Author: Kinga Lipinska
Moral philosophy and moral theology prescribe systems which offer structures and directives for resolving moral dilemmas, because questions “of the heart and of the moral conscience” involve ‘the most painful … decisive struggles.” 1 While both disciplines meet in terms of subject matter, they differ significantly as to the scope of the context in which they operate. In moral philosophy such context is human reason and experience. In moral theology, context is human reason and revelation: God’s disclosure of truths about Himself, about human nature, and about moral life. Nature of this difference has penetrating implications in defining the function and meaning of morality’‘s pivotal concerns like human life and its purpose, freedom, and the essence of values.
If human conduct can be defined as rational in as far as it is determined in terms of purposes i.e. purposeful acting in order to attain previously chosen ends, both moral philosophy and moral theology are rationalistic. In as far as ends are desirable, they can be defined as ‘good.’ However, moral philosophy and moral theology vary as to what is defined as ‘the good’ that should be pursued, and subsequently, as to the acceptable method of pursuit. If we admit definition ‘human flourishing,’ as the extension of the end that is pursued, we must also admit that this end can be, and usually is, delineated in characteristically dissimilar terms in each discipline. However, regardless of what is understood to contribute to human flourishing, we can agree that as long as moral philosophy and moral theology are directed at the achievement of purpose / end, both can be described as teleological in addition to also being rationalistic.
In moral theology, values are prescribed by God, and accordingly they are objective and permanent i.e. not open to reformulation based on circumstances, preference, consequences, etc. Thus, certain acts are intrinsically wrong. Papal encyclical Humanae Vitae admonishes: “it is not licit, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil so that good may follow therefrom, that is, to make into an object of a positive act of will something which is intrinsically disordered, and hence unworthy of the human person.” 2 Consequently, end will never justify means in moral theology.
In moral philosophy, morality centers itself on choice and freedom – an idea not mistaken in itself, for, clearly, free will is what lends moral judgement its credibility. According to moral theology, mistake begins when freedom and choice are identified with an autonomy to decide what is truth and hence also what constitutes good or evil. The approach is mistaken because, truth is external to freedom and cannot be a matter of consensus or circumstances. Truth makes the discourse and circumstances possible because it antedates them, and thus “the power to decide what is good and what is evil does not belong to man, but to God alone.”3 “You will know the Truth and it will make you free”4 teaches the Lord, and not ‘you are free and can thus decide what the truth is.’ Consequently, moral theology gives truth primacy over freedom.
In moral philosophy, values are a creation of human intellect and are open to re-definition based on an array of extenuating factors. Accordingly, moral philosophy is often relativistic and subjective. Even when moral philosophy aspires to objectivity in a system like jurisprudential ethics, the good can be changed when the content of the law is changed by the law-giver, and while duty to do good does not alter, the content of the law / good is open to re-definition. Prospect of re-definition, by default, leads to an ethic of egoism and convenience. If one aspires to a system, a system must be comprehensive and logic necessitates that if values are subjectively defined, they will also refer to subjective purposes. Thus, very often, moral philosophy is limiting rather than constructive i.e. it is limiting in as far as it limits human activity to its self-defined purposes, it limits individuals to their own subjective sphere. This is one of the inherent problems of moral philosophy: since human conduct is defined by relationships to onself, to others, to reality etc. it is counterproductive to limit its scope to a subjective realm as if each individual were a self-sufficient entity.
In moral philosophy, values which lead to the formulation and establishment of law are limiting and external even if they are necessary. Law is an imposition conflicting with freedom. Law or prescription in moral theology is internal and natural i.e. it is an expression of human nature and thus is makes freedom possible. “The natural law is nothing other than the light of understanding infused in us by God, whereby we understand what must be done and what must be avoided.” 5 Accordingly moral theology, in addition to being rationalistic and teleological, is also specified as ontological, because it refers itself to the essence i.e. to the nature of a human being who as a creature of God finds fulfillment in discovering and deciphering reality and moral order as they are laid out by God for His creatures’ benefit. “No one is good but God alone,”6 thus “only God can answer the question about what is good because he is the Good itself.”7 Hence, moral theology builds on complete trust that human nature remains true to itself and that flourishing is possible to the extent to which human beings remain faithful to God’s objective ordinance and plan.
