Introduction to Special Ethics

On What Special Ethics Is Based, and What It Seeks

Special ethics is based on general ethics and seeks the application and implementation of its conclusions.

From What Does Special Ethics Proceed

Special ethics proceeds from two concepts: from the concept of virtue and from the concept of duty. Both flow from the moral principles of the Gospel law. In the first case, special ethics shows how virtue in its realization is manifested and confirmed in the various relations of man to God, to his neighbor, and to himself. In the second case, it derives and defines the specific duties that are derived from the absolute fundamental duties.

Special ethics, in the first case, becomes a special doctrine of virtues, that is, a special teaching about virtues. In the second case, it becomes a special doctrine of duties, that is, a special teaching about duties. They differ from one another essentially, because the doctrine of virtues deals with the voluntary fulfillment of the innate moral law, as interpreted by the intellect of the Gospel law—that is, with the perfect and enduring agreement and harmony of man’s will with the divine will, the moral ideal—whereas the doctrine of duties deals with the obligatory fulfillment of the Gospel law.

Concerning the Moral Good

What is the moral good?

The morally good action.[1]

What does a morally good action presuppose?

A morally good action presupposes three things: (a) conscience of the moral law, (b) arousal of moral feeling, and (c) free will.

What follows from this?

It follows that moral actions, in order to be perfect moral actions, must proceed from the cooperation of all the moral faculties and must conform both internally and externally to the moral law.

In all morally good actions, all the faculties of the soul cooperate equally.

Not because in a given good action sometimes moral knowledge of the law may prevail, and then the action is a legally good action, as imposed by the law; sometimes moral feeling, when the action is a morally good action as dictated by good intention; and sometimes free will, when the action is absolutely good as actualized by the moral idea. Examples: An example of a legally good action is acting according to the commandments. to show mercy, to do what is just, and to speak truth. The morally good action consists in doing morally good deeds not commanded by the law, such as the example of the Samaritan who showed mercy to the man who fell among robbers. A morally good action belongs to free will when it is done neither by command of law nor by the sudden arousal of conscience from some representation that stirs up conscience, but from free will setting out from the concept of the absolute good—as dying for the salvation of others, for the common good, for the Church, for the nation, for the state, for society, for the good, for the true, and so on. From such a particular dominance of the soul’s powers in morally good actions arises a difference in the qualitative value of actions; and from this comes their different estimation. Accordingly, the actions of the gnostic are good in a purely legal sense, since they are done out of necessity and obligation, without the arousal of feeling or the eager cooperation of the will. But the actions of the emotional faculty are morally good actions, or rather morally good actions as dictates of a pure and good choice of the volitional faculty are absolutely morally good actions, manifesting the perfect identification of the will with the will of God and the cooperation of the soul’s powers; because in free will both knowledge and emotion work together.

On Morality

What is morality?

Morality is a concept expressing the relation of the moral being to the moral law.

In how many ways is it understood?

Morality is understood in two ways, in a more general and in a more particular sense: in the more general sense the word denotes the innate tendency of the soul to be united with God, and in the more particular sense the actual conformity of the will and action of man to the moral law. According to these two senses, the morality of the human being can be defined in different ways. According to the first sense, the human being can be called a moral being, as having moral faculties through which he is able to become moral, to know, to desire, and to will the good. According to the second sense, the human being is called a moral being when he freely wills and acts in accordance with the moral law, so that he may become moral.

On Moral Accountability.

What is moral accountability?

Moral accountability is the imputation of sin to someone who acts with awareness and voluntarily contrary to the moral law.

Moral accountability for a person’s actions is a consequence of his moral freedom; because the morally free person, having free will and knowledge of the moral worth or unworthiness of his actions, is able either to do them or not to do them; and by willing and acting he becomes morally responsible for his actions.

What actions are counted as sins?

a.) Those committed with knowledge and with correct awareness of their opposition to the divine law.

“The striving to be united with the center, God, constitutes morality” (Schelling).

even against a conscience that forbids something mistakenly (Romans 14:23) because whoever acts contrary to conscience intends to sin and acts against the divine law that forbids every consent and inclination toward what is believed to be evil, even if by deception; for sin is judged by the consent of the will of the one acting (Romans 14:14).

Which actions are not counted as sins?

a) those done without awareness of their opposition to the divine law, and b) those done involuntarily and with sorrow through external compulsion—these are not counted as sin to the one who does them (¹).

Are there actions that have no relation to ethics or to the moral law, for which the one who does them is not accountable?

No, because even actions that are neither commanded by the moral law nor forbidden cannot be considered morally indifferent, on account of the continuous and unbreakable relation of the moral law to moral freedom, and of the person to society. For this reason there cannot be any action that does not relate to the moral law and does not entail moral accountability.

How should sins committed not from intention or from erroneous judgment be regarded?

As sins, but of lesser guilt. Scripture says: The one who knew and did not do the will of his master will be beaten with many blows, but the one who did not know, yet did things deserving of blows, will be beaten with few. (Luke 12:47).

The New Testament charges people with sin for every action performed in a state of sobriety and with free will, and teaches that a person will be held accountable on the day of judgment.

Likewise, the New Testament counts as sins both desire with consent (Matt. 5:27, John 5:19), and also inaction toward the doing of good (1 Pet. 3:11), as well as consent or any kind of evil assistance (Matt. 9:4 and 1 Tim. 5:22).

Clement of Alexandria says that the involuntary is not judged. For this reason, one thing happens through ignorance, another through necessity.

By what verbs does Holy Scripture express the concept of imputation?

By two verbs: ‘I reckon’ and ‘I set.’ (Mark 15:28; 1 Corinthians 13:11; 2 Timothy 4:16; Acts 7:60).

On the Evaluation and Imputation of Others’ Moral Actions

No: the New Testament shows in many places that it is very difficult and hard for someone to judge rightly and safely concerning the moral worth or unworthiness of the actions of others, and it exhorts us to be lenient and reserved in our moral judgments about other people. (Matthew 7:1). “Judge not, that you be not judged.” (Romans 14:1). “Let not the one who eats despise the one who does not eat, and let not the one who does not eat judge the one who eats, for God has received him.” “Who are you to judge another’s servant?” “But the one who judges me is the Lord. Therefore judge nothing before the time.” (1 Corinthians 4:4)