• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
]ames
F.
Keenan
WHAT
IS
GOOD
AND
WETAT
IS
RIGI{T
A
NewDistinction
in
Moral
Theolory
Ovlr
thc
p.st
FrE.European
moralistshare be€n
giving
tlieii
aticntjon
b r
distinction
in
moral
theotogy,
thedistin<tionbeture.n
toodncss
rnd
rithtness.
A6ong
Amcrjcen+
only
Richard
McCormickat Notre
Daare
UnivcGil.v
hls,
to
ry
knorvlcdge
uscd
it.
He
di$in-
guisher
goodnc*
&om
righuress
as
e
oitical
tool
for
d$itying
pmsant debetcs
ln
srorat theologl..
Now,
Ber-
nard
HooecS
nav
book,
Prloponiorlr,lle'n.:
Thc
Anctistr
D&u
ontl
iE
EumpanXootr,
delrotes
an
cntirc
drapcr
to
thc
topic-
Hcrt
egein
thc author
emphasizes
its
utili-
tt
ln
drrilyhg
crrtrnt
problenrs
in
the
debate.r
!n
thie
arddcwc
wltr
agrhc
thc
distinction
1^&
wil
brt.dy
look
.t
igr
roc
md
its
pllc!
in
humrD
rction,
rnd
wc
wlll
dso
rch!.
rhic
na.r
de*lopmcnr
to
thc
tndition
ln
cordusbn
r,re
will
nrkc
rcmc
epplicationsfor
pas'
*aJ
care.
Ihc
dis*rct or'baurcn
goodnc$urddghhess
is
r
rim-
plc
onc.
Goodncss
dcsoibcs
r
per:onwhoscthg out
of
torlr:
ltilrEs
b
lirle
righdy,
IUghtncss
describes
b€hl,ior
ihat
prosrote5
rnlue
in
thc
world.
Goodness
eslcs
whcthcr
r
persontElrre3
to
rnswlr
thc
call
of
Jesus
o
ton
God
od
ncighbor.
Rightnesr
asks
vrhether
cenainections ectgally
nele
thc
wotld
I
bettcr
place.
fhc
rtadcrm:y
r,rondcr
what would
wecall
'right,'
for anc$one
ur6
diftesat
oiteria
for
csrablishing
thc
diffenncc
betnrecn
riglrt
end
wrong,
hr
insta4ce.
most
peoglc
hold
ttu
lyhg
b
almost
dwrJp
wront
Thetu
E
-
sons
differ.
Soma
ould
rry
thet
since
C.od
gwe.
usspeccfu
wc
should
ll|rt
hisuse
it.Othen
may
say
that
lf
wc
could
not
pre*nc
thet
pcople
v€r.tdlint
the
!uth.
thcr,c
routd
bc
no
uny
of
coanarunicating
with
thcm.
Still
othas
s:yitb
wFnt
to
o8rstunicar?
in
u,ord
wh:t
is
contndicrd
by
what
one
has
in
nind.
Sti[ othe$
llt,GrCnd
trtr|lt
F.
lGcnen,
s1..
it
assbre''loalcssor ol moml
argue
that deception
is
wrong
ln
itsclf. In
anycaSe
peo-
Ple
do distinguishbetwe€n
whatis
right
and
what
is
wrong.
Hce,
ho.veveg
nther
tlren
lookint
at
what
rnakcs
anaction
right
or
wron&
r.rc
rre
int
restad
in
d!r-
d4guishingtoodness
fiom
rightness.
the
distincjon
betr,r,em
goodness and
rightness
hotdslhatsometimes
when
un
ala
good,
westilt
ac wrongly,
For
instencc,
e
parent
.ctingout
of,
brra
frr
heohis
drild-
tln
suy
e(clcirc
too
much
or
too
Uttle
disciplin€. The
P.rtrt
ir
8ood,
becauce
thcparcnt
actg
out
oflove
and
Ei6
to
6nd
thc
dght
way
ofeddresshg
thc children.8ut thc
parenrcrrs
inusint
too
rnudt
or
oo
littlc
dis-ciplinc.
