Ch. 1 Finnis - Foundations

Moral Absolutes are

• exceptionless

• always negative (“do not do…“)

list the 13 moral absolutes

1. no aggression directed at noncombatants

2. no manufacturing of babies

3. no abortion

4. no adultery

5. no fornication

6. no same-sex sex

7. no self-destruction

8. no infanticide

9. no contraception

10. no blasphemy

11. no denial of the faith

12. no theft

13. no lying

what does it mean that the moral absolutes are not supreme, not fundamental, and not unconditioned?

not supreme = not the MOST important, you can still follow them and be a bad person

not unconditioned: “x is wrong…“ all x’s have conditions

4 especially uninteresting norms

• formal norms/logical norms/true by definition

1. identity (ex: apples are apples)

2. perfect synonyms (ex: pants are trousers)

3. perfect translations (ex: shoes are zapatos)

4. the words “inordinate”, “wrongful”, “unreasonable”, “without good reason” = always mean something is morally bad already, that would be like saying “wrongful ____ is wrong“

Tautology

necessarily true

• its opposite would be a contradiction = necessarily false

The utilitarian objection to moral absolutes: Narrowing of horizons

• Moral absolutes can’t be exceptionless; the right judgment needs to encompass the WHOLE story. As soon as absolutists hear something, they pass it as wrong

• FINNIS’ ANSWER: It’s easier to know if an action is wrong. To answer whether something is perfect takes much more work — you only have to find one flaw to find that something is wrong

Finnis says moral action has

soul-making significance

Finnis says that following moral rules ultimately is for the sake of

changeless goods or values

Finnis says the contesting of exceptionless moral norms

challenges the foundations of morality and Christian faith

Criticisms of utilitarisnism

• incompatible with Christian faith

• incommensurability problem of distant consequences