Positive & negative morals

Submitted by CT (not verified) on Fri, 10/17/2008 - 03:13.
Professor Cahill's reflections miss an essential dimension of Catholic moral analysis, namely, the difference between negative moral norms and positive ones. Negative norms, so-named because of what is "not" to be done, bind on consciences semper et ad semper, that is, at all times and in every instance. Positive norms, by contrast, bind at all times but not in every instance. It is never morally permissible to kill an innocent, but the conditions of what constitutes a just wage, or fair housing, or support for the unwed requires the exercise of prudential reasoning and thus admits a variety of responses.

To suggest that the negative prohibition against the killing of the innocent is to be considered as equally compelling as the positive obligation to provide a liveable wage is to grotesquely confuse the matter. They are not equally binding on consciences in any case and thus not in matters concerning the coming election. Good people can differ on how to meet our positive obligations to meet the needs of the poor. There can be no difference among good people when considering the murder of the innocent, because such people, by willing even indirectly what is objectively grave evil, exclude themselves from the category of the good.

Any political party which deliberately facilitates the killing of innocent life on a routine basis thereby excludes itself from the realm of viable political options concerning the positive obligation to promote the common good.