MORAL PHILOSOPHY / ETHICS

REPORT ON PROPORTIONALISM

By: Sem. JAN DIRK T. DOROQUEZ

Background:
- Proportionalism originated among Catholic scholars in Europe and America in the 1960s.
One influential commentator on Proportionalism was Bernard Hoose. Hoose summarised
the Proportionalists’ position in his 1987 book: ‘Proportionalism: The American Debate and
its European Roots.’
- Proportionalism arose from an increasing concern among some theologians that ethics, in
the Catholic tradition was too deontologically rigid. For example, Richard McCormick (1922–
2000), a Jesuit priest and moral theologian, suggested that Catholic moral theology had: ‘ …
disowned an excessively casuistic approach to the moral life.’
- However, Proportionalism has been condemned by the Catholic Church. For example, Pope
John Paul II (1920-2005), in his encyclical ‘Veritatis Splendor’ (The Splendour of Truth),
stated that Proportionalism is wrong because it denies any action can in and of itself be
intrinsically evil. Though Proportionalism was formalized in the 1960s, the Proportionalists’
approach is to some extent visible in the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274).

Definition:
- PROPORTION fron latin pro portione which means “in respect of (it’s or a person’s share)
- Bernard Hoose writes, “it is never right to go against a principle unless there is a
proportionate reason which would justify it.”
o the statement reflects the idea of the Catholic moral principle of "double effect"
which suggests that an action that has both good and bad consequences may be
permissible if the good consequences outweigh the bad consequences and if the
action itself is morally neutral or good.
- Richard McComrick stressed out that every moral choice occurs in a context where
competing values and disvalues must be weighed critically.
o The statement emphasizes that making a moral choice requires critical thinking and
evaluation of these competing values and disvalues, in order to arrive at a decision
that is morally justifiable. It also suggests that moral decision-making is a complex
process that requires careful consideration of various factors and their potential
consequences
 - James Walter summarizes that proportionalism is a method for: (a) resolving conflicts of
values, (b) determining objectively what is morally right or wrong about an action, and (c)
grounding concrete behavioral norms and exceptions to them.
- “weighing the various values and goods being sought, focuses rather on the proportion
acknowledged between the good and bad effects of that choice, with a view to the
"greater good" or "lesser evil" actually possible in a particular situation.” JPII, Veritatis
Splendor, 75.
o the statement highlights the complex and nuanced nature of moral decision-making
and the importance of considering multiple factors and perspectives in order to
arrive at a justifiable decision. It emphasizes the need to carefully evaluate the
potential effects of our actions in order to achieve the greatest overall good in a
particular situation.
- From this we can derive a concrete definition of Propostionalism as that: Proportionalism
holds that there are certain moral rules and that it can never be right to go against these
rules unless there is a proportionate reason which would justify it. The proportionate
reason is based on the context or situation. Still, this situation must be sufficiently unusual
and of sufficient magnitude to provide a reason to overturn what would otherwise be a
firm rule. On this basis, moral laws derived from natural law or similar approaches can
provide firm moral guidelines which should never be ignored unless it is absolutely clear
that, in a particular situation, this is justified by a proportionate reason.
- Proportionalism suggests that the morality of an action cannot be judged without
considering the intention, situation, and consequences of an action. In other words, an event
or action is seen as non-moral or pre-moral until we consider the involvement of a moral
agent or a person in the situation.
o Exegesis vs eisegesis
o moral norms are not absolute, but rather are relative to the situation and the
consequences of the action

Discussion:
- In this sense, proportionalism somehow accepts three kinds of evil:
o Pre-Moral or Non-Moral Evil
 Breaking a key moral principle
 Entails sin. A cause of suffering. It could be any act that causes distance from
God.
 Concerns about the pure act before the moral agent is considered.
 Judged as evil before the intention, situation, or consequences.
 Example: Stealing food of others
o Ontic Evil
 Unavoidable suffering caused by living in an imperfect, fallen world.
 Ontic: concerning the nature of things, the way things are.
 The nature of the world means evil, as suffering is an unavoidable fact of
life.
 The pain of childbirth is an ontic evil.
 Example: Stealing the food of others (pre-moral evil). Ontic evil is
the unavoidable suffering an agent must cause to heal someone. For
him/another to heal and live.
o Moral Evil
  The kind of evil that moral agents (people) have a duty to avoid.
 Actions carried out by a moral agent which are evil even after the intention,
situation, and consequences are considered.
 Actions by a moral agent that are evil even allowing for Ontic evil.
 Al moral agents have a duty to avoid moral evil.
 It is not always desirable to avoid pre-moral evil. It is not always possible to
avoid ontic evil.
 All moral agents must take responsibility for moral evil.
 Example: Stealing the food of others (Pre-Moral evil). Suffering
caused another to live (Ontic evil). If the intention is to help
another to live, one has not committed Moral evil. So the agent’s
action is morally right.

