c

c

 

The conscience, as the inherent knowledge of right and wrong,
cannot stand
alone as a sovereign arbiter of morals. Every Christian is
obligated to form his conscience by the Divine Moral Law and
the Mind of Christ as revealed in Holy Scriptures, and by the
teaching and Tradition of the Church. We hold that when the
Christian conscience is thus properly informed and ruled, it must
affirm the following moral principles:

 
All people, individually and collectively, are responsible to their
Creator for their acts, motives, thoughts and words, since "we
must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ . . ."

Every human being, from the time of his conception, is a
creature and child of God, made in His image and likeness, an
infinitely precious soul; and that the unjustifiable or inexcusable
taking of life is always sinful.

 !"
All people are bound by the dictates of the Natural Law and by
the revealed Will of God, insofar as they can discern them.

The God-given sacramental bond in marriage between one man
and one woman is God's loving provision for procreation and
family life, and sexual activity is to be practiced only within the
bonds of Holy Matrimony.

#
We recognize that man, as inheritor of original sin, is "very far
gone from original righteousness," and as a rebel against God's
authority is liable to His righteous judgment.

" "#
We recognize, too, that God loves His children and particularly
has shown it forth in the redemptive work of our Lord Jesus
Christ, and that man cannot be saved by any effort of his own,
but by the Grace of God, through repentance and acceptance of
God's forgiveness.
$# !
#
¢
   

 







 



  

 
 

 
 






 
 


 



  



  

V%# #

Equity

Equality

Neutrality

Consistency

Dessert

Need

"Fair Share"
n the context of intractable conflict, the terms 'justice' and "Fair Play"
'fairness' are often used interchangeably.
Standing
Taken in its broader sense, justice is action in accordance with the
requirements of some law.[1] Some maintain that justice stems Trust
from God's will or command, while others believe that justice is
inherent in nature itself. Still others believe that justice consists of
rules common to all humanity that emerge out of some sort of
consensus. This sort of justice is often thought of as something higher than a society's legal
system. t is in those cases where an action seems to violate some universal rule of conduct that
we are likely to call it "unjust."

n its narrower sense, justice is fairness. t is action that pays due regard to the proper interests,
property, and safety of one's fellows.[2] While justice in the broader sense is often thought of as
transcendental, justice as fairness is more context-bound. Parties concerned with fairness
typically strive to work out something comfortable and adopt procedures that resemble rules of a
game. They work to ensure that people receive their "fair share" of benefits and burdens and
adhere to a system of "fair play."

The principles of justice and fairness can be thought of as rules of "fair play" for issues of social
justice. Whether they turn out to be grounded in universal laws or ones that are more context-
bound, these principles determine the way in which the various types of justice are carried out.
For example, principles of distributive justice determine what counts as a "fair share" of the
public assets, while principles of retributive or restorative justice shape our response to activity
that violates a society's rules of "fair play." Social justice requires both that the rules be fair, and
also that people play by the rules.

People often frame justice issues in terms of fairness and invoke principles of justice and fairness
to explain their satisfaction or dissatisfaction with their state or government.[3] They want
institutions to treat them fairly and to operate according to fair rules. What constitutes fair
treatment and fair rules is often expressed by a variety of justice principles.

!#&'&'&
The principles of equity, equality, and need are most relevant in the context of distributive
justice, but might play a role in a variety of social justice issues. These principles all appeal to
the notion of dessert, the idea that fair treatment is a matter of giving people what they deserve.
n general, people deserve to be rewarded for their effort and productivity, punished for their
transgressions, treated as equal persons, and have their basic needs met. However, because these
principles may come into conflict, it is often difficult to achieve all of these goals
simultaneously.

According to the principle of equity, a fair economic system is one that distributes goods to
individuals in proportion to their input. While input typically comes in the form of productivity,
ability or talent might also play a role. People who produce more or better products...either by
working harder, or by being more talented, this argument goes, should be paid more for their
efforts than should people who produce less. Note that this sort of distribution may not succeed
in meeting the needs of all members of society.

n addition, the idea that justice requires the unequal treatment of unequals is in tension with the
principle of equality. This principle of egalitarianism suggests that the fairest allocation is one
that distributes benefits and burdens equally among all parties. f there are profits of $100,000,
and 10 people in the company, the principle of equality would suggest that everyone would get
$10,000. This principle, however, ignores differences in effort, talent, and productivity. Also,
because people have different needs, an equal initial distribution may not result in an equal
outcome.

A principle of need, on the other hand, proposes that we strive for an equal  in which all
society or group members get what they need. Thus poor people would get more money, and
richer people would get less. This principle is sometimes criticized because it does not recognize
differences in productive contributions or distinguish between real needs and manifested needs.

Some have suggested that equity, equality, and need are not principles adopted for their own
sake but rather ones endorsed to advance some social goal.[4] For example, while equity tends to
foster productivity, principles of equality and need tend to stress the importance of positive
interpersonal relationships and a sense of belonging among society members.