Being
good,
thcrefort,
ir
no
tuaranrcc
of
right
behavior.
IS*"rry,*",
bad
is
no
guaranree
of
wrong
behav-
ion
Sometisres we
rule
judggrmts
solety
out
d
seU-
ithners
thatacfirally
havc
e
goodcffcct.
Wecan
dl
think
d
occasiors
whm
we
hara
pouided
smre
servica
sirnply
for
rcr-eggrandfzernent.
)Glt
thc
a?rvlc.
madc
the
world
r
better plec.eThcsc
coliurons€ns€
irlsithtshaw
alsobeenshared
by
philosophers
and
theologians
who
w$ted
!o
under-
stnd
mot€
actly
what
moral
living
nas
all
about.-In
English,the
distincionHu,€en
gdness
end
rightreii
6tst
rpFarld
in
G.E,
Moore3
Etlnn
Moore
sought
to
daenrinc
definitively
the
notion
d
"righti
He
wasseek-
ing
ut
"objective' wayo{ measuring
hunan
rcting
in
which
we
couldhzrncertitud€.
llrs
an$vrr
nras
utilitari-rnism: lhc
ac
which
'produics
r
maxiaru.rr of
pleas-
srt
"
6rst,
will
alwq6
be called
right
and secon4
will
ncvtr
be
rble
b
becatled
wrong
for
en
act
"ctn
only
bc
wrong
if
lt
produc?3
less
than
e
mrxirnun.'
h
answeftE
possftleobjections
lo
his
position
Moore
drap
the
distinAion
betr.cen
goodnas
tnd
dthtn€ss.Iirst,
he
distinguished
thc
eg;tt
mottuc
6oi
the
ec
bypointingout
that
whetl'er
an
agent deserr€s
prise
orblame
depends
"somcimes'on
the
agcnt!notives;
but
whether
the
agcnt!
.crion
i3
ritht
or
r^''ont'nev?t/'
{
P"-
,2r
Cr{urcar
.
Stla
.t
7t
 
a
TT
Y,
,^"
car*,
nrdcr
will
fnd
h
both
Democirus
end
Moon
a
hesrlancy
b
frilly
dis&€r6h
goodness
6omrlthtrtcas.
Bot!_lTiteG
g,esrrnrethatdolngthc.figh.t
ld
.isa
necessarlithongh
tlot
anfdcietrt,
cond,itionfor
mgral
loodnccc
In
a
s,Esd,
though
botli
see
irutanctsw.llen
.pcoplc
with
bad
ao'livations
act
rightty,.they
do
.not
describc
ary
irstanes
of
persorg who
ac
wrongly.lnd
rresdl
capable
d
bciry
describedrs good.
In
fact,
if
onc
reads
Kttli3
Fonta"tt;zs
ol
e
Maafutla
dMotd&
one
finds
e
distinction
si!$br
to
Mooreb and
r
sigrilar
hesitancy
b
des6ib.
ls
goodpcopte
who
ac
wrongty.In thcology,
hq{B,q
moalisc
hrlledwsys
been
aon-
,
carndrnorl
r;vi8r
urhcthcr
e
rerson b
iood
or
bid
hIIi&
f/
$an
whether
onct
bch.rvtri
is
;gtrt-ot
*tq"g.
ihi.
i;
Dcctuscthc
iudgnat
ofgoodnessorbedness
consid!_rq
wh€thlr
q
no
r,rrt
srswtt
thc
cell of
testis.
9{5g
pcoptc
good
6/rn
whcrr
rhcy;cr
wrolglv
was
.t
ihc
h€E6fa-ZEEiFlnif6a6ffiAfr
lFC-naefth
end
tldttccath
ccnttrricr.
tr
r
cottccftin
tif
hts
cs".to-t*cnt-
"
tytrul9lalld
hro
ErylirhGhtitthn
tlontityitt
o
t*a
t@n.'
