Lesson 2: What is Morally Relevant? How Do We Reason Morally?

AGENDA

• Logic of the Syllabus
• Method of Case Analysis
• Discussion of Case #1: Campus Labor Action Project

Logic of the Syllabus

Process:

• Board Exercise: Teleological and Deontological Thinking (secular and religious examples of each)
• Basic Problems of the Moral Life: (1) How to resolve conflicts among goods? (2) How to develop patterns of good behavior (what some call character or virtue) so as not to think about the moral life only as a series of judgments about good and evil actions?
• Suggestion for a Resolution: The basic structure of all moral action is teleological (informed by some combination of lower and higher [or secular and religious] goods, and we encounter various deontological moments when the goods we pursue conflict with each other or when our pursuits conflict with another person’s pursuits. These deontological moments are resolved by appeal to certain principles to sort out these conflicts (themselves either secular or religious). [P. Ricoeur] In each case, we must consider why we have made the particular value judgments we have made and whether our judgments are correct or not.
• Practical Corollary: We must admit that there are real debates about what constitutes a real as opposed to an apparent goods and how pursuit of the former requires a certain moral stance toward the latter. This also involves judgments about whether there can ever really be tragic (that is to say, not well resolved) moral conflicts. Coming to understand how individuals and institutions debate real vs. apparent goods, the reasons given to defend certain goods, and the principles invoked to guide their realization is the work of ethics.

Syllabus Divided into Five Parts:

1. Moral Theology Close to Home (in which we are going to examine a couple of cases to illustrate the proposition that everyone, person or institution, has a vision for what the good life is and what specific kinds of actions help or hinder one in developing into a good person or organization; we will also consider the question of what counts as a morally relevant issue and whether part of what counts as developing one’s moral character is to learn to see issues as morally relevant (that is, of grave importance, things about which you ought to take a stand and argue with those who do not agree with you)
2. Sources for Moral Theology: Scripture, Tradition, Reason and Experience (based on Outler's formulation of the so-called "Wesleyan Quadrilateral" with one or more case studies to illustrate how each source is employed in making moral decisions)
3. Categories of Moral Theology: The Human Person (in which we will examine several categories that the Catholic tradition has taken as important for thinking about people as moral beings, living in a complex but ethically intelligible world—categories such as Love, Happiness, Virtue, Freedom, Law, Conscience and so on)
4. Categories for Moral Theology: Church Community (in which we will look at ideas that have arisen in Christian (not just Catholic) theology about how the Church as a community should interact with the rest of the world—so we will look at categories that would appear to be bridge concepts between those who identify themselves as Christians and those who do not in talking about moral matters—ideas such as justice, wisdom, the value of human life in all its variety and the common good).
5. Your group projects (case design, analysis and presentation)

Method for Case Analysis

1. In this class, I want to introduce you to a method of analyzing cases that is related to but not the same as the application of general moral principles to cases. It looks at principles and situations in a slightly different way, by looking at five dimensions of moral analysis [adapted from W. Schweiker, Responsibility and Christian Ethics (Cambridge, 1995)]. This method for analyzing a case also holds a distinctive place for theology (which the previous case method often did not because of its focus on the sinfulness of particular acts).
2. Here theology makes a distinctive contribution to each dimension of moral analysis because it gives us tools for looking at situations, values, principles, and judgments in a new way. The method itself is also distinctly theological because it posits that the human being cannot be reduced to one act or one dimension of our thinking about persons.
3. Example: To introduce you to this method of analysis, I am going to call on a run of the mill but nonetheless important example that began to make it into our campus newspapers and even national newspapers: that is, the use by employers and also university officials of websites such as “MySpace” or “Facebook” to gather information on prospective employees and on the happenings on campus that might be in violation university regulations. As an aside, this would become less of an issue if students (and others) were to take advantage of available privacy settings.
1. Also consider this a little bit of in loco parentis advice: if you use this medium, please turn on the privacy settings; also realize that, in this age of digital cameras, whatever you do in a public setting (such as a football game or a bar) might be captured on a digital camera and posted on someone else’s Facebook page. Although I will not be watching, know that there are people at this university and at your future places of employment who will.
4. The first dimension is the descriptive (or interpretive or hermeneutical) dimension. It asks you to begin by looking at a particular situation or problem and asking the question, “What is going on here? What is the best way to describe the problem in which I find myself?” What are the different ways to describe this situation?
   1. Violation of student privacy?
   2. Snooping and eavesdropping on a student’s personal life?
   3. For university officials, it is an instance of imprudent student behavior that ought to be discouraged and the student should learn a lesson now before it really damages their job prospects.
   4. It is a legal and legitimate tool for the university to police the actions of its residents in such a way?
   5. Is this activity an instance of employers using all legal means to gather information about their employees so they can have reasonable assurance about their character? For that matter, it might be helpful to think about whether such on-line social spaces assume there is such a thing as character (or are there only images of isolated actions).
   6. Is there any particular theological point that emerges as we start to describe the situation?

