Individual and Social Ethics

several classifications of it, and have contrasted it with precept. We have seen that conscience is the judgment of practical reason in matters of right and wrong, and not some mysterious inner voice like Kant’s Categorical Imperative. We have noticed the necessity of man’s acting with a certain conscience, and we have studied the direct and the indirect method of banishing doubt and achieving certitude. We have spoken of Probabilism. We have defined the morality of human acts, and have investigated its determinants. We have indicated the properties of human acts as imputability, merit, and demerit; and we have seen that human acts tend to consequences called virtues and vices. a) Terms; b) The Individual’s Rights and Duties; c) Social Rights and Duties.

a) Terms

The term Individual Ethics means the philosophical science of morality as it affects human persons individually. Social Ethics is the philosophical science of morality as it affects groups of human beings: the family, the State, the Church, the whole race.

Ethics as here applied in the domains of the individual and of society speaks ever of rights and duties. A right is a moral power residing in a person, or in unified groups of persons, of doing, possessing, or exacting something. A duty is the correlative of right; it is the moral obligation of doing or avoiding something. Rights and duties are of different classifications. A right or duty is natural or positive according to its basis in the natural law or in positive law. For every right and duty rests ultimately on law, which is the norm of all human activity. A man’s right to life, and his right to freedom from enslavement, are natural rights. A man’s duty to keep the speed laws is a positive duty; his duty to respect the life and property of others is a natural duty.—A right is either a right of property or a right of jurisdiction. A right of property is a right of disposing of possessions at will. A right of jurisdiction is a right of rule. My right to my books and clothing is a property right. The right of the parent to be obeyed, of the judge to have his rulings enforced, of the teacher to be respected and attended, are jurisdictional rights.—A right is alienable when it may be surrendered in any circumstances; it is inalienable when it may not be surrendered except in extraordinary circumstances. The right to property is alienable, for property may be sold or given away. The right of parents to care for their children is inalienable. Inalienable right is also strict duty.—A right is juridical or perfect when it is strictly enjoined or supported by law and strict justice. A right is moral or im perfect (and constitutes a claim) when it is founded cm some other virtue than justice, usually on charity.—A duty is affirma tive when it exacts the doing of something; it is negative when it forbids the doing of something.

Rights have certain characteristics or properties. A right is enforceable, but good order requires that personal violence be employed only as a last resort A right is limited by the rights of others. When rights collide, that right prevails which is the more important or rests on the stronger title. Duties, too, have characteristics, chief of which is that certain duties admit exemption, of which we may state the principle as follows: No necessity exempts from a negative natural duty; extreme or grave neces sity exempts from an affirmative duty, provided there is no in volved violation of negative natural duty. Common or ordinary necessity never exempts from duty.

Rights and duties belong to persons. In this world, human beings alone are persons. Animals have neither rights nor duties. But this does not mean that we may treat animals cruelly or fawn upon them in an inordinate way. For we have rights and duties towards animals, or rather towards the owner of all animals who is God, and who has given them to us for our benefit

By cruelty to animals a man violates a negative natural duty to God, a duty which requires his abstaining from inordinate and inhuman conduct; and for such cruelty a man could even miss his eternal happiness and suffer eternal damnation. Where animals are not helpful but hurtful or bothersome (as flies and mosquitoes) they may be killed without the least blame. And where their death is for our use (as in supplying food or clothing) there is nothing inordinate in killing them. But wanton destruction, or mere meanness to animals is a violation of the fundamental duty of men to their Creator and Preserver. So too is a fondness for animals that makes them more important than human children.

b) The Individual’s Rights and Duties

Each man stands in essential relations to God and to fellow- men. And each man has the fundamental duty of living his own life rightly. Therefore, the rights and duties of the individual are those of each man towards his own life, towards God, towards neighbor. The question is rather of duties than of rights, but we recall that a right in one person is a duty in all others, for others must respect rights. And so we shall talk of duties (with involved rights) of individual man to God, to self, to neighbor.

(1) A Man’s Duties to God.—Man has a strict duty to face truth, for he has been furnished a mind to know truth; he has a strict duty to honor what his mind shows to be excellent, to love what he knows to be worthy, to be thankful for what he knows is a benefit, to be obedient to what he knows is just rule. Reason indicates the fact and the strictness of these duties. Now, God is Truth; God is all-excellent; God is all-lovable; God is the bestower of every good gift; God is the supreme ruler. Therefore, man must know God, he must honor God, he must love God, he must be grateful to God, he must obey God. In other words, each individual man must have the virtue of religion.