- Good Acts vs Right Acts

o “In a world where goodness is always mixed with evil, and every good effect linked
to other evil effects, the morality of an act would be judged in two different ways:
its moral "goodness" would be judged on the basis of the subject's intention in
reference to moral goods, and its "rightness" on the basis of a consideration of its
foreseeable effects or consequences and of their proportion.” JPII, Veritatis
Splendor, 75.
 this statement suggests that the morality of an act should be evaluated
based on both the intention of the person performing it and the foreseeable
consequences of their action. This allows for a more nuanced understanding
of morality in a world where good and evil are often intertwined.
- Evil again:
o Pre-Moral or Non-Moral Evil
 The word Evil means an action that breaks a key moral principle,
which is evil but might not be morally evil.
o Ontic Evil
 The word Evil means unavoidable suffering.
o Moral Evil
 Could it be possible to do Good whilst committing evil as long as the
intention, situation, and consequences make it good?
- Doing the Good thing:
o Doing something good by following the law and moral principles no matter what the
situation may be and what the consequences may bring. Follows the key morel
principle & performed out of love for God and His law.
 Example: Not stealing, being honest.
- Doing the Right thing:
o Doing something that is somewhat not good but the right thing, even not following
the law or the moral principles, because it is the best thing that one can hope for in
a situation. Goes against the key moral principle lightly done for a proportionate
reason. “It is never right to go against a principle unless there is a proportionate
reason which would justify it.” (Hoose)
 Example: stealing for someone to help live, being dishonest for your life to
be spared.
 - Proportionate reasoning:
o Weigh-up the foreseeable consequences of a particular action.
o Balance the value and the disvalue of the act.
o Ensure that the value of the act will outweigh the disvalue.
 VALUE = HALAGA/MAHALAGA (WORTH)
 Example: Supporting a war:
 Value: Protecting the innocent and preventing oppression by foreign
army
 Disvalue: Use of violence and break-down of peace talks.

Proportionalist Maxim:
- It is never good to go against a moral principle (the deontological rules of Natural Law should be
obeyed).
- However, in some circumstances it might be right to break a moral principle (because evil is an
unavoidable reality in our world).
- There must be a proportional reason for breaking a moral principle (our actions must be carefully
balanced, well-reasoned and proportionate).

Examples:
“Since, however, there are many who are in need, while it is impossible for all to be succored by
means of the same thing, each one is entrusted with the stewardship of his own things, so that out
of them he may come to the aid of those who are in need. Nevertheless, if the need be so
manifest and urgent, that it is evident that the present need must be remedied by whatever
means be at hand (for instance when a person is in some imminent danger, and there is no other
possible remedy), then it is lawful for a man to succor his own need by means of another's
property, by taking it either openly or secretly: nor is this properly speaking theft or robbery.”
(Summa Theologiae II-II, q. 66, a. 7, Res)
o “When a person is in extreme need of material things, and there is no way of
emerging from his extremity but by taking what belongs to another, the surplus
 which another possesses becomes common property, and the taker is not guilty of
theft. Thus a starv. ing man, or one whose dependents are starving, may take,
openly or secretly, the food that will save human life. This, of course, is on condition
that the taker of the food has no other means of getting it, and that he does not
leave the person from whom he takes the food in as desperate a situation as his
own.” (A Tour of the Smma)
(Wheel of fortune)
- You are very hungry after your work in the seminary and do not have anything to eat or
money to buy. You saw a Goldilocks chocolate cake slice in the food pantry of the father’s
refectory. Will you steal it?
- A seminarian wants to have a girlfriend (or boyfriend). Good or evil?
- You are caught by your formator during your outing with someone (girl/boy) while holding
hands with each other (naka-akbay pa minsan) who’s actually your girlfriend (or boyfriend
sigi). When you arrive at the seminary, your formator calls you to his office and asks you who
the person is. Will you tell him the truth knowing that you will be sent out?
- You were drinking alcoholic drinks in the seminary with some of your brothers without
permission from the formator. But you are the only one who’s caught, then asked you: are
you alone drinking or with some other seminarians? Will you tell the truth?
- You and some of your brothers left the seminary premises without permission from the
formator. But you are the only one who’s caught, then asked you: are you alone drinking or
with some other seminarians? Will you tell the truth?
- We all know that abortion is bad and as stated in the Code of Canon Law: “a person who
procures a completed abortion incurs a latae sententiae excommunication” (Canon 1398).
What if it is caused by rape? What if it is unintentional? What if it is the only way to save the
mother?
- You will be killed because of your faith, the only way for you to live is to renounce your
faith? What will you do?

