Case 3. A New Method of Forming One's Conscience in Doubt

According to a certain recent author,¹ the question whether workmen may lawfully act according to a trade-union rule which is probably unjust can be resolved by comparing the injuries which would follow for the workmen if they did not act in that way with the injuries to the employers which would follow if they did act in that way. For it is lawful to choose the lesser of two evils.

1 Dr. W. McDonald, Principles of Moral Science, p. 213.

Accordingly, a certain workmen’s association forbids bricklayers to lay more than five hundred bricks daily, although they could easily lay seven hundred. If we suppose that the rule is probably unjust, and that a greater injury would come to the workmen than to the employers unless they obey the association, Titius, a priest, would like to know whether it is lawful for them to act according to the given rule recently established. Hence it is asked:

1. Is it always lawful to follow a probable opinion?

2. If it is not always lawful, how can probabilism be called a universal norm?

3. What is to be said concerning the case?

1. Is it always allowed to follow a probable opinion?

No, it is only allowed to follow a probable opinion when the only question is whether the action be sinful or not. If there is also question of an end which must be gained, or a probability of infringing the certain right of another, or if reverence for a sacrament forbids one to expose it to the danger of being null and void by using a probable opinion, the use of a probable opinion in these circumstances is not lawful.

2. How, then, can probabilism be called a universal rule?

Probabilism is a universal rule for forming a certain conscience in cases where there is no certain law which forbids the action contemplated. But there is a certain law which forbids one to jeopardize the attainment of an end which must be gained. The law which makes the attainment of the end obligatory makes it also obligatory to use safe means, not merely probable means, to attain it. And so an Anglican who thinks that Anglicanism is probably the true form of Christianity is not justified in exposing his salvation to risk by remaining an Anglican. The certain - law of justice forbids me to do anything which will probably injure the undoubted right of another. Reverence for God and for sacred things forbids me to expose a sacrament to the probable danger of nullity without necessity, and then necessity does away with the irreverence.

3. What is to be said to the case?

The rule that we may choose the less of two evils is applicable where we are under the necessity of choosing one of them, as in perplexities of conscience. Thus if a priest remembers at the Canon when saying Mass that he is not fasting, he may think that he will commit sin if he goes on by violating the law of the Church about fasting celebration, and also that he will sin if he breaks off the Mass to the scandal of the faithful and against the rubrics. He must either go on or stop. In such a perplexity sound morality teaches that he must choose the lesser evil. But if two courses of action are proposed to me, both wrong, and there is no necessity for me to adopt either, I must avoid both. Not only greater evil, but less evil also is to be avoided. The maxim that of two evils we must choose the less is inapplicable here. And so I must not violate the right of another in order to save myself from ruin. I could not lawfully steal five pounds from a millionaire even though it would save me from bankruptcy, while the loss would not be felt by him. The doctrine proposed in the case appears to offend against these principles of sound morality.

A bricklayers’ union makes a new rule that no member must lay more than 500 bricks daily, though 700 could be laid easily. This rule is supposed here to be probably unjust, because by contract the bricklayers bind themselves to do a fair day’s work. The employer has a certain right to a fair day’s work; 500 bricks a day is probably not a fair day’s work; and so the bricklayers do not fulfil the terms of their contract entered into before the new rule was made, and sin against justice. It is as if I paid a debt of five pounds with a bank-note which is probably forged. It will be no defence for the bricklayers to say that they will suffer more than the employer if they do not obey the rule laid down by the union. Even if this were conceded, it would not be lawful to injure the employer in order to save themselves from loss.