Although it might seems unavoidable, moral philosophy and moral theology need not be in conflict with one another. “Human freedom and God’s law are not in opposition; on the contrary, they appeal one to the other.”8 When we consider the two disciplines, we need to remain mindful that moral philosophy aims at man’s natural end which is, at best, a well integrated and harmonious existence attained in this life through the use of intellect. Moral theology treats of human conduct in view of man’s ultimate, supernatural end which is the eternal life and beatific vision of God after a well integrated and harmonious temporal life. While human beings use reason to earn their temporal ends, supernatural end is attainable only through God’s grace. It is ultimately a gift we cannot earn on our own as it does not belong to us by nature (since the fall of the first parents delineated in the Book of Genesis). While obviously the natural end of man and the supernatural end of man differ fundamentally in their extent, they share an intense hope of fulfillment i.e. of some final happiness and thus both can be characterized as eudeamonistic. Despite some striking differences then, it can be concluded that human beings do not tire of convoluted systems and never-ending pursuits of moral philosophy and moral theology, because they never tire of longing for happiness, and this longing, even if often misdirected, still remains stronger than the relative comfort of complacency and indifference.
:
Bibliography
Paul VI, Encyclical Letter Humanae Vitae, Boston, MA: Pauline Books & Media, 1968
John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Veritatis Splendor, Boston, MA: Pauline Books & Media, 2003
New American Bible, St. Joseph Medium Size Edition, New York, NY: Catholic Book Publishing Corp., 1992
You cannot split in two, three or more parts the human being. The ethical conduct is in all sectors of our life. Man is an unity, a whole. For some people the conduct changes according to the place or the activity they are performing. For instance in the political or in the business sector is not possible to be honest and correct. For me the human being has to be the same, without changing his face depending upon the place or the work he or she is doing.
The problem is to give a definition of morals or ethics. Many philosophers, starting from Plato have tried to give a definition of what is good and what is evil. Nobody has succeeded in it so far. Therefore some thinker defines the morals a “paraenesis”, an exhortation. But for Christians the only parameter of moral conduct is God, the moral code we have inside ourselves.
In the field of ethics there are two main streams: The deontological and the teleological. For the former the individual must follow the morals rules even if they lead to a wrong result, for the latter what does matter is the aim (telos) of the action and not the rule.
The book I have recently written deepens many moral issues. I want to draw it to your attention, as you may be interested in it. The title is “Travels of the Mind” and it is available at http://www.strategicpublishinggroup.com/title/TravelsOfTheMind.html
If you have any questions, I am most willing to offer my views on this topic.
Ettore Grillo
Ettore – thank you for the comment. I see that you are visiting our website, and I am glad to see that someone from outside the Society was inspired to partake in the Conference! ( :
The split which you point out – namely the split between moral philosophy and moral theology – does not mean that we somehow engage in a deceitful presentation of ourselves to the world or that we force splits within ourselves. Yes, human being is a unity in terms of consciousness – any splits in the integrity of consciousness spell trouble. However, there are differences between people as such, and here is where distinctions are very useful particularly if one is hoping to engage in a dialogue. As moral issues are often at the center of most heated debates, we need clear distinctions in order to understand one another better and to hopefully, based on that understanding, be able to enter into a fruitful dialogue and search for most appropriate solutions to various moral dillemmas.