The Church Against Proportionalism

- Proportionalism was rejected by the Catholic church through the encyclical Veritatis
Splendour of Pope St. John Paul II.
- Proportionalism is “not faithful to the Church's teaching, when they believe they can
justify, as morally good, deliberate choices of kinds of behaviour contrary to the
commandments of the divine and natural law. These theories cannot claim to be grounded
in the Catholic moral tradition.” JPII, Veritatis Splendor, 76.
o the statement argues that proportionalism cannot justify intentional choices to
engage in behaviors that are contrary to the divine and natural law, and therefore, it
is not consistent with the teachings of the Catholic Church.
- “The morality of the human act depends primarily and fundamentally on the "object"
rationally chosen by the deliberate will.” JPII, Veritatis Splendor, 78.
o the statement suggests that the morality of a human act depends primarily on the
rational choice of the specific action being taken, which is known as the "object" of
the act. This is a fundamental principle in Catholic moral theology and is used as a
basis for evaluating the morality of human actions
- “One must therefore reject the thesis, characteristic of teleological and proportionalist
theories, which holds that it is impossible to qualify as morally evil according to its species
— its "object" — the deliberate choice of certain kinds of behaviour or specific acts, apart
 from a consideration of the intention for which the choice is made or the totality of the
foreseeable consequences of that act for all persons concerned.” JPII, Veritatis Splendor, 79.
o the statement argues that teleological and proportionalist theories are flawed
because they reject the idea that certain types of behavior or specific acts can be
morally evil in and of themselves, based on the nature of the act itself. The Catholic
moral tradition emphasizes the importance of the "object" of the act in determining
its moral character, and this principle is used as a basis for evaluating the morality of
human actions.
- JPII argues that we must put ourselves in the perspective of the acting person that the object
of the act of willing is a freely chosen kind of behavior that it is in conformity with the act of
willing, caused by the goodness of the will that perfects us morally as it enables us to
recognize the ultimate and perfect good/end which is love, telos – God.

Challenge:
- “we must not be content merely to warn the faithful about the errors and dangers of
certain ethical theories. We must first of all show the inviting splendour of that truth
which is Jesus Christ himself. In him, who is the Truth (cf. Jn 14:6), man can understand
fully and live perfectly, through his good actions, his vocation to freedom in obedience to
the divine law summarized in the commandment of love of God and neighbour. And this is
what takes place through the gift of the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of truth, of freedom and of
love: in him we are enabled to interiorize the law, to receive it and to live it as the
motivating force of true personal freedom: "the perfect law, the law of liberty" (Jas 1:25).”
JPII, Veritatis Splendor, 83.
o It is our duty as religious/seminarians to be heralds and advocates of truth because
there is love in truth. Caritas in Veritate.

References:
- Pope John Paul II. Veritatis Splendor. 1993
- Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologiae
- Glenn, Paul. A Tour of the Summa: A Journey Through St. Thomas Aquinas’ Summa
TheologicaI. (North Carolina: Tan Books, 2013)
- http://www.rsrevision.com/Alevel/boards/eduqas/guidance/Bernard_Hoose.pdf
- https://youtu.be/Jd0xBD5tEK4
- https://youtu.be/_umRAC_FRpg