First principles are the foundation for understanding theories or concepts, especially in things such as philosophy and the hard sciences. First principles ground thought and are fundamental (intrinsic) to the science. Since they are intrinsic, they are self-evident and cannot be contradicted or the whole theory falls apart.
When we think of ethics in today’s culture, we think of the notion that the morality of an act is entirely dependent on the intention (or end) of the decision. This is where we get the phrase “the end justifies the means.”
Thus, if you ask most ethicists today, they will tell you there is no moral quality in an action, rather, morality depends entirely on WHY (for what purpose) the action was made. This separation of moral quality from an action has led to what is now called Utilitarianism. This theory ultimately says any act can be deemed moral or acceptable if it is more useful or beneficial to the individual or majority, regardless of the other party possibly involved.
Good is to be done and evil is to be avoided
To truly understand how nonsensical utilitarianism is, we need to understand that ethics is a science and thus contains first principles. Now in colloquial terms we think of “science” in the sense of the scientific method which is used in the natural sciences. But for our argument, we will be looking at “science” in the broader sense, as Aristotle puts “the knowledge of a thing from its cause.”
For something to be a science it needs a material object or the subject matter with which the science is concerned, ‘the study of X’. Ethics would need to follow this same idea, and it does. We can say that Ethics is the study of human action. Now, you can say “Well, we have plenty of sciences that study human action, what makes ethics different?” The second thing a science needs is a formal object, which is what helps us narrow the focus, and in ethics that is the morality of human behavior/action.
Now that we understand that Ethics is a science- the study of the morality of human action- we now come to what we said above; there must be some guiding, first, principles that are fundamental to the science. The first of which in ethics is: good should be done and evil should be avoided. This principle cannot be contradicted, therefore if there is an action that is intrinsically (always, in every instance) evil, it must be avoided with no exceptions.
Are there actions that are in and of themselves, evil?
The Catechism of the Catholic Church tells us “The morality of human acts depends on: the object chosen; the end in view or the intention; the circumstances of the action. The object, the intention, and the circumstances make up the “sources,” or constitutive elements, of the morality of human acts.” (CCC 1750)
Now if the object or the end are wrong (evil), then the morality can never be justified. In the matter of the circumstances though St. Thomas Aquinas says, “A circumstance, so long as it is but a circumstance, does not specify an action, since thus it is a mere accident: but when it becomes a principal condition of the object, then it does specify the action.” (ST I-II, Q18, A10) Therefore, a circumstance can increase or decrease the moral goodness/evil of an act but isn’t intrinsic to the morality of the act.
So, since the morality of an act depends formally on the object and the end, are there acts that are in and of themselves intrinsically evil, wherefore the object of the action can never be ordered to the good (remembering the first principle)?
Well for proof of this God himself gave these acts to Moses on stone tablets. We now call them the Ten Commandments, and they specify actions which in and of themselves are evil. Thus, with this understanding, these intrinsically evil acts cannot be committed no matter the intent. At this very basic level, utilitarianism gets it wrong. Here is a thought experiment as an example…
If you were given a knife and an ultimatum to either kill the man placed in front of you or you would be killed, the end of the action (saving your own life) would not alleviate the moral quality of murder being always wrong. Now we continue… what if not only you but your family would be killed if you didn’t kill the man in front of you? This question can be furthered down the line to not just you and your family but your friends, coworkers etc…
A utilitarian would say that at some point (even if this point is just the very beginning, you) you would be justified in killing that man; that because you had the intention of saving your own life it is morally acceptable to commit murder. But what does the Fifth Commandment say?
“Thou shalt not commit murder.” (This does not speak to your culpability though)
Therefore, in the science of ethics, or as we understand it, Natural Law Ethics, we know that if you kill that man, it would be morally corrupt regardless of the end in sight. And thus, we understand how utilitarian ethics is flawed. It comes to base morality more on what is intended and the perceived good than the moral object/quality of the action itself. It also doesn’t recognize the nature of acts, and some being evil to their core.. Anything can be justified or moral if you just intend something that may be good or at least slightly better than the act you had to commit to get there.
Truly, the flaws of utilitarianism
make it the ethics of nonsense.
Sadly, in today’s time, the majority of ‘ethics boards’ and ‘ethicists’ fall under the ruse of utilitarianism. This is the root cause of many of the evils we see allowed in society today. Hold steadfast to the Truths of our Church and stand firmly on the foundation which God has given us. Pray this day that our culture comes to see good and evil for what they are and learns to seek that which is the ultimate good, God.
A Holy Legacy 