#&&(&#
Principles of justice and fairness are also central to procedural, retributive, and restorative
justice. Such principles are supposed to ensure procedures that generate unbiased, consistent, and
reliable decisions. Here the focus is on carrying out set rules in a fair manner so that a just
outcome might be reached. Fair procedures are central to the legitimacy of decisions reached and
individuals' acceptance of those decisions.

To ensure fair procedures, both in the context of legal proceedings as well as in negotiation and
mediation, the third party carrying out those procedures must be impartial. This means they must
make an honest, unbiased decision based on appropriate information.[5] For example, judges
should be impartial, and facilitators should not exhibit any prejudice that gives one party unfair
advantages. The rules themselves should also be impartial so that they do not favor some people
over others from the outset.

An unbiased, universally applied procedure, whether it serves to distribute wealth or deliver

decisions, can ensure impartiality as well as consistency. The principle of consistency proposes
that "the distinction of some versus others should reflect genuine aspects of personal identity
rather than extraneous features of the differentiating mechanism itself."[6] n other words, the
institutional mechanism in question should treat like cases alike and ensure a level playing field
for all parties.

The principle of standing suggests that people value their membership in a group and that
societal institutions and decision-making procedures should affirm their status as members.[7]
For example, it might follow from this principle that all stakeholders should have a voice in the
decision-making process. n particular, disadvantaged members of a group or society should be
empowered and given an opportunity to be heard. When decision-making procedures treat
people with respect and dignity, they feel affirmed. A central premise of restorative justice, for
example, is that those directly affected by the offense should have a voice and representation in
the decision-making process.

Related to issues of respect and dignity is the principle of trust. One measure of fairness is
whether society members believe that authorities are concerned with their well being and needs.
People's judgments of procedural fairness result from perceptions that they have been treated
"honestly, openly, and with consideration."[8] f they believe that the authority took their
viewpoints into account and tried to treat them fairly, they are more likely to engage in the
broader social system.

¢$
#$c#V
t may seem to be a simple matter of common sense that justice is central to any well-functioning
society. However, the question of what justice is, exactly, and how it is achieved are more
difficult matters. The principles of justice and fairness point to ideas of fair treatment and "fair
play" that should govern all modes of exchange and interaction in a society. They serve as
guidelines for carrying out justice.

Not surprisingly, each of the principles of justice and fairness can be applied in a variety of
contexts. For example, the principle of dessert applies not only in the distribution of wealth, but
also in the distribution of punishments. Likewise, the principles of impartiality and consistency
might apply to both an economic system and a decision-making body. And the principle of need
plays a central role in both distributive and restorative justice.

n addition, we can also understand conflict in terms of tension that arises between the different
justice principles. Conflict about what is just might be expressed as conflict about which
principle of justice should be applied in a given situation or how that principle should be
implemented.[9] The ways of thinking about justice can have conflicting implications, leading to
disputes about fairness. For example, some believe that an equitable distribution is the most fair,
while others insist that a society's assets should be allocated according to need. A conflict may
arise surrounding whether to base their economic system on equal opportunity or social welfare.
Similarly, some believe that those who violate the rights of others should receive their just
desserts, while others believe that our focus should be on the needs of victims and offenders. A
conflict may arise about whether a retributive or restorative justice mechanism is most fair.

When principles of justice operate ineffectively or not at all, confidence in society's institutions
may be undermined. Citizens or group members may feel alienated and withdraw their
commitment to those "unjust" institutions. Or, they may rebel or begin a revolution in order to
create new institutions. f justice principles are applied effectively, on the other hand, that society
will tend to be more stable and its members will feel satisfied and secure.
à







This principle aims to provide specific guidelines for determining when it is morally
permissible to perform an action in pursuit of a good end in full knowledge that the
action will also bring about bad results. The principle has its historical roots in the
medieval natural law tradition, especially in the thought of Thomas Aquinas (1225?-
1274), and has been refined both in its general formulation and in its application by
generations of Catholic moral theologians. Although there has been significant
disagreement about the precise formulation of this principle, it generally states that, in
cases where a contemplated action has both good effects and bad effects, the action is
permissible only if it is not wrong in itself and if it does not require that one directly
intend the evil result. t has many obvious applications to morally complex cases in
which one cannot achieve a particular desired good result without also bringing about
some clear evil. The principle of double effect, once largely confined to discussions
by Catholic moral theologians, in recent years has figured prominently in the
discussion of both ethical theory and applied ethics by a broad range of contemporary
philosophers.

m 



   Classical formulations of the principle of double effect
require that four conditions be met if the action in question is to be morally
permissible: first, that the action contemplated be in itself either morally good or
morally indifferent; second, that the bad result not be directly intended; third, that the
good result not be a direct causal result of the bad result; and fourth, that the good
result be "proportionate to" the bad result. Supporters of the principle argue that, in
situations of "double effect" where all these conditions are met, the action under
consideration is morally permissible despite the bad result.

