man from grace.

Original Solitude - An experience of man related in the Genesis account before the creation of woman.

Communio Personarun - this reflects the profound longing for unity

John Paul II also reflects on the ramifications of the fall and the “man of lust”. The pope develops this concept by reflecting on the words found in Matthew’s Gospel which reflects on the interior disposition of the person as being very important. One can commit adultery by “looking lustfully at a woman or a man”.

There is a reflection on what lust truly is and he sees lust in a threefold way:

1) Lust of the Flesh (pleasure) - connected with a Freudian world view

2) Lust of the Eyes (possessions) - connected with a Marxist world view

3) Pride of life. (power) - connected with a Nietzsche world view

John Paul II - Theology of the Body - Papal Audiences

The series of Audiences begin in September of 1979 and start with a reflection on the indissolubility of Marriage. Jesus responds to the Pharisees query by quoting Genesis, “In the beginning God made them male and female, for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two will become one flesh”. Christ reveals to us the original intent for man and woman.

The second creation account is believed to be a Yahwist account, it is believed to be the more ancient account and also it reveals man’s original innocence, his happiness and the fall. The pope makes a distinction between the time before the fall and the time after the fall.

Original Innocence is the condition which is the opposite of the state of Original Sin. It is also in the early chapters of Genesis, namely 3:15, the proto-gospel, of God’s promise to Adam and Eve that the serpant will be crushed by the offspring of the woman.

In these early audiences the pope also references man’s Original Solitude. This solitude has two meanings, one from his very nature, his humanity, and second that results from the male/female relationship. This idea of solitude is only referenced in the second creation account and not in the first.

Man is distinct as a result of his self-knowledge and awareness. The human person is given certain primacy over the other creatures, and therefore a certain responsibility as well. Original Solitude includes aspects of both self-awareness and self-determination. Man is distinct from all other creatures and is given dominion over the earth. This Original Solitude also entails the reality of the aspects of death and immortality.[Oct. 31, 1979]

God creates man and women, and there is a unity that is intended from the beginning. Man awakes from his sleep in the creation account, a word that can have connotations of ecstacy, and finally recognizes another “self”. Something that at least potentially that can break into that Original solitude.

Next JP II moves into a reflection on the communio personarum. This again is something that is distinct from the common reality of the animals (animalia). This understanding of the relationship also is a real preparation for and understanding of the Trinity as a community of persons.

As God has created this reality of Man, male and female, intended to be a unity from the beginning, it reveals to us the very center of what “Man” is, it is very near what the pope calls the core of the anthropological reality.

In December of 1979 the JP II moves to a reflection on shame. Shame is seen as a “boundary” experience. In other words in was not part of the original experience of man. Shame is a complex experience but serves as a means to keep separate, man from man’s other self. At its heart is fear that is experienced between the male and female. The absence of shame points to a reality of purity and openness in all aspects of communication, thus this enables a deep and profound experience of communion or unity.

The pope also sees creation as a gift, and reflects on the significance of gift and what that truly means. At the heart of the “nuptial meaning of the body” is the capacity to be truly a gift, to be self-possessed and be able to offer oneself freely in a way that goes far beyond the level if instinct that the animals share (animalia). Genesis relates that Adam could really only discover himself, by making a gift of himself to another, bone of his bones and flesh of his flesh.

The pope notes that this is at the heart of the nuptial meaning of the body and is most naturally realize in a marital relationship between a man and a woman. He also recognizes this nuptial meaning of the body realized by a gift of one’s body for the kingdom of God, lived out in a celibate commitment.

The pope returns to some themes, Original Innocence and his historical experience, Man and Woman as mutual gifts to each other .

If one begins to read much of JP II’s writings, there needs to be an understanding of the word “subject” which is expanded to “subjective”. Subject in a philosophical sense is much different than the common usage of the word ‘subjective’. Subjective cannot be understood to mean “relative” or variable or even “non-objective”, but it strives to appreciate what everybody, each individual brings to the task of understanding what is true or “objective”. The human person is not merely and object, but truly is a “subject”. The human person by his or her very nature has the capacity for the infinite. So there is a distinction seemingly between man as object and man as subject. Recently a friend quoted something to me that seems quite appropriate, “God created Man to love people and use things, sadly, most people love things and use people.” I would see and object as something to be used, while subjects are something to be loved.