Further, each man must find and embrace the objective religion established by God as the one means for eternal salvation.

The duty of religion,—which sums up man’s duties to God, directly considered (although all duty rests ultimately on the Eternal Law, or God),—is here shown to be a natural duty. Reason makes it clear. And the converse of the duty “have the virtue of religion” is the negative natural duty (from which there is never an exemption) “do not be without religion.” The man who professes and practices no religion is in offense of the negative prescriptions of the natural law; he is guilty of evil, and vainly does he protest that he “does no harm” by his failure to live religiously. He does harm; harm to himself; harm by example to his neighbor; harm or insult to God.

Besides, since man, as reason shows, has the duty of living a life in conformity with the law of morals, the natural law, he must have religion. For without religion there is no solid morality. Without God, all-excellent, all-ruling, the prescriptions of law and even the Ten Commandments are but codes of etiquette. But to regard such basic morality as mere etiquette would turn the world into chaos. Hence, God must be recognized. And due recognition of God means religion, and,—so far as possible to the individual,—the objectively true religion. Every man has the strict duty of knowing the true religion and embracing it and living up to it

Religious indifferentism is therefore intolerable and immoral. Indifferentism is of two types, the one being an indifference to religion or no religion, the other being an indifference to this religion or that religion objectively considered. The man who says that it makes no difference whether a person practises religion or not is an indifferentist; so is the man who says all religions are equally good, all different paths to the same heaven. Both types of indifferentism are against the prescriptions of the natural law. Both types fail to face truth, to seek and know God, to honor and obey God, to love and thank God as He would be loved and thanked. Indifferentism of either type is the outgrowth of human laziness and absorption in worldly and selfish interests, even when these low motives are masked as tolerance. For we are not to tolerate our fellowmen and their practices; we are to love our fellowmen, and to do our best prudently and reasonably to bring them to true practice. This is the prescription of reason, of the natural law.

Religion as a virtue is subjective, it resides in a man as its sub ject. It is defined as the virtue which inclines a man to render constantly to God the honor and the homage that is due to Him. —Religion considered as an object is the system of truths, laws, and practices, which regulate a man’s worship of God. To have the true objective religion is a duty.

The exercise of religion is essentially divine worship. The chief acts of divine worship are devotion, prayer, adoration, sacrifice. The first two of these acts are fundamentally internal, the other two naturally express worship in an external way. Man has an internal and an external life. Both are from God. Both must recognize God. Hence, man is bound to exhibit to God both internal and external divine worship.

(2) A Man’s Duties to Himself.—The duties of a man in respect to himself are duties of soul and of body. Duties of soul are those of the mind or intellect, and those of the will, for intellect and will are the faculties or operating-powers of the soul. In point of intellect, man has the duty of knowing what is necessary for the attainment of his purpose in existing. Thus, man has the duty of knowing God, of knowing what makes acts morally good, of knowing how to keep his own acts morally good. For the rest, man does well to acquire such free (or non-necessary) knowledge as will enable him to live becomingly on earth and to support his dependents. This secondary duty is strict in some (as in those who have dependents) and less strict in others, and non-existent in an exceptional few. In point of the will, man must steadily choose what is morally right and good. Hence, he must love and serve God.

Duties of a man towards his body and its life, as well as towards certain other things connected more or less directly with life, are both positive and negative. Thus, a man must conserve life and bodily integrity (this is an inalienable right and a duty, and only exceptional circumstances which offer place for hero ism constitute an exemption or rather a higher interpretation of this duty). A man does not own his body. He cannot take his life, he cannot mutilate his body, he cannot unreasonably suffer its enslavement by his own will, he cannot sell it or its irreplaceable members. Here we see the negative side of the duty of a man towards his body and its life.

In addition to the goods of body and soul which man must preserve and not wantonly destroy, there are other goods which man has ordinarily the duty to procure and maintain. Such are his good name, his honorable status in life, sufficiency of means for decent support of self and dependents. If no injury to others is involved, a man may heroically sacrifice some or all of these goods for a higher motive and for his higher perfection.

(5) A Man5 9s Duties to His Neighbor .—Man has the dutyin justice of rendering to everyone what is due to him. With regard to a neighbor’s body and its life, man has the strict duty of respecting life, liberty, integrity of body. Man has also the negative natural duty (in justice)of avoiding injury to the neighbor on any of these scores except in the case of blameless self-defense against unjust attack. With regard to the soul of a neighbor, a man owes (in justice)_truth to the neighbor’s mind, and good (especially good example) to the neighbor’s will. Negatively, a man must abstain from all that would injure a neighbor in these matters. He must not deceive his neighbor, he must not lead him astray.

