Chapter XXI. Probable conscience preliminaries

OPINION is an act of the intellect which favors one line of a contradiction while fearing that the other may be erroneous, i.e., adherence must outweigh fear of error. An opinion ethically probable must rest on a good foundation, worthy of acceptance by a prudent man, even though there be fear of error. But the term “good foundation” varies with different systems: probabiliorism, probabilism, aequiprobabilism. Probabilism holds that a less probable opinion suffices, if only it is seriously probable. Probabiliorists reply: An opinion less probable, faced with a more probable opinion, is not, properly speaking, here and now probable, since the fear of error is greater than the inclination to adhere, and thus the opinion is merely voluntary, not rational. To solve this difficulty, let us note the divisions of probable opinion. A. In view of the object, opinion is

1. absolutely probable (i.e., in itself, where fear is based on lack of sufficient proof);

2. comparatively probable (i.e., as faced with an opposite probability, which engenders fear). An opinion comparatively probable may be most probable, or more probable, or equally probable, or less probable.

B. In view of the motive, opinion is

1. intrinsically probable (i.e., as seen by reason), or

2. extrinsically probable (i.e., as based on the authority of approved teachers).

What is meant by “the safer opinion?” The safer opinion is 319 that which favors the law. The less safe opinion is that which favors liberty. Hence the more probable opinion is not always the safer.

What is meant by “the more probable opinion?” It is that opinion which rests on the more solid reasons. Here appears clearly the distinction between probabilism and probabiliorism. Probabiliorism holds that the foundation necessary for an opinion ethically probable is not to be found except in a more probable opinion, because the opinion less probable, when faced with an opinion more probable, is no longer ethically probable. If proposition A is to me probably true, then proposition B, opposed to it contradictorily, is not probable, but probably false. When probabilists argue that the opinion less probable can still be accepted as seriously probable, the probabiliorists reply thus: Opinion, by its very nature, cannot abstract from the fear raised by the opposite opinion. Hence an opinion wherein fear of error predominates is not rationally and ethically probable, and can be accepted only by going against the virtue of prudence.

THE USE OF PROBABILITY

First conclusion. The use of probability is illicit when there is danger of an evil absolutely to be avoided. Proof of this thesis, commonly admitted, hes in the condemnation of laxism.’ Probability is condemned in dealing with the four following cases.

1. In conferring the sacraments. As far as we can, we are bound to safeguard the validity of the sacraments; otherwise we are in danger of inflicting grave harm on our neighbor, and of being irreverent.

2. In assuring salvation. In peril of eternal damnation, the safer part must be chosen. The following proposition has been condemned: The infidel is excused from infidelity if he is led by a less probable opinion.? The unbeliever is bound

PROBABLE CONSCIENCE 321 to search for the truth and to pray. He sins against faith if he does not use the means necessary for reaching it. Thus St. Alphonsus.

3- In the certain rights of a third person. We must favor the accused man as long as crime has not been proved. Even in civil cases the judge is bound by the more probable opinion. The laxist view, that he can follow an opinion less probable, has been condemned.’

4. In dangers spiritual or temporal. We are not allowed, without grave necessity, to run the risk of probable death (say, by taking a doubtfully poisoned drink).

These four cases limit the reflex principle that a dubious law does not bind. The general principle runs thus: Where law and obligation are certain, the principle of probability does not apply.

A THOMISTIC FORMULATION ¢

Probability is illicit in matters where the measure of action is an objective medium, that is, correspondence, not to the interior dispositions of the agent, but to external reality. My neighbor's rights are an objective medium not dependent on my conscience. If I owe him one hundred dollars, no probability can change that amount.

By contrast, in matters of fortitude and temperance, we determine the golden mean, not objectively, but subjectively, by the agent’s interior dispositions, passions, and age. The measure of food and drink varies with age, season, and occupation. Here lies the field of prudence, and prudence operates among probabilities. But, let us repeat, the objective medium which rules justice, rules likewise the four cases treated above, where the safer part must always be chosen.

Second conclusion. Probabilism is licit when we are not dealing with matters excepted in the foregoing conclusion. Here lies the field of prudence, which measures the proper

proportion of act to agent. But here, too, we find extremes that have been condemned, namely, rigorism and laxism. Rigorism says that, in doubt, the safer side, the side which favors law, is always to be followed. Rigorism * forbids us to follow even the most probable of probable opinions, even when the very existence of the law is dubious. How unreasonable! Such a system would make life itself intolerable. Laxism ê speaks thus: For prudent action, a tenuous probability suffices. But, we ask, is it a mark of prudent men to be guided by tenuous probabilities? A conscience thus guided would be a conscience practically doubtful, and hence illicit. Excluding these extremes, we find three systems admitted in the Church.

1. Probabiliorism, which will depart from a safe view only for a more probable view. It urges two reasons. First, the less probable is not really probable. Secondly, we would thus be in danger of transgressing the law.

g. Aequiprobabilism, which says we are allowed to abandon the safe view when an equally probable view is in possession. Hence, in doubt concerning the existence of a law, we can follow the aequiprobabilism in favor of liberty, and in doubt concerning the cessation of law, we are to follow the opinion equally probable in favor of the law. This system, impugned by Billuart and admitted by Father Beaudouin, is really in harmony with the views of St. Thomas, and is supported by the great authority of St. Alphonsus, who is a doctor of the Church. This system is based on the principles of possession and presumption, perfected by prudence acting in conformity with right will and right intention. As man is, so man wills.

3. Probabilism, which holds that we are allowed to follow any view that is seriously probable, since a dubious law does not bind. This rule, they add, is not a norm of perfection, but the lowest degree of obligation.

Here we must demur. This system offends, not only per-

PROBABLE CONSCIENCE 323 fection, but the very essence of prudence, which is not a mere counsel, but a strict obligation. The prudent man, since he is bound to act licitly, is likewise bound to seek and follow the truth, or then to stay as closely as he can to the truth. To act otherwise is to favor laxism. '

Against probabilism stands the great authority of St. Alphonsus, who, beginning as a probabilist, ended by confuting probabilism. Liberty, against a law in possession, is not a liberty which liberates. While we are free to choose a lesser good, we are not free to look upon a probable obligation as no obligation.

FIFTH PART

THE PASSIONS