In Hebrew the word for “know” relates to many things, and among them would be sexual union. This union as it is related in Genesis results in new life and procreation. A great aspect of man as revealed in the feminine manifestation of that reality is motherhood. The offspring is the direct result of the two becoming one. God’s plan is revealed in a profound way in the relationships that He intends, every facet of the relationship that is lived in accord with God’s plan is good, and reveals something deeply profound about God’s plan for the human person. After all, God the creator “saw... and behold, it was very good.” [March 26, 1980]

The Theology of the Body the Blessed are the Pure of Heart

The first 24 audiences reflect on the indissolubility of marriage and also the deep realities of how masculinity and femininity reflect the core of the anthropological reality of the human person. The next section of the audiences turn towards the implications of that indissolubility of that relationship. Hence a detailed reflection of what it means to be pure of heart ensues. JP II turns to Matthew’s text and the Sermon on the Mount, specifically Mt. 5:27-28 “You have heard it said, “you shall not commit adultery” , but I tell you, “anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart”.

There is a question of the law, and what the law demands. At the heart of the law is justice and justice demands two things for it to be truly fruitful for the individual. It must be carried out, we must “act justly”, but for it to be truly efficacious, (to have a real effect on us) it must abide in us on an interior level as well. This is key in understanding what is being said in the prescription of Jesus. It would seem that in this sense when both these realities exist, action and interior disposition, one would experience what the pope would call “subjective vitality”, in other words we touch what it truly means to live as a human being. This is not an easy task to get to this point, but this is what we strive for. JP II enters into a discussion of what he would call ethos, this is the root of the word “ethics” or from the Latin mores, “morals”.

By its very nature, adultery is a breech of unity between husband and wife. Understanding adultery in this way demonstrates how the unity of husband and wife can be easily compromised in the heart.

Lust is the fruit of the breach of the Covenant with God. When something other than God becomes the object of our desire for its own sake.

Lust is broken down into three categories, 1) lust of the flesh, 2) lust of the eyes, and 3) the pride of life. This really seems to be broken down into a lust for 1)pleasure, 2) possessions, and 3) power. This concept is also manifest in 1 John 2:15-16

The concept of shame and Original nakedness is developed in the audiences from the time of April 30, 1980. There was no sense of shame in our first parents. This is epitomized in the popes understanding of original innocence. After the fall, nakedness instilled a fear Gen 3:10. The original innocence expresses a fullness of acceptance as opposed a lack or rejection of the body.

Now as the result of the fall there is a fundamental disquiet that fills human existence. Lust, especially lust of the flesh is a specific threat to self-mastery and self control. This shame introduces into human relations a great difficulty. It makes it more difficult to bring to fruition the communion of persons. After the fall, Man loses the sense of the image of God in the human person, and this is manifest in the expression of shame [June 4, 1980]

Shame destroys perfect trust and hence suspicion is introduced into human relations. From this flows temptations towards domination. Lust serves to limit one’s ability to grasp the full meaning of the nuptial meaning of the body. Opposition is introduced into the male-female relationship. This opposition is manifest when lust drives the person, and they fail to exercise self-mastery and self-control. This serves to damage and impede the full communion of persons that God intended from the beginning.

In the Heart one fights the battle between love and lust. The more lust dominates the heart the less the heart experiences the nuptial meaning of the body. Concupiscence ultimately entails the real loss of freedom of the person to act. At the heart of the nuptial meaning of the body is realized in the freedom of the person to truly make a gift of oneself to the other. This is realized in married life between spouses and in religious life by the person making a gift of themselves to the Church, the Mystical Body of Christ who is God. Lust again is that which fails to recognize one’s own ability to be a gift to the other and tends to see the other as an object to be consumed. The “my” beloved in the nuptial meaning of the body only takes on its correct meaning when it is understood mutually. Two people making the gift so that at the same time they are mutually the other’s “my”. [July 30, 1980]

The Sermon of the mount speaks to all men of all ages. Adultery epitomize the breakdown of the personal covenant. The spousal relationship reflects God relationship with Israel, while the adulteress reflects the historical breech in the covenant between God and the people of Israel. Jesus takes the level of adultery from and external act to the level of the heart.

Mutual Attraction differs from lust [September 17, 1980] Lust leads to a depersonalization of the other. Lust comes from concupiscence. There clearly exists a tension and JP II is striving to see the ethos or ethic that Christ establishes in the Sermon on the Mount. Adultery apart from its objective act can stem from a person not recognizing the profound dignity of the other.

Many years ago the pope was criticized for suggesting that man could commit adultery with his wife, but the nuance in which he was trying to relate escaped the sensationalism of the media. The pope tries to help the world see the deep and profound goodness that exists in each and every human being. Christianity throughout the ages had its battles in appreciated the intent of Christ’s word. Manicheism tended to see matter as evil and would emphasize the instruction, if the eye is the problem tear it out, if the hand, cut it off. The pope’s ethos is aimed at recognizing the goodness of the body and its various dimensions. It appreciates the physical realities, but also the realities of the heart. It is the heart that must ultimately be conquered.

Eros and Ethos meet in the human heart [Nov 5, 1980] When eros is understood to be that interior force that attract the human person to all that is beautiful, it certainly goes well with the ethos Christ establishes. The ethos is not rooted in what not to do, but rather to be free enough to accomplish what ought to be done.