An important duty is that of telling truth and avoiding lies. A lie is a serious statement contrary to the knowledge (or the honest conviction) of the speaker. A lie is never lawful. There are no white lies, no innocent lies. Certain fictions, like that of Santa Claus, are not lies. They are not serious; they are jocose; and it is surprising how quickly the very young child enters into the spirit of the joke; a pleasant, jolly pretense. But a lie cannot be justified.

Concealment of truth from those who have no right to it, is another thing. A man who lies is like a man who offers counterfeit money for goods received; a man who legitimately conceals truth is like a man who keeps his money in his pocket and declines to buy. Concealment is unjust when the inquirer has a right to know the truth. Otherwise it is not unjust. Concealment is effected by silence, by diversion of the subject of conversation, by evasion. Concealment is necessary and a duty in case of secrets. But the so-called mental reservation is usually only a tricky lie, and is forbidden. Certain well-known formulas of speech (such as “I’m delighted to meet you” ; “Mr. Smith is not in” ; ‘Tm anxious about your sick brother” ) are everywhere recognized as formulas of politeness, and are not accepted as strict statements, necessarily true. To say that a man is not in when he is in is not true; but it is a universal human practice of dismissing a caller without offense, and it is not a lie. If the caller is deceived, this is not the fault of the speaker who uses a phrase which people everywhere perfectly understand in its real meaning.

With regard to a neighbor’s good name and honor, a man has a strict negative natural duty founded on justice; he must not injure a neighbor in these matters. Every man has a right to his good name until he loses it publicly. To tell truths to the hurt of a neighbor is the evil and sin of detraction; to tell harmful lies is the evil and sin of slander or calumny. Both evils call for such restitution as is possible by the person guilty of them.

With regard to a neighbor’s property, man has the negative natural duty of respecting it, and not causing injury by theft or action that would render it of less value. Stolen goods must be restored in themselves, their kind, or their equivalent, according to the measure of the thief s ability. Right to the private ownership of property, especially of the land, is a necessary right for man’s well-being. Theories such as Socialism and Communism are inept, unjust, and full of threat to peace and even to decent morals.—A person acquires just title to property by first occupation of what belongs to nobody; by finding, when the true owner is not discovered by the exercise of due effort; by accession or natural increase; by prescription; and by contract of premise or sale. Prescription is a process of transferring ownership ; the property of one may become the property of another who has possessed it for many years (the number set by civil law) in the full belief that it is his own, and who has some show of title for that mistaken belief. A contract is a method of transferring property; it is an agreement of transfer, and it begets an obligation in one or both of the parties agreeing. For a contract to be just and valid, it must be upon a matter properly subject to such transfer (one could not contract lawfully to deliver stolen goods for a price); the parties must be capable, not minors or others naturally or civilly incapacitated for making contracts; there must be full and free consent of the parties; there must be some formal sign of the consent, such as a signed document, or a public declaration before witnesses.

c) Social Rights and Duties

A society is a stable moral union of two or more persons established for the purpose of achieving a common end by the use of common means.

The whole human race is a society, and a natural society. All men are united in point of their common rational nature, the common ultimate end for which they were created, and the common means,—intellect and will,—with which they are furnished to attain that end. Often when people speak of “society” they mean the human race.

Within the human race there are many societies, some natu ral, some conventional or arbitrary (depending on the choice

RIGHTS AND DUTIES 389 of men who set them up), and one supernatural, namely, the true Church. Among natural societies the first and by far the most important is conjugal society, that is, the society of husband and wife, which normally turns soon into the family or the domestic society. Upon the family, as upon no other institution, rests the fabric of civilization and decent living on earth. Another important natural society is civil society or the State. The family, the State, and the Church are the outstanding societies. Among free or conventional societies, vocational groups and workmen’s unions are important societies.

