Here you can read online Richard A. McCormick - Ambiguity in Moral Choice full text of the book (entire story) in english for free. Download pdf and epub, get meaning, cover and reviews about this ebook. year: 1977, publisher: Marquette University Press, genre: Science. Description of the work, (preface) as well as reviews are available. Best literature library LitArk.com created for fans of good reading and offers a wide selection of genres:
Choose a favorite category and find really read worthwhile books. Enjoy immersion in the world of imagination, feel the emotions of the characters or learn something new for yourself, make an fascinating discovery.
Ambiguity in Moral Choice: summary, description and annotation
We offer to read an annotation, description, summary or preface (depends on what the author of the book "Ambiguity in Moral Choice" wrote himself). If you haven't found the necessary information about the book — write in the comments, we will try to find it.
Richard A. McCormick: author's other books
Who wrote Ambiguity in Moral Choice? Find out the surname, the name of the author of the book and a list of all author's works by series.
Ambiguity in Moral Choice — read online for free the complete book (whole text) full work
Below is the text of the book, divided by pages. System saving the place of the last page read, allows you to conveniently read the book "Ambiguity in Moral Choice" online for free, without having to search again every time where you left off. Put a bookmark, and you can go to the page where you finished reading at any time.
Ambiguity in Moral Choice Pere Marquette Lecture in Theology ; 1973
author
:
McCormick, Richard A.
publisher
:
Marquette University Press
isbn10 | asin
:
087462505X
print isbn13
:
9780874625059
ebook isbn13
:
9780585141442
language
:
English
subject
Christian ethics--Catholic authors, Ambiguity.
publication date
:
1977
lcc
:
BJ1012.M315 1977eb
ddc
:
230.8
subject
:
Christian ethics--Catholic authors, Ambiguity.
Page i
Ambiguity in Moral Choice
The 1973 Pere Marquette Theology Lecture
by Richard A. McCormick, S. J.
Marquette University Press Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53233
Page ii
ISBN 0-87462-505-X
Second Printing 1977
Copyright 1973 Marquette University Press Milwaukee, Wisconsin, U.S.A.
Page 1
The distinction between what is directly voluntary and indirectly voluntary has been a staple of Catholic moral thought for centuries.1 It has been used to face many practical conflict-situations where an evil can be avoided or a more or less necessary good achieved only when another evil is reluctantly caused. In such situations the evil caused as one goes about doing good has been viewed as justified or tolerable under a fourfold condition. (1) The action is good or indifferent in itself; it is not morally evil. (2) The intention of the agent is upright, that is, the evil effect is sincerely not intended. (3) The evil effect must be equally immediate causally with the good effect, for otherwise it would be a means to the good effect and would be intended. (4) There must be a proportionately grave reason for allowing the evil to occur. If these conditions are fulfilled, the resultant evil was referred to as an "unintended byproduct" of the action, only indirectly voluntary and justified by the presence of a proportionately grave reason.2
The practical importance of this dis-
Page 2
tinction can be gathered from the areas where it has been applied in decision-making: killing (self-defense, warfare, abortion, euthanasia, suicide), risk to life (dangerous missions, rescue operations, experimentation), sterilization, contraception, sexual reactions, cooperation in another's evil action, scandal. Its appeal is attested to by the long line of prominent theologians who have used it in facing problems of the first magnitude such as the conduct of war. The most articulate contemporary exponent of the just war theory (Paul Ramsey) appeals to it frequently in his writings3 much as did John C. Ford, S.J. in his excellent work on obliteration bombing.4 Many other theologians fall back on the distinction, sometimes unwittingly, sometimes when it suits a rather obvious purpose. So settled, indeed, had the usage become in theological circles that the direct-indirect distinction has achieved a decisive prominence in some of the most influential and authoritative documents of the Church's magisterium.
For instance, in discussing the problem
Page 3
of abortion, Pius XI asked: "What could ever be a sufficient reason for excusing in any way the direct murder of the innocent (directam innocentis necem)."5 Pius XII repeatedly condemned the "deliberate and direct disposing of an innocent human life"6 and insisted that "neither the life of the mother nor that of the child can be subjected to an act of direct suppression.''7 Similarly Pius XII employed the distinction in dealing with sterilizing drugs. He noted that "if the wife takes this medication not with a view to preventing conception, but solely on the advice of a physician, as a necessary remedy by reason of a malady of the uterus or of the organism, she is causing an indirect sterilization, which remains permissible according to the general principle concerning actions having a double effect. But one causes a direct sterilization, and therefore an illicit one, whenever one stops ovulation in order to preserve the uterus and the organism from the consequences of a pregnancy which they are not able to stand."8
Where the conduct of war is concerned,
Page 4
recent documents of the magisterium have insisted on what theologians refer to as non-combatant immunity or the principle of discrimination. Thus Pius XII, after stating that an aggrieved nation may licitly turn to warfare as a last defensive resort, immediately rejected a use of nuclear weapons which "entirely escapes from the control of man" and represents "the pure and simple annihilation of all human life within the radius of action."9 The Second Vatican Council condemned as a crime against God and man "any act of war aimed indiscriminately at the destruction of entire cities...''10 The principle of discrimination proposed in such statements has commonly been explained and applied through the distinction direct-indirect.11
In 1968 Pope Paul VI made explicit use of the distinction between direct and indirect in Humanae Vitae. He stated: "We must once again declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun, and above all, directly willed and procured abortion, even if for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely ex-
Page 5
cluded as licit means of regulating birth."12 He immediately added: "Equally to be excluded, as the teaching authority of the Church has frequently declared, is direct sterilization, whether perpetual or temporary, whether of the man or of the woman."
More recently the "Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Hospitals," approved overwhelmingly by the American bishops in November 1971, refers repeatedly to the distinction between direct-indirect. Directive 10 reads: "The directly intended termination of any patient's life, even at his own request, is always morally wrong."13 Similarly, prohibited abortion is described as "the directly intended termination of pregnancy before viability." Furthermore, the revised Directives define what direct must be taken to mean: ''Every procedure whose sole immediate effect is the termination of pregnancy before viability is an abortion."
Look at similar books to Ambiguity in Moral Choice. We have selected literature similar in name and meaning in the hope of providing readers with more options to find new, interesting, not yet read works.
Discussion, reviews of the book Ambiguity in Moral Choice and just readers' own opinions. Leave your comments, write what you think about the work, its meaning or the main characters. Specify what exactly you liked and what you didn't like, and why you think so.
