EnglandReligious StudiesSyllabus dot point

Does Hoose's proportionalism rescue natural law by allowing a proportionate reason to override a moral rule, or does it collapse into consequentialism?

Component 3 Hoose's proportionalism: the distinction between moral and pre-moral (ontic) goods and evils, the idea of a proportionate reason, its relation to natural law, and its application to life and death, with strengths and weaknesses.

An Eduqas Component 3 (Religion and Ethics) guide to Bernard Hoose's proportionalism. Covers the distinction between moral and pre-moral (ontic) goods and evils, the principle that there must be a proportionate reason to permit a pre-moral evil, its relation to natural law, and the charge that it collapses into consequentialism, with the evaluation the exam rewards.

Generated by Claude Opus 4.816 min answerUpdated 2026-06-02

Reviewed by: AI editorial process; not yet individually human-reviewed

Have a quick question? Jump to the Q&A page

Quick answer

Proportionalism, associated with Bernard Hoose, is a Catholic development of natural law designed to add flexibility while keeping its framework. Its central principle is: "It is never right to go against a principle unless there is a proportionate reason which would justify it." The key move is a distinction between two kinds of good and evil. Moral goods and evils concern the rightness or wrongness of an act as a whole, taking in the intention and circumstances. Pre-moral (or ontic) goods and evils are the physical, non-moral features of an act considered in themselves, such as the death, pain or loss it causes, apart from intention. Causing a pre-moral evil, like killing or causing pain, is not yet a moral evil; it becomes morally wrong only if it is done without a proportionate reason. So the natural-law precepts ("do not kill") hold as general norms, but a proportionate reason can justify departing from them in particular cases. Hoose argues this is faithful to natural law, to the doctrine of double effect, and to the deeper Christian tradition, and that it avoids both the rigidity of strict natural law and the rule-free subjectivity of situation ethics. The central objection, pressed by the Vatican in Veritatis Splendor (1993), is that by weighing pre-moral goods against evils it becomes consequentialism in disguise and abandons exceptionless moral norms, so that even intrinsically evil acts could be justified. Defenders reply that it weighs pre-moral, not moral, goods, retains intrinsic moral evils, and only asks for a proportionate reason rather than the maximisation of good. AO2 marks come from judging whether proportionalism is a legitimate development of natural law or disguised consequentialism, and concluding.

Jump to a section

What this dot point is asking
The answer
Examples in context
Try this

What this dot point is asking

Eduqas Component 3 (Theme 2, Deontological Ethics) studies Bernard Hoose's proportionalism as a development of natural law. You learn its central principle (there must be a proportionate reason to act against a moral rule), the key distinction between moral and pre-moral (ontic) goods and evils, its relation to natural law and double effect, its application to life and death, and the charge that it collapses into consequentialism. The exam rewards explaining the theory precisely (AO1) and evaluating whether it is a legitimate development or disguised consequentialism (AO2).

The answer

The central principle

Moral and pre-moral (ontic) goods and evils

Relation to natural law and double effect

Hoose presents proportionalism as continuous with natural law and especially with the doctrine of double effect, which already allows a foreseen bad effect for a proportionate good. Proportionalism, in effect, generalises the "proportionate reason" beyond the strict conditions of double effect: it does not require that the bad effect be merely foreseen rather than intended, so long as there is a proportionate reason. This makes it more flexible than strict natural law while (Hoose argues) remaining within the same tradition of weighing goods by reason.

Application, strengths and weaknesses

Applied to life and death, proportionalism can permit, for example, an abortion or an act of euthanasia where there is a proportionate reason (a grave threat, unbearable suffering), which strict natural law forbids absolutely. Strengths: it keeps the natural-law framework and a sense of intrinsic wrong while adding flexibility and compassion for hard cases; it is less subjective than situation ethics. Weaknesses: the Vatican (in Veritatis Splendor, 1993) condemned it as disguised consequentialism that abandons exceptionless norms; judging proportionate reasons can be uncertain; and it may, critics say, justify acts the tradition calls intrinsically evil.