(1) The Family.—The family has its first origin in conjugal society which is effected by marriage. No solid family can exist which is not founded upon a true, indissoluble marriage of one husband and one wife. Conjugal society is founded for the purpose of begetting and rearing children and for the mutual support and helpfulness of the spouses. It is not founded for romance alone, or for feelings, or for compatibility, or for a career. It is founded for the welfare of children and the peaceful happiness of the married couple. Here are its ends in their order of importance. Anything that conflicts with these ends conflicts with the very nature of marriage and of conjugal society, which is a natural institution, not to be tampered with by human enactments in the name (falsely assumed) of laws. Divorce is impossible, no matter what the law-courts say. The only divorce is effected by the death of one of the spouses; the other is then free to set up a new conjugal society. The marks of true marriage, the foundation of the family, are: unity, that is one husband and one wife during the time both live, and indissolubility or perpetuity without possibility of being dissolved or divorced. Reason manifests the necessity of these marks. For marriage is for the welfare of children (for their begetting and proper rearing), and without a true home which only monogamous marriage can secure, the welfare of children is not served. Also against the welfare of chil- dren is the horrible practice of birth control by artificial or unnatural means. The sole means of “controlling births” Hes in the free abstinence of the spouses.

Since the welfare of children is the first end or purpose of marriage and the family, it is manifest that the right and duty of educating children belongs to parents. The State is to furnish opportunity for the schooling of children, and it may compel delinquent parents to see that their children are given a minimum school training. Beyond this the State cannot lawfully go. For the State exists for families, not families for the State. The State cannot, without injustice, assume the control of education.

(2) The State is civil society. It is a perfect natural union of families established for their common good under a definite government and in a definite territory.

The State is a natural society, for it answers a natural need of men when many individuals and families are to live as neighbors and to work harmoniously together. The old theory of Rousseau, Hobbes, and others, that the State is an artificial institution set up by some social contract, is now defended nowhere. The State is called a perfect society because it has within itself all means of carrying out its purposes, and has no essential dependency on any similar natural society for its functions. Of course, the State depends on the family, for families constitute it; but it has no dependency on other States, but is complete in its own sphere among similar States. The form of government in a State is a matter of the choice of the people governed, at least in its origins. No form of government can be declared absolutely the best. Only a government relatively the best can be hoped for; that is, a government which is best in relation to the needs, temperament, geographical situation, and physical conditions, of a given people at a given time.

The State has authority, for no society can exist without authority. Since the State is a natural, and therefore a necessary, institution, its authority is fundamentally from the Author of

THE STATE 39i

Nature, from God. The limits of State authority are determined by its nature and purpose. The State has no right to interfere with the rights of individuals and of families in matters personal and private. It has no right to control the education of children, nor to herd families into homes of its choosing, nor to legislate in matters of religion or conscience. When families or citizens unlawfully extend their own rights, even when they try to justify such extension by the cry of “personal liberty” or “religious liberty,” it is sometimes lawful, sometimes imperative for the common good, that the State intervene; for such people are “making liberty a cloak for malice.” But when personal activities have not a bearing upon the common civic well-being, the State has no right to take command.

The State has the positive duty of protecting citizens and families and helping them in the exercise of their normal rights. It must remove obstacles to personal liberty, it must repress violations of the rights of its people, it must seek to keep off all that is harmful to itself and its family-members,—such things as wars, oppressive taxation, political trickery which is cancerous in its effect upon the body politic. It should help families and individuals in matters where these cannot help themselves; thus it should open and improve ports, rivers, canals, and national highways; it should conduct public works, especially when private enterprise fails to provide employment to many; it should maintain necessary offices and institutions, such as armed forces in adequate number, postal systems, customs offices; it should establish and carefully regulate to the best interests of all a system of monetary exchange. The State requires, for the task of maintaining all its useful institutions, the support of the citizens through equable taxation.

The State must be watchful to prevent ill and to foster good among its citizens. Because human nature is a fallen nature, abuse is ever tending to appear. The State has a connatural tendency towards absorbing too much power and taking over the rights of citizens in either a harsh or a tenderly paternal fashion.

Against this, both families and officers of State should be constantly on guard. Citizens should be loyal to their State, and alert to prevent its rule from turning into paternalism or into tyranny.

When a State is tyrannous beyond ordinary endurance, it is the right of the citizens to resist its evil activities, and, in last resort, to revolt and set up a new State. Of course, citizens must make many sacrifices and endure much, for the State is perfect only in a technical sense, and not in the full range of its effects upon the families and individuals that compose it Only when conditions become intolerable is revolution lawful, and then only when no other means of remedying evils exists or is available.

(3) The Church, that is, the one true Church,—is a perfect society, supernatural in character, set up on earth by God, for the teaching of eternal, necessary truth, and for the governing unto salvation of all mankind through human instruments consecrated to their task and divinely guided and protected.