When virtue becomes such a deep part of us, we need not fear spontaneity. Augustine’s words come to mind to me, “love and do as you will!” If love is truly our motivating force only good will come, but we must become aware of real love and beauty and not be duped by concupiscence and the lust that we battle on the front of the human heart.

Purity of heart is the ability to recapture original innocence. It ultimately is realized from the disposition of the heart. God can purify us, our minds, our bodies, and indeed our hearts.[December 10, 1980]

Ethics and the implications of such an anthropology

If this anthropology is truly one that reflects the nature of the human person, then it is important for us to understand it, as we struggle to develop our own moral framework and decision-making process.

Do are decisions facilitate our ability to be a gift for others? Moral decision making entails following one's well formed conscience. It is important to realize that it is never easy to know exactly what to do in complex moral situations. When the chips are down, we will be well served if we act for the common good of all. That includes oneself, but is not solely limited to oneself. Life is full of difficult situations, never run from them, but face them. The human person is a very special creature, the human person can be noble or base, in other words incredibly good (e.g. Mother Theresa and all who spend there life in service of humanity) or incredibly heinous (e.g. mass ritualistic murderers).

Moral decision making is aimed at making us noble. Historically whole societies have been misguided into horror, (e.g. the Nazis, Fascism, Communism) Morality's task is to probe and study the nobility of humanity. This nobility is made real when we see people making heroic sacrifices for other people. Life is a most precious gift, a gift that the human person has no proper right over. If we let ourselves be guided by at least this reality, we will be well on the road to greatness.

Lecture 11

The Gospel of Life,

‒ More on the Culture of Life

Abortion Case Study:

Susie is sixteen years old, she is pregnant. Her boyfriend encourages her to have an abortion. Her parents also encourage her to have an abortion and they even offer to give her the money for the abortion and will to drive her to the clinic. She watches the news and sees that abortion is merely a choice, a choice by right she believes in good faith she has. She has the abortion.

Susie could hardly be held morally accountable for her action. However I would argue that she is still damaged as a human person because of the transgression against the real and the good, in this case, the intrinsic dignity of the human person, not only the person whose life was lost, but Susie's own self as well. One could dispute whether or not real damage was experienced by her, but I would maintain that there is concrete evidence which supports that psychological damage results as the consequence of procuring an abortion. I am referring to the difficulties that often times surface only years later. We could also speculate about other spiritual damage which may be experienced. I believe that those things which are "sinful", in the less restricted sense of the term, damage who we are as human persons. A straining of our relationship with God occurs, and our ability of perception is obscured. These observations are only based on my own experience, but nonetheless I believe them to be quite plausible and reliable.

Other Sources:

Familiarus Consortio, John Paul II's Apostolic Exhortation on the Family, parts I, II, III.

Abortion

‒ Life, its origin and definition

‒ DNA seems to be a reasonable scientific baseline

‒ Privacy and its implications and legitimacy

A key factor in the abortion debate is most often rooted on the “viability” of the developing human - (usually termed the “fetus” from the Latin meaning “offspring”)

Developing Human Website : http://www.parentsplace.com/first9months/main.html

Read Chapter 10

The moral argument is put forth in terms of privacy or a “right to choose”. Usually the words are careful chosen to reveal the respective bias of the writer or proponents of either side.

Comparison and explanation of terms used by both sides

Those for abortion

Pro-Choice

Anti-Choice

fetus

Health of the Mother

(meaning psychological reasons or inconvenience)

Those Against Abortion

Pro-Life

Anti-Abortion

Baby or child

Life of the mother

(See both the Child and Mother having and equal right to life

Abortion and the Legal System

The famous case that legalized Abortion on demand in this country was Roe Vs. Wade

‒ Ironically the person who fought to have the abortion in this case had her child

‒ Also “Jane” Roe today is adamantly Pro-Life

Most people do not realize this, but the language of the law makes abortion legal until the child is born. All the way up to nine months. Effectively the most permissive abortion law in the world. The law talks about the first trimester - but states that for the “health” of the mother, one can have an abortion even in the third trimester. This is interpreted to mean that a woman can choose to have an abortion if the pregnancy gives her a headache.

Methods of Abortion (see pages 161-162 in the text)

Lecture 12

Euthanasia (literally from the Greek “happy or Good” death)

Active/Passive

‒ Active Euthanasia is the direct taking of innocent human life. It is accomplished by administering poison or some drug with the intent to directly kill the patient.

‒ Passive Euthanasia results from withholding ordinary means of treatment or “care measures” from a patient.

THE OATH OF HIPPOCRATES (from ftp://ftp.std.com/obi/Hippocrates/Hippocratic.Oath)