Examples in context

Building an AO2 paragraph on whether proportionalism collapses into consequentialism

step 1 State the claim precisely

State, do not narrate: "The objection holds that proportionalism is consequentialism in disguise: by permitting a pre-moral evil like killing whenever there is a proportionate reason, it judges acts by weighing their good and bad outcomes, just as utilitarianism does, and so abandons the exceptionless moral norms natural law upholds."

step 2 Put the strongest reply against it

Bring in the response: "Defenders reply that the parallel is overstated: proportionalism weighs pre-moral goods and evils, not moral ones, retains the category of intrinsically morally evil acts, and asks only whether there is a proportionate reason rather than which act maximises overall good, so it is closer to the doctrine of double effect than to Bentham's calculus."

step 3 Weigh the exchange

Judge it: "There is a real difference of structure, since proportionalism keeps the natural-law framework and does not aim at maximising happiness; but the objection has bite, because once a proportionate reason can override any precept, the weighing of pre-moral goods against evils looks functionally like a consequentialist calculation, and the line between 'proportionate reason' and 'best outcome' is hard to hold."

step 4 Reach a justified conclusion

Close with a defended verdict: "Proportionalism is not simply consequentialism but it leans heavily towards it: it preserves the natural-law structure and the moral/pre-moral distinction, so it is not Benthamite utilitarianism, yet its central reliance on weighing proportionate reasons gives it a consequentialist character that explains the Vatican's alarm, so it is best judged a consequence-sensitive development of natural law rather than a purely deontological one." A reasoned conclusion reaches the top band.

Try this

Q1. Explain how proportionalism develops Aquinas's natural law. [part (a), AO1, 20 marks]

What the marker wants. Accurate account of the proportionate-reason principle, the moral/pre-moral distinction, and its relation to double effect, organised and using specialist terms. AO1 band.

Q2. "Proportionalism is a better ethical theory than natural law for dealing with life and death." Evaluate this view. [part (b), AO2, 30 marks]

Cue. Weigh proportionalism's flexibility and compassion in hard cases against natural law's clarity and the charge that proportionalism collapses into consequentialism, and judge. AO2 band, the larger 30-mark tariff.

Exam-style practice questions

Practice questions written in the style of WJEC Eduqas exam questions on this dot point, with worked answer explainers. The year tag is the paper they imitate, not the source.

Eduqas A120 2019 (style)20 marksExplain Hoose's proportionalism, including the distinction between moral and pre-moral goods. [part (a), AO1, 20 marks]

Show worked answer →

A part (a) AO1 question on the five-band scheme. Explain the theory accurately.

Proportionalism (Bernard Hoose) is a development of natural law. Its central idea: "It is never right to go against a principle unless there is a proportionate reason which would justify it." Hoose distinguishes moral goods/evils (the rightness or wrongness of an act as a whole, involving intention and circumstances) from pre-moral (ontic) goods/evils (the physical features of an act, such as the death or pain it causes, considered apart from intention). Causing a pre-moral evil (e.g. killing) is not yet a moral evil; it becomes wrong only if done without a proportionate reason. So the natural-law precepts hold as a general rule, but a proportionate reason can justify a departure. Hoose claims this is faithful to natural law and to the deeper Christian tradition (and to double effect). A top band answer explains the proportionate-reason principle and the moral/pre-moral distinction.

Eduqas A120 2021 (style)20 marks"Proportionalism is just consequentialism in disguise." Evaluate this view. [part (b), AO2, the full Eduqas tariff is 30 marks; the worked answer below is scaled to a 20-mark exemplar.]

Show worked answer →

A part (b) AO2 question; the top band rewards balanced argument and a justified conclusion.

For the view: by weighing pre-moral goods against evils to find a proportionate reason, proportionalism seems to judge acts by their outcomes, which is consequentialism; critics (and the Vatican, in Veritatis Splendor) argue it abandons absolute moral norms and exceptionless rules, opening the door to justifying intrinsically evil acts. Against: proportionalism keeps the natural-law framework and intrinsic moral evils; it weighs pre-moral, not moral, goods, and only asks whether there is a proportionate reason, not simply which act maximises good; it is closer to double effect than to utilitarianism. Weigh whether weighing proportionate reasons really is consequentialist, and conclude. Links to natural law.

Related dot points

Sources & how we know this

Eduqas A Level Religious Studies specification (A120QS) — WJEC Eduqas (2016)
Bernard Hoose, Proportionalism: The American Debate and its European Roots — Georgetown University Press (1987)