Each of these conditions has, however, been a matter of considerable controversy. The
first condition requires some criterion independent of an evaluation of consequences
for determining the moral character of the proposed action. Moral philosophers who
believe that the moral character of an action is exhaustively determined by the nature
of its consequences will, of course, object to this requirement.

The second condition assumes that a sharp distinction can be drawn between directly
intending a result and merely foreseeing it. This requirement has been the subject of
much debate. Some philosophers argue that if an agent recognizes that a certain
consequence will inevitably follow from a contemplated action, then in performing
the action the agent must be intending the consequence. Others argue, less strongly,
that defenders of double effect have failed to delineate a practicable criterion for
marking off the intended from the merely foreseen. Defenders of the principle
typically respond by pointing to the implicit recognition of the moral significance of
this distinction in the moral practices of ordinary persons.

The third condition writes into the principle of double effect the so-called Pauline
principle, "One should never do evil so that good may come." Again, philosophers
who reject the view that actions can have a moral character independent of their
consequences will find this condition unacceptable.

The fourth condition, by bringing in the notion of proportionality, has seemed to many
philosophers to undercut the absolutism presupposed by the first condition. Although
the first three conditions have a decidedly anticonsequentialist character, the fourth
may appear to embrace consequentialist reasoning. Defenders of the principle
typically attempt to accommodate the consequentialist character of the fourth
condition while ensuring that it does not render the more complex features of the
principle irrelevant.

› The principle of double effect has played a significant role in the
discussion of many difficult normative questions. ts most prominent applications are
in medical ethics, where it figures prominently in attempts to distinguish among
permissible and impermissible procedures in a range of obstetrical cases. The Catholic
magisterium has argued that the principle allows one to distinguish morally among
cases where a pregnancy may need to be ended in order to preserve the life of the
mother. The principle is alleged to allow the removal of a life-threatening cancerous
uterus, even though this procedure will bring the death of a fetus, on the grounds that
in this case the death of the fetus is not "directly" intended. The principle disallows
cases, however, in which a craniotomy (the crushing of the fetus's skull) is required to
preserve a pregnant woman's life, on the grounds that here a genuine evil, the death of
the fetus, is "directly" intended. There there is significant disagreement, even among
those philosophers who accept the principle, about the cogency of this application.
Some philosophers and theologians, by emphasizing the fourth, "proportionality,"
condition, argue that the greater value attaching to the pregnant woman's life makes
even craniotomy morally acceptable. Others fail to see a morally significant difference
between the merely "foreseen" death of the fetus in the cancerous uterus case and the
"directly" intended death in the craniotomy case.

The #; also known as the #; the #

, abbreviated to !!; )#(; or simply , is a set of ethical
criteria for evaluating the permissibility of acting when one's otherwise legitimate act (for
example, relieving a terminally ill patient's pain) will also cause an effect one would normally be
obliged to avoid (for example, the patient's death.) Double-effect originates in Thomas Aquinas's
treatment of homicidal self-defense (p
  , a-ae Q. 64, art. 7).

This set of criteria states that an action having foreseen harmful effects practically inseparable
from the good effect is justifiable if upon satisfaction of the following:

=? the nature of the act is itself good, or at least morally neutral;

=? the agent intends the good effect and not the bad either as a means to the good or as an
end itself;
=? the good effect outweighs the bad effect in circumstances sufficiently grave to justify
causing the bad effect and the agent exercises due diligence to minimize the harm.

|

 

  


The # or #*# is the idea in politics and political science that of
two bad choices, one isn't as bad as the other, and should be chosen over the one that is a greater
threat.

Originally, "lesser evil" was a Cold War-era pragmatic foreign policy principle used by the
United States and, to a lesser extent, several other countries. The principle dealt with the United
States's attitude regarding how third-world dictators should be handled, and was closely related
to the Kirkpatrick Doctrine of Jeane Kirkpatrick. By contrast, the lesser of two evils principle is
today most commonly used in reference to electoral politics, particularly in Western nations, and
perhaps in the United States more than anywhere else. When popular opinion in the United
States is confronted with what is often seen as two main candidates ² normally Democratic and
Republican in the modern era ² that are substantially similar ideologically, politically, and/or in
their economic programmes, a voter is often advised to choose the "lesser of two evils" to avoid
having the supposedly "greater evil" get into office and wreak havoc on society.

¢

   
 

The principle of veracity, a term often used in the medical profession, refers to the ethics of
telling the truth and is one guide of the conduct of medical practitioners. While this principle is
not a law, violation of ethical principles, including veracity, will result in a loss of credibility and
respect with other professionals and patients alike. Because medical personnel hold a position of
trust in the community, they are held to high standards which promote accountability and overall
professionalism.