FI/'hr,
lqFd.hdrsdborssE
ora
detii..
tn
ridcr
to
profit
&oar
it
we
will
sbrplif-y
the debate
significantly.
_Etrq$1glyr.
thc
question
rrasitfonc
fotto^rs'rn
enonl
ous coruciencg
is
oncgood
of
lidin An
ermneous
con-
.
:qT9J94.!t-whsF
csFlee4EtrlegleCe.the.right-tllar
b,
trics
to fouo,vonds conscicncr,
but
S_at-.SplSciens:..
is
Eont.
Rrer
AteJard
iaia
tliti
ttnCpenon
.B
rood;
Bcrrienlof
Oairrarr:csaid
heor
stti
ir-Ura.
-
I
f
*,
1*
**
rhonesAgrll,rg-E
F
-ssne:n
-olog@tiuned
the
i"esuon
*fiil_ili
irp.
t$
-rsf<cE:.fs.
r
pe6on
*ho
fols
to
follow
one.,t
consdcngq.tggC_.or.
bad?
He answeredthatwhoever
faib
o
toUor.,
onlicon-
I
-
-so'ence
is
rtwaysbad.
Tlrcn
hi
iikb4
if
one
Jollows
an
/
crroneoqs
congcienceis
oncgood
or
bad?
He answered
thet
if
one
kied
b
find
the
right
coursc
ofaCion,
but
errcdin
goodfaith,
thenthc
pcrson
if
ocwcd
fron
.
blanre.
(5f
l,
[.
19.
5
end
6).
-Un
ortunitety,Ihomas
narer
called
thc
egent
.good"
nor
did
he
have
an
ap
p[opriate
conceptual
distinction
bctr.veen
-good
penonsl
_erld
"right
actjons"_:cl$lLseC!
Urc_enebted
hi$_to
_
describethe
aqmt
rs
eudr.
SoE
€
peopliriiry:iit'frrc
etease
callingsuch
people
-xusca?
Birt
aaultty
ir
is
inaccunrq
b€ciLc.eni.oca-
is
more
pmperly
used
b
describc
r
person
whoLcks
th3
prcper
abiuty
u
iudge
rthtly.
lr
i,
riot
used
for
peopte
who
have
that
ability,
I
Mor"rirc
likcSchiillcr
ard
Fncls.dp
disdrrt1rir..
-h
baweeri
good
pecons
and
dtht
fttions:
Mottratbru
irt
.
distinguishcd
fro4r_.ItiA[e_endRp.n!
ptalr11
fr]g_blCflg
in
attiitruled,
solelvto
thc
forzrcaAtisren
wbo-ogt-Cf
iorc
iries
to
act
rightly
itgo"a.
a"t
ryi"e
to
realire
riSht
behavi.tr
do€s
not
gicanlhbi
dnc
wilt
atrain
it.
Whcth€t
we
tttain
right
behavior
pertains
to
rightness,
whcther
.
we
lty
olrtof
lolrcto
*tain
lt
F
itins
to
toodn*r.
Ex.
.rr.m&
holvel/el,
is
only
epplied to
thosc
c$csrvh"re
he
PsEon
rrassomchow
unableCwnOtry.
.ct
b
rnd
do
it
!\ras
gdqtr
tvcT;atFiEsF
 
.1':i?-i:
-.r..f,rr;t
j.:
;::--.
i:jr
'|:?T:;+?-::.":-"
,..,7t.!:'.-.1.
;ji';:::i:
orderedself
so
thet
I
can
bettersewe
come
trtter,
regardlessof
whetherour
cflorts
attain
suc.cesg
we
dorespond.
-
i/
1..
The
disgcrion
betr,^qq!E)gClressand
righhess
sos
to
i"
thc
hc
t
of
hunen
liuing.Here
rG
ri,iilfirsr
*-*ia#
somc
anrptes
od
lrow
dre
tno
guestions
di6er
and
honrgoodness
relerr
solely
to
whethlr
one
strirres
out
oflovc
lomakconcsclf
bcttqmd
the
wprld
a
bettel
place.