Without offense, it may be plainly stated that only a Catholic has any true conception of “the Church/’ and only a Catholic uses that term with any definite meaning. For others it is a blanket-term, a term which signifies not one society, but a multitude of societies largely in disagreement. None the less, the Church as we have defined it is here in the world,_it is God’s own institution for the eternal welfare of man. It is manifestly every man’s strictest duty to find, to recognize, to enter, to live up to, the one true objective religion in the one true Church.

In the foggy modern conception of “the Church” is the source of the many resentments and the many erroneous opinions about the relations of “Church and State.” No one is in doubt about the State; every citizen is aware of it, and of its purpose, and of what its character ought to be. It is small wonder that people so clear in one conception and so muddled in the other should tend to stress the claims and the importance of what they know

THE CHURCH 393 and to minimize the place and function of what they foggily accept as a kind of necessary nuisance.

There is no true clash of interest or operation between Church and State. Each is a perfect society in its own sphere. But when the State, which is a human society, extends its authority unduly, as it often does, at the expense of the Church, which is superior, then the State is wrong and tyrannous. The State cannot set up its own Church, as has been done in England; for the true Church is not a human, but a divine institution. The State must not interfere with the Church in matters of spiritual import. Nor must the Church interfere with the State in what is purely temporal. The State must not ignore the Church, but must support its efforts and protect it The Church must not ignore the State, but must teach obedience to just civil authority as a matter of moral duty, and must foster sane patriotism, which is not high feeling but “a well-ordered love of country.”

It is the business of the State in its relations with other States to promote peace which, as St. Augustine says, is “the tranquillity of order.” War, or armed and active conflict between or among States, is sometimes a regrettable last resort for the establishing of justice. Therefore, there can be a just war. The conditions necessary for a just war are these: (a) that it be declared by competent authority for a just cause and that it be undertaken for an honest purpose; (b) that it be engaged in only when the most important issues are at stake and no other means exists to serve them; (c) that it be essentially a defensive activity and not an offensive one (though this does not involve a prohibition of offensive tactics during the actual prosecution of the war) ; (d) that there be a reasonable prospect of success in the war, else it is wrong to subject peoples to all the horror and misery of such a conflict (this does not make unlawful the heroic stand of a whole people willing to perish rather than endure great injustice; it merely forbids those in power from inflicting an unwelcome war when success is known to be impossible) ; (e) that the war be conducted in a manner approved by civilized peoples.

(4) Associations of Laboring Men are important free or conventional societies. Man 1ms a strict right, in the virtue of justice, to join with his fellowmen for the better attainment of worthy purposes which separated individuals could not otherwise well attain. Hence labor organizations are lawful, and any State would be tyrannous which sought to prevent or destroy them.

Labor organizations must constantly seek to have justice done to both members and employers. They must work for the payment of a just wage, they must also strive for the rendering of honest work. These organizations must therefore refrain from exorbitant demands, nor must they bring unnecessary hardships on people by going to extreme measures to obtain assent to trifling demands.

The just wage to which a laboring man is entitled should be such a return for honest labor as will enable a man to live decently and frugally in the circumstances of his times, to set up a family and take care of it, and to lay by something for a time of exceptional hardship (sickness, operations, deaths, births, unemployment, etc.). Therefore, a just wage is a living wage, a marrying wage, and a family wage. Employers who cannot pay such a wage have no right to be employers. Some closely cooperative method of owning and operating factories and other institutions of modern industry is doubtless the best method of insuring justice for employer and laborer alike.

To enforce justice, organizations of laboring men sometimes resort to strikes and boycotts. A strike is a cessation of labor by agreement of the workmen for the purpose of exacting just conditions for labor or just returns for labor. A boycott is a refusal to have business dealings with a certain institution, to compel its owners or operators to meet the demands of just dealing. The conditions for just strikes and boycotts may be summarily set forth as follows: (a) these extreme measures must not be under-

LABOR ASSOCIATIONS 395 taken except as a last reluctant resort when no other means of securing justice is available; (fe) they must promise some success, else it is wrong to inflict on men and their families the terrible hardships that often accompany such measures; (c) they must be undertaken only for the most important reasons, not for the enforcement of slight or trifling demands; (d) the prosecution of these measures must be kept free from acts of injustice, such as violence, destruction of property, etc.

Summary of the Article

In this Article we have defined the terms used in discussing individual and social ethics; we have seen the meaning of right, duty, property, jurisdiction. We have noted that rights and duties belong to persons alone. In special, we have considered the rights and duties of man, the individual, towards God, towards himself, and towards his neighbor. And we have considered social rights and duties of man in the family, the State, the Church, and in associations such as organizations of laboring men.