   On the one hand, what is really going on is that the university or an employer thinks that it can actually overcome a basic level of sinfulness and corruptness that affects all human moral behavior; in other words, that it has some hope of forming the moral character of the people that study or work there.

   On the other hand, one could say that what is really going on here is that students think they are entitled to a time of life that does not count in the final equation, that there should at least be a period of four years where they are free from the demands of morality, where even if they believe in God they can count on God’s infinite mercy to the point that they can behave however they want without consequence (this is, by the way, known in Catholic theology as the sin of presumption, that we know ahead of time God’s will and how God will treat us). It can reveal a particular theology, of a God who is all treats and no tests.

   One could also say that there seems to be a basic human need to invent pictures or representations of oneself that are more attractive and palatable (and less complex and less true) to potential friends. What does this say about one’s view of the nature of the human person? About the possibility of there being people of character that one can trust?

1. Question: What do you think is the best way to describe what is going on?
5. The second dimension is the normative dimension. This is the area in which we try to sort out what are the basic goods and values involved, as well as the principles or rules that ought to guide moral decisions.
1. One might say that there are goods to be realized on either side of this situation. The student hopes for a place where she or he might post certain information (verbal or visual) about themselves, in the hope of keeping in touch with those they care about, perhaps also making new friends and thereby advancing their social life. Is human sociality a basic good that we ought to recognize and foster?
2. One might say that the safety and well-being of students is a good that universities must defend by any legal means.
3. One might say that employers are trying to realize the good of a workforce of ethical employees that are efficient and morally sensitive members of society. In light of all the recent corporate corruption scandals, is this not a legitimate good?
4. Clearly these goods are each legitimate in their own way. So what are the basic rules or principles that ought to govern the pursuit of these goods? Clearly, we can always revert to the maxim that the one with the power makes the rules. But this is not a morally compelling argument (more on this later). It is just the statement of what happens to be the case much of the time.
6. The third dimension is the practical dimension.
1. Given all these concerns, some resolution must occur. What is actually going to bring us to a resolution of this issue: Should university employees and prospective employers use Facebook as a way to find out information about student behavior?
2. Will this come about by mutual consensus about a course of action?
3. Will it come about by a change in university policy?
4. Will it be resolved by students only participating in such media with heightened awareness and maximized privacy protections?
5. Are some goods weighed more heavily than others and why? Are some basic rules (right to privacy) or goods (protection of students) going to take presence over others?
6. As an employer, what should I do if someone brings me this information? Should I try to collect it myself? Should it give me pause to question this person’s judgment? Are her or his actions just part of their undergraduate persona, assuming they plan to adopt a different one once they reach graduate and start to work for my company? If so, which is the real person? Which is the true character?
7. The fourth dimension is the fundamental dimension. It is called fundamental because in order for any kind of moral evaluation to be possible, we must assume certain things about human beings: namely, that they are free, that they are formed in their habits and by their societies (familial and otherwise) in which they were raised.
1. What does this case tell us about our basic understanding of the human person? Are people free? Do they have dignity? Are they ultimately bound for their own destruction? Are there ways of cultivating character beyond particular rules that guide life?
8. The fifth dimension is the sources for discernment (the meta-ethical dimension).
1. If one claims in the first dimension that a student has a right that her or his Facebook pages be private, on what basis is this judgment made? Personal expectation? Legal protection? (it is a public website) The expectation that all of the risky and riotous behavior of one’s college years ought not to count when prospective employers evaluate one?
2. Note that for each of the dimensions, but especially for the sources of discernment, the place of theological thinking becomes clear. Theology offers us a different set of sources for moral thinking, a different set of goods to be pursued, and a different way to organize those goods (ranking, distinguishing real from apparent goods), and a different set of principles to resolve conflicts among goods.
3. Yet there may also be areas of overlap between our attempts to analyze goods and principles through natural reason and our analyses that proceed from theological presuppositions. This is what Christian, especially Catholic, authors understand as the complementary of faith and reason, a topic to which we shall return.
9. Begin Analysis of Case #1: Campus Labor Action Project