Bernard Hoose's overview of the proportianlist debate

What is Hoose’s proportionalism known as?

• A hybrid of natural law, deontological and teleological ethics.

What did Hoose introduce proportionalism in response to?

• Hoose introduced proportionalism in response to concerns among some theologians that ethics, particularly in the Catholic tradition, had become to deontologically rigid.

• This rigidity was seen as limiting the ability to address unique moral situations effectively.

What is central to decision making according to Proportionalists, and where are the roots of proportionalism found?

• Proportionalists insist that proportionate reason is central to moral decision making.

• The roots of proportionalism are found in Aquinas principle of double effect (intention was good but the outcome was bad e.g. killing in self defence.)

Why is Hoose’s proportionalism known as a hybrid of deontological and teleological ethics?

• Deontological - Proportionalists recognise the intrinsic value of the primary precepts and the virtues of NL, and accept most value is usually gained by obedience to natural law.

• Teleological - Proportionalists claim that morally, circumstances should be considered and so will attempt to weigh up all the rights and wrongs in a situation.

What does proportionalism say about following theological moral rules, and what does this approach allow?

• In proportionalism, moral agents should always follow the theological moral rules, unless there is a unique moral situation where the breaking of the theological moral rule would potentially create less evil than following it.

• This approach allows for flexibility in moral decision making, which is a characteristic of teleological ethics, while still upholding the importance of moral laws - a key aspect of deontological ethics.

What does proportionalism say about certain moral rules?

• Proportionalism holds that there are certain moral rules (those derived from Natural law/deontological) that can never be right to go against.

• ‘There is no attempt to justify the unjustifiable’

• Unless there is a proportionate reason which would justify it, i.e. the secondary precept that abortion is wrong should always be followed because it breaks the primary precept of reproduction, unless there is a proportionate reason to abort the foetus (teleological)

According to proportionalism, what should be done?

• Therefore, moral laws derived from Natural law (deontological) do provide firm moral guidelines which should never be ignored - unless it is absolutely clear that, in a particular unique situation (teleological), this is justified by proportionate reason.

• In other words, if there was ever a conflict between precepts and there is a proportionate reason that could justify it, it could be right to go against a principle.

• Therefore proportionalism can be seen as a hybrid of deontological and teleological ethics, as it combines the strengths of both theories to provide a more nuanced approach to moral decision making.

What is the proportionalism maxim, and how do you decide whether an act is right or wrong to go against the theological moral rule?

• According to Hoose: ‘it is never right to go against a principle unless there is a proportionate reason which would justify it.’

• This was known as Hoose’s maxim, where proportionate reason exists, it would be right to ignore the rule in that situation.

• i.e. an evil/bad action can be done if there is a proportionate reason why it should be carried out.

• In order to decide whether an act is right or wrong to go against the theological moral rule (NL) the intention, the situation and the consequences (teleological) of the person has to be considered.

How did Hoose believe we can develop our understanding of if an action is right or wrong?

• Part of the proportionate debate is to understand if an action is right or wrong, and to develop our understanding of this Hoose believed we need to distinguish between different kinds of evil.

What are the 3 types of evil?

• Ontic evil (a bad act that in itself is not immoral)

• Pre-moral evil (a bad act that in itself is not immoral)

• Evil moral act (an immoral act, a sin)

What is Ontic evil (a bad act in itself that is not immoral)?

• This refers to natural evil and is an evil act that has no moral element.

• These evils occur due to the lack of perfection in the world (due to the ‘fall) and occur independently of the will or action of humanity.

• E.g. the loss of ones sight, natural disasters.

• We cannot avoid ontic evil.

What is pre-moral evil (a bad act that in itself is not immoral)?

• This is a physical wrong action, an action that breaks a theological deontological rule - but due to the nature of the fallen world (ontic evil), it is not necessarily an immoral act.

• It is always not possible to avoid pre-moral evils as they exist as a part of our human nature due to the ‘fall’.

• E.g. selfishness and injustice are examples of pre-moral evils.

• The only way to understand if an action is right or wrong is if we look at the intention/situation.

• Hoose claims there are no acts which are good or bad in themselves, it is only their intention/situation that gives them their morality.

• E.g. if a brain surgeon make incision in human flesh, you do not immediately say ‘that cut is morally good, or that cut is morally bad.’ - it depends on the surgeons intention in doing the cut.

• Hoose argues there cannot be any acts that are intrinsically evil.

• The physical act of abortion for example, is not intrinsically evil, we can only find out whether abortion is morally right or wrong by looking at the situation/intention of the person.

• We may sometimes need to perform pre-moral evils as the lesser evil in order to achieve good.

What is evil moral act (an immoral act, a sin)?

• This evil is not the same as ontic/pre moral evil.

• The morality of a situation can only be known when a consideration of the situation/intention of the person is considered.

• If pre-moral evil was carried out with evil intention, then it becomes an evil moral act (immoral act, sin).

• Furthermore, if an action is performed unnecessarily and disproportionately then it can be considered as a moral evil.

• As moral agents we have a duty to avoid moral evils.

What does proportionalism say about good acts and right acts?

• Another aspect of the proportionalist debate is traditionally NL argues a good act is always right, and there is no distinction between the two.

• Hoose argues this is not always the case and hence gave a distinction between a good act and a right act.

What is a good act (deontological)?

• An act that follows a deontological theological moral rule, e.g. do not steal would be considered a good act.

• Hoose does add an exception to this - the good act must be carried out with the right intention, particularly agape.

• For example, a doctor who develops a new treatment but is motivated by accolade and business interests.

• The act of developing the treatment was right but not good - right because of the consequences of the treatment, but bad because of the selfish intentions.

• Hoose considered agape to be the most important intention.

What is a right act (teleological)?

• An act that is not necessarily a good act but creates the lesser of two evils - a proportionate reason exists to not follow a good act.

• This means that a person may break a deontological theological moral rule, e.g. do not steal.

• However, a consideration of the intention/situation of this unique situation reveals that the person only stole to create the lesser of two evils.

• E.g. a person steals a gun but with the intention of stopping a potential mass killer from killing people and consequently saving many lives.

• Though this cannot be considered a good act - because the theoloical moral rule do not steal was broken - it can be considered a right act

What is proportionality based on agape?

• When debating if proportionality is justified one of the major considerations is agape should be the driving motivation behind morally good acts.

• The intention or situation should be based on love and the consequences should create a loving outcome.

• Hoose claims ‘the absence of agape makes the act and the person morally bad.’

What does Hoose say about loving acts in relation to automatically being right, and what example did he give?

• However, Hoose states a loving act is not automatically right if it brings about more wrong than right, love on its own can be mistaken.

• ‘An action born out of just love can be wrong.’

• Hoose gave the example of burning heretics during the Crusades.

• This was an action done out of true love for God and Gods law, yet was a horrific mistake.

• Love on its own is not enough to justify any action, and this is where proportionalism differs from situation ethics

• ‘We need much more from an ethical theory than ‘love will tell you what to do in the situation’