Black and white, or gray?

FATHER TADEUSZ PACHOLCZYK

One widely-encountered idea today is that there is no black and white when it comes to morality, only a kind of "gray area."

This is often taken to mean that we really can't know with certainty what is right and wrong, allowing us to "push into the gray" as we make certain moral decisions that at first glance appear to be immoral.

The behavior of the semi-legendary figure of Robin Hood is sometimes mentioned as an example of this "gray area" phenomenon, since he was a character who would steal money (morally bad) for the purposes of helping the poor (morally good).

By focusing on the good intentions motivating our choices, and by arguing that morality is ambiguous and mostly "gray" anyway, a person can more easily justify and provide cover for morally problematic actions.  When we begin to scrutinize the claim that morality is "gray," however, we encounter significant problems and contradictions.

The romanticized exploits of Robin Hood, for example, end up providing little more than a "veil of gray" that quickly dissolves when we place ourselves in the first-person situation of being the victim of his thievery, having our own windows broken and our own goods plundered.  Those who have been robbed of their possessions will often describe afterwards, in vivid detail, the awful awareness of personal violation, the crushing of their feeling of security, etc.  In these circumstances, we see the moral problem with Robin Hood's depraved actions, and appreciate the direct, black and white character of the universal moral injunction against stealing.

Universal moral prohibitions are clearly at the heart of any discussion about the "grayness" of morality.  Many human actions, when freely chosen, will always be unacceptable.  These actions, referred to as "intrinsic evils," are immoral regardless of circumstance.  Adultery would be an example of an intrinsic evil.  Regardless of how much a married man may desire to be with a new romantic flame, and regardless of how terrible his current marriage and sex life may appear to be, the decision to have sexual relations with someone who is not his spouse will invariably constitute an act of moral depravity on his part.  Every wife who has suffered infidelity on the part of her husband, and every child who has seen the betrayal of their mother by their father can attest that there is no such thing as a "gray zone" for adultery.  Many people who recognize that an action may be black may still be tempted to think that because their intentions are white, the "gray" action may be done.  But good intentions cannot bleach the blackness of a deed.


Acknowledging the existence of intrinsic evils and recognizing the binding character of absolute moral prohibitions is an important part of our own moral growth and awakening.  Indeed, morality itself, as an inner determinant of man's character, is not fundamentally "gray" at all, but is, by its very nature, a code of black and white.  In the final analysis, the cult of moral grayness is too easily a revolt against fixed and essential moral values.

Many human actions, when freely chosen, will always be unacceptable. These actions, referred to as "intrinsic evils," are immoral regardless of circumstance.

Although fixed moral values must always guide our decisions, correctly applying a general moral principle to a particular situation will often require specific knowledge of the circumstances and details of that situation.

For example, I might have to grapple with the question of whether I have a moral duty to get out of bed and go to work in the morning.  Whenever a particular set of circumstances prevail (I am healthy; today is a workday; my employer expects me to be present at the workplace; my vehicle is functioning normally), then I would reasonably conclude that I have a moral duty to go to work because of the objective moral commitments I have as a company employee — and, likely, the other employees who would "take up the slack" would resent my absence.  Meanwhile, if I am very sick, I might reasonably conclude that I do not have a moral duty to go to work.  Of course, deciding to stay in bed all day out of mere laziness would constitute an objective failure in terms of my moral duty.  The question of my moral duty to go to work, then, is not a "gray area" at all, nor a matter of relative morals, but rather a question of careful discernment, weighing of variables, seeking to do the good, and so on.

In sum, the objective lines of our moral obligation may sometimes be difficult to discern, and may even appear gray at first glance, but when we sort out the relevant details and seek to purify our own motives, and become willing to submit to the binding character of absolute moral prohibitions, that gray haze can dissipate, enabling us to see the real moral lines that were there all along.

 

 



ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Father Tadeusz Pacholczyk, Ph. D. "Black and white, or gray?" Making Sense Out of Bioethics (April, 2012). 

Father Tad Pacholczyk, Ph. D. writes a monthly column, Making Sense Out of Bioethics, which appears in various diocesan newspapers across the country.  This article is reprinted with permission of the author, Rev. Tadeusz Pacholczyk, Ph. D.

The National Catholic Bioethics Center (NCBC) has a long history of addressing ethical issues in the life sciences and medicine.  Established in 1972, the Center is engaged in education, research, consultation, and publishing to promote and safeguard the dignity of the human person in health care and the life sciences.  The Center is unique among bioethics organizations in that its message derives from the official teaching of the Catholic Church: drawing on the unique Catholic moral tradition that acknowledges the unity of faith and reason and builds on the solid foundation of natural law. 

The Center publishes two journals (Ethics & Medics and The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly) and at least one book annually on issues such as physician-assisted suicide, abortion, cloning, and embryonic stem cell research.  Educational programs include the National Catholic Certification Program in Health Care Ethics and a variety of seminars and other events. 
 
Inspired by the harmony of faith and reason, the Quarterly unites faith in Christ to reasoned and rigorous reflection upon the findings of the empirical and experimental sciences.  While the Quarterly is committed to publishing material that is consonant with the magisterium of the Catholic Church, it remains open to other faiths and to secular viewpoints in the spirit of informed dialogue. 

THE AUTHOR

Father Tadeusz Pacholczyk earned a Ph. D. in Neuroscience from Yale University.  Father Tad did post-doctoral research at Massachusetts General Hospital/ Harvard Medical School.  He subsequently studied in Rome where he did advanced studies in theology and in bioethics.  He is a priest of the diocese of Fall River, MA, and serves as the Director of Education at The National Catholic Bioethics Center in Philadelphia.  Father Tadeusz Pacholczyk is a member of the advisory board of the Catholic Education Resource Center.  See http://www.FatherTad.com.

Copyright © 2012 Rev. Tadeusz Pacholczyk, Ph.D.




Subscribe to CERC's Weekly E-Letter

 

 

Not all articles published on CERC are the objects of official Church teaching, but these are supplied to provide supplementary information.