Thank you for your kind comment Caleb. And thank you for visting our Society’s website! ( :
Kinga, Thank you for this concise analysis of the salient differences between moral theology and moral philosophy. One could write a dissertation on each paragraph concerning these timely, yet timeless, issues. It seems to me that much secular morality today is eudaemonistic (based on happiness), rather than deontological (based on duty). Our society seems to be in tune with Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, which presents a system of eudaemonism, not of deontology. In it there is no analysis of moral obligation, no concept of free will, nor any mention of the possibility of deliberate wrong doing. Yet, it is teleological (goal oriented) inasmuch as everything has a purpose or end, and a thing is good when it serves its intended purpose, when it acts or is acted upon according to its nature. St. Thomas skillfully adapted this seemingly self-centered ethical system to the self-giving love that Jesus Christ espoused. For example, take St. Thomas’ understanding of volition. He wrote that the will (voluntas) tends necessarily toward what the intellect understand to be good, toward a person’s own happiness in possessing the good. Although the intellectual appetite (the will) necessarily tends toward good in general, it does not necessarily tend toward all particular goods presented to it by the intellect. (STh I, 82, 1) The will is not free to choose its end (the good), but is free to choose the means to that end, just as a traveler may choose many roads to the same city. (ST I, 82, 2) When a person chooses to act, he believe his particular action is a means to attain happiness. Thus, for him it is good because it obtains happiness. While some are content with temporal happiness, others forgo certain temporal goods when such goods become a hindrance to eternal happiness, even as an athlete denies himself legitimate goods and pleasures so he can win the race. As you point out, Kinga, moral theology and moral philosophy need not be in conflict, yet the variety of ways in which we humans prioritize our ends makes it appear so.
Hello Dave – thank you for your comments. Indeed moral theology and moral philosophy need not be in conflict. I am concerned with the tendency in contemporary thinking to assume that moral theology is always about something imposed which then involves a justification of such imposition on one’s ‘true and independent’ self. Moral philosophy is often understood as liberating because one can reason and decide for himself or herself what is true – what an illusion that is. I am not a great fan of deontology either (I admit), and prefer the aretaic model – virtue! I connect deontology with the Commandments (certainly valid and necessary), but ultimately brought to perfection by the Gospel (virtue ethics). Moral maturity calls for more than obligation, it calls for excellence. Of course, for Christians, the root of this excellence is not self, nor will, nor reason but God’s grace and our cooperation with it.
In other words, since Christ affirmed that the greatest comandment is to love God with our whole heart and to love our neighbor as ourselves for God’s sake, and since the greatest virtue of all virtues is charity, then we could say that deontology and aretology converge in Christ and His followers. For this reason, I stive to carefully observe the Commandments and all that the Word of God has revealed, which we read about in Sacred Scripture and which is authentically interpreted by the magisterium which resides in the bishops, the successors of the apostles to whom Christ has given this teaching authority. I believe that to follow this revealed teaching is to live a life of virtue, which contributes to the common good and helps complete the act of meriting my eternal end in God, which was made possible by the grace Christ has effected through His passion and death.
Kinga makes a good point about there being no conflict between moral philosophy and moral theology provided we keep in perspective the function of philosophy within our theological context. St. Thomas certainly had no problem with moral philosophy and used it to support his moral theology. The distinction that we want to draw, of course, is that philosophy relies on human reason and human understanding while theology relies on our faith, which is our active response to divine revelation. There are certain things we can figure out on our own – like the immateriality of the soul – but there are certain things we cannot figure out on our own and have to be told – like the resurrection of the body. We can figure out on our own a great deal about the way we ought to enter into relationships with other persons – Aristotle proved that in his Ethics and Politics – but, as Kinga states, the things about which the philosophers speak bring us only to the fullness of natural happiness. It’s the things about which the theologians speak that bring us to the fullness of supernatural happiness. This is what makes theology greater than philosophy – indeed, it’s what makes philosophy the handmaiden of theology. For in the order of knowing, we understand first through our senses to develop percepts that lead to universal concepts, and we move from the first degree of abstraction to the third – shifting from physical being to being-qua-being. Aristotle makes a natural shift of this in his Metaphysics. It’ll take Christ to show us how to make a supernatural shift of this.
Thank you also, Dave, for your reflections on this. I’m interested in your opinion about Aristotle’s efforts at giving us a definition of good and evil if Plato was unable to give us one. If you get a chance to read Dante, you’ll find that the entire 100 cantos of the Comedy were designed to address the problem of evil and definitively resolve it. In Canto 30 of the Purgatorio, he’s tongue-lashed by Beatrice, the symbol of divine revelation, for seeking the answer among the pagan philosophers and for abandoning her in the process. Interesting things to speculate on, indeed.