Ihen
wc
r,vill
consider tfie
r{o(d
-intention
and
iUsUngubh
itfiocr-rnotiratlonl
?hc {orzrerpertains
!o
righicss,
the
Lttcr
to
Consider
a
politicien
whose
sole
motiration
is
powet
who
has
noinrerrrt
er
dl
h
thc welfanof
his
con-
stinrcnE,
end
ls only
hercstrd
in
again
duping
thc
elecorate
into reetadqB
hiur.
'the
conititu"nd
""jort-
ominanry
scnior
citizms,
and
rc
ttre
politician
vites
{or
6!ry
qE
rrendth
progranft'r
thc
ciderly.
The
poti.
ticianl
votinttcccd b
rigta,but
tocall
thi
politi-cian
goodis
unwerracrtcd.
ort
thaorhcr hand,
cinsider
I
woman
who
was
rhanddnbd
during
her
putlr
and
who
-notwitlsanding
thc
lad<
d
being
lond
;r:lt atempte
to
lote
qcn
in
e
resuicred
rny.
This
pcrsonmay
conduct
herselfwmngly,
;nt,d'len
her
gcrsonal
hiSory,
her
itritrht
to
loq
b
en
hdicationof
the
personal
hcet
goodncsrin
hcr
liia
Sinilarly,
e
pcrsonsuffering
frornncurosb
may
6nd
hb
actral conduct
sorely
wantlng
but
in
his attcrnps
lo
becourc
I
more
integrited
person
in
ordcr
to
scrve
the
churh,
he
toois
good.
Finally,
con-sider thc
pcnon
born
with
r
betterordercdpers6natty
thrn
urojt
peoptc
md
whocc
faarityt
enLci"t
rni
enotiorul
support
hrs
fortificd
this
Frsonafity.
ts
that
bettcr-ordcredpersondity
m
indkation
of
goodncss
or
riShfless?
b
lt
not
sirlPly
a
rEhttyodered
personatity?
A{td
I
nq
podness,
on
the
otherhand,
iquestion
of
whetlrcr
that
pctsonor
lrty
petson
stives
io
becomc
cven
bctter
so
.3
to
rcn/G
othets?
e
pcrfpnt
motivation
in
acting,we
are
r.rsually
rsking
r
-why'
question.
t{tfy
{a-:ri_s_Ailh.r?
is
e
iuestioi
.!ormforborhintentjon
_q4C-$gti!adon^.HouafCf'!!re.iorm
of
theanswer
is
differeht.
Thequestion
of
gmdnessdoesjrot
q{tt
l,.vh3t.w_e
atfain..
Rightnesi
ailc
thar{i:am-m.
fii
question
of
gogftsas*
..esks,
doI
srive
to
aiain
rightnessi
Oo_tgri,,it"
iti"irr*
Goodncsg
rnd
Rlghlrcr
&t<
Difftnnt
eucstionr
If
I
ask
former
presidiruRefg1n
.Why
dd.joq.
pelt
aiffi-io
Fiji?
the
anlswef
-ro
iiilTi
trosrige+
i
an
a1-
sr,er
Ftinent
to
intention.Here
we
debbte
whalrerthat
intmtjonb
ritht
or
wron$
Is
it
right
or
wl9n6
rosellarms
in ordc!
to
free
hostages?
If,
however,the..prssj.dent
ed&,
I
sreantweuor
t
iid
it
our
of compassi6n
for
the fasrilies
ofthe
hostages,
tfrc.presiacnt_iiiiUtlr!.Ci
somslhint
abouthis
nioralmotivation:
H€is
tdling
us,
pcrhaps
I
was
wrong
tohave
such
a;
iaia,
Uut
I
*iiriot
bad
or
selfuh.
The
q'uestion
for
intention
alwaln
ask.a
"why,
guesHon,
bui
a
-why.
qu$rion inteF;tcd
in_.
ta
.
c.rrurc}r
.
Suaarr
Ng
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...