As we saw in the
previous posting on this subject, given ordinary circumstances, moral
questions tend to get away from the gray shadings and drift into black and
white. They never really get there, of
course, but as a general rule, as Fulton Sheen was fond of saying, “Right is
right if nobody does it, wrong is wrong if everybody does it.”
 |
| Fulton Sheen |
The problem with
general rules, however, is that particular circumstances tend to get in the
way. When that happens, it is essential
to remember that we derive the general from the particular, not the other way
around. Thus, an actual human being
takes precedence over the abstraction of the collective, and a particular act
takes precedence over a general rule.
Circumstances
necessarily change how general norms are applied in particular
circumstances. Forgetting that and
attempting to apply a rule without qualification in all circumstances leads
either to anarchy and chaos or to the tyranny of a Dracos in which all
infractions of all rules are punished with death.
The issue is made
even more complex when we take into account the fact that human beings are
neither mere individuals nor indistinguishable members of the collective. Human beings are what Aristotle called
“political animals” — individuals who naturally live in consciously organized
societies and an institutional environment.
This causes
serious problems when those institutions are flawed, and individuals find it
difficult and sometimes even impossible to do what is right, or even in some
circumstances survive. As Pius XI summarized
the problem by giving an example, “It happens all too
frequently, however, under the salary system, that individual employers are
helpless to ensure justice.” (Divini Redemptoris, § 53.)
 |
| William Ferree |
In his pamphlet, Introduction
to Social Justice, CESJ co-founder Father William J. Ferree,
S.M., Ph.D. addressed this seemingly insoluble problem. As he said,
Third Characteristic: Nothing is Impossible
Another characteristic of Social Justice, which was already pointed
out in Chapter Two, is that in Social Justice there is never any such thing as helplessness. No problem is ever too big or
too complex, no field is ever too vast, for the methods of this Social Justice.
Problems that were agonizing in the past and were simply dodged, even by
serious and virtuous people, can now be solved with ease by any school child.
Lest this statement seem too extreme, let us take an actual example of such an
insoluble problem of the past.
A Common Problem
The following problem was proposed on a national radio hookup:
I know many businessmen, lawyers,
physicians, who lament the trend to the unethical in the special worlds in
which they operate. They tell me that the tide is running against them, that
too many of their rivals have reduced business ethics and professional ethics
to three principles: 1. Everybody is doing it; 2. If you don’t do it, someone
else will; and 3. You can’t do business nowadays with old-fashioned principles.
Especially in the metropolitan cities, they say, the degeneration is obvious.
They blame this set of persons and that, but they all seem to agree that
decline, if not actual decay, is upon us.
“It’s easy enough,” they add, “for you
preachers to tell us to stand firm, to hew to the line, and all that. But we
have families to support, homes to maintain, food and clothing to buy . . . .
We must do what the others do or be sunk. The crowd is running all one way; we
cannot forever buck the stream!”
This is a sincere and straightforward statement of a problem as
common as any to be met at the present time. In fact, it is an understatement:
to complete the picture we should add that the laws of our secularized society
are usually in favor of the crowd which is running all one way! It is not too
hard to see that this is identically the same problem which Pope Pius XI
presented in a passage which we have quoted several times: “It happens all too
frequently, under the salary system, that the individual employer is helpless
to insure justice.”
The radio preacher [yes, it was Fulton Sheen] happened to be a rather pronounced individualist, and the best answer
he could give to his own problem was the following: “Right is right if nobody
does it. Wrong is wrong if everybody does it. What the businessman needs, and
what the professional man needs is a new declaration of independence.”
No Solution
 |
| Pius XI |
Notice that the first part of this answer dodges the question. The
businessman had said in effect, that he as an individual was helpless to insure
justice. He knew the system was wrong, but he did not know how to buck it. The
only information contained in the answer was that there is such a thing as right and wrong. If the businessman had not
known that perfectly well before he stated his problem, he
certainly would not have called his system wrong!
The second part of the reply is more to the point; but that “new
declaration of independence” which sounds so nice in a speech, is precisely what the businessman meant by
the last three words of his complaint: “We must do what the others do or be sunk.” This certainly is not much
help!
It is difficult to see what other answers could have been given from
an individualistic point of view. The speaker could of course have told the
businessman to “use his own judgment,” or to “do the best he can,” but this
once more is not much help; and the businessman is looking for help. The only
other solution would be to tell the businessman that since he has to make a living, and has to pay his debts and meet his other
obligations, he should go ahead with his business, since its injustice is
something which he cannot help, and which is only indirectly willed. This may
indeed offer the businessman a chance to save his individual soul while
precariously balancing on a “good intention” in the midst of evil, but it
certainly does nothing to remedy the evil.
The Right Answer
No other answer, except a frank admission that the problem is
insoluble, could be given from an individualistic
point of view. The answer which Pope Pius XI gave to his own statement of the
same problem was not individualistic at all — it was social; namely, that the employer who found himself thus helpless
to insure justice had a duty to organize,
among the employers, institutions which would make the practice of justice
possible. How this organization would be carried out we have seen in the simple
example of social action above (the unjust community).
Once more notice how directly and clearly the Pope solved that
problem which was absolutely insoluble
to the radio speaker who had an individualistic philosophy. That is why
individuals, at least from now on, will not be very bright. Not only that, but
they will be downright wrong-failing against Social Justice.
Admittedly,
Father Ferree was a “little” unfair to Sheen.
In extenuation, Ferree was making a point and found it convenient to use
a handy example that, taken out of context, illustrated that point very
well. The fact is that Sheen was
absolutely right in saying that “Right is right if nobody does it, wrong is
wrong if everybody does it.” The point
Sheen was making is that there are and will always be absolute standards of
right and wrong, and circumstances cannot change the object morality of any
wrong act. Ethics are not situational.
The point Ferree
was making, however, is that the situation is not hopeless. The ethical businessman doesn’t have to face
ruin for doing the right thing, or a stretch in Purgatory for doing what is
legal but wrong. Most moral questions
are far from black and white, and determining not merely what is right in a
particular situation, but what is best as well as right can be complicated.
Thus, what Father
Ferree referred to was the whole paragraph from Divini Redemptoris in which Pius XI gave the solution, not just the
problem:
It happens all too frequently, however, under the salary
system, that individual employers are helpless to ensure justice unless, with a
view to its practice, they organize institutions the object of which is to
prevent competition incompatible with fair treatment for the workers. Where
this is true, it is the duty of contractors and employers to support and
promote such necessary organizations as normal instruments enabling them to
fulfill their obligations of justice. But the laborers too must be mindful of
their duty to love and deal fairly with their employers, and persuade
themselves that there is no better means of safeguarding their own
interests. (Divini Redemptoris, § 53.)
In other words, and with all due respect to Fulton Sheen
(who had most of the answer, just not enough of it — and, frankly, Sheen gave
his radio talk before Divini Redemptoris
was released . . . not even he knew the future!) the way to respond to and
solve a social problem involving
institutions is socially, by
organizing and undertaking actions for the common good.
Yes, it is essential that people be virtuous as
individuals, doing good and avoiding evil, but they must also organize and work
on their institutions to ensure that the social environment is conducive to
people being able to live virtuously — and that is what social justice is all
about.
#30#