“Hoose’s Proportionalism promotes immoral behaviour” Evaluate this view

Proportionalism, like any normative ethic, seeks to provide moral agents with a guide to act in a moral way. However due to its emphasis on the notion of proportionate reason, it may be questioned as to whether a proportionalist approach may be seen to promote immoral behaviour. Central to this claim is Proportionalism’s out and out rejection of pre-moral evil due to the notion of ontic evil.
One line of argument in favour of the view that proportionalism promotes immoral behaviour is the fact that its rejection of pre-moral evil means that it denies that any acts can be intrinsically evil. However it can be argued that the average person’s moral compass tells them that certain actions are evil and can never be justified on proportionalist grounds. For example rape and genocide should not even be considered on proportionalist grounds and should just be condemned as intrinsically evil. How could a proportionalist like Hoose dare to say that Hitler’s holocaust of the Jews was not an example of pre-moral evil? Whilst Hoose may justify his viewpoint based on the existence of ontic evil, this does not seem to be compatible with a fundamentally moral point of view of the average person.
In favour of this view, proportionalism has been condemned by the Catholic Church. For example Pope John Paul II (1990-2005) in his encyclical ‘Veritatis Splendor’ stated that proportionalism is wrong on the grounds that it denies that any action can be in and of itself be intrinsically evil. One of the most poignant examples of this is that proportionalism can be seen to support capital punishment in situations such like when it concerns a serial killer who has offended repeatedly whilst in prison. However Pope Francis stated “today the death is inadmissible, no matter how serious the crime committed” which supports God’s 8^thcommandment of ‘do not kill’. This rule is absolutist as it comes from God himself therefore it seems as though proportionalism promotes what is considered to be immoral behaviour based on the theological rules of the Catholic Church.
On the other hand, one line of argument in favour of the view that Proportionalism does not promote immoral behaviour is that it seems to be based on a common sense approach. The main proportionalist maxim, as set out by Bernhard Hoose is “it is never right to go against a principle unless there is a proportionate reason that would justify it” therefore this supports that there are certain times where it would be obvious that the best course of action would be to break deontological theological rules. For example if a person with axe in their hand knocked on your door and asked if your friend was inside it would go against your intuition to tell the truth and say that your friend is hiding in the bathroom upstairs. Unlike a deontological ethic like Natural Law, Proportionalism would not insist that you had not tell the truth and betray your friend but instead would quite obviously see that the value in breaking the rule ‘do not lie’ obviously outweighs the disvalue because you are upholding the friendship you have with your friend by protecting their life. It seems here as though proportionalism does not promote immoral behaviour.
Furthermore another line of argument in support of the view that Proportionalism does not promote immoral behaviour is that it is a hybrid of the deontological Natural Law and teleological ethics. This means that proportionalism is relativistic and consequentialist so it judges the potential outcomes of each ethical decision rather than applying the general principle of casuistry to every ethical situation just the same. For example it may be acceptable to break the deontological rule ‘do not lie’ in a situation where you were lying to Nazi soldiers about where a group of Jews were in order to save them from being killed. This more flexible approach to ethics seems to promote more moral behaviour than the rigid deontological approach owned by ethical theories such as Divine command and Natural Law in which there would never be justifiable grounds to lie. 
In addition to this line of argument, proportionalism can be said to promote moral behaviour because of the fact that proportionate reason must incorporate the intention of creating agape. Indeed, in order to justify a right act, Hoose explained that the intention of the person must be to create an outcome of agape. If somebody acts based on agape then it does seem as though Proportionalism as the moral agent is aiming at producing selfless loving outcomes. For example, to break the deontological theological rule of ‘do not steal’, one must intend to steal out of agape in order to justify their action as a right act. An example of this would be if someone wanted to steal food to feed their family; here, the moral agent’s intention is one which is born out selfless (agape) love for his family and his desire for them to survive and be healthy. Therefore, with its basis on agape, it can be seen that Proportionalism is underpinned by an approach which is inherently moral- the promotion of agape.
This being said, it may be said that Proportionalism perhaps still promotes immoral behaviour because of its basis as being founded in the doctrines of Catholic Theology- Aquinas’ Natural Law. The deontological moral laws as set out in Catholic theology may not be an applicable basis of an ethical theory as Gareth Moore posits ‘everyone is different’. Therefore, perhaps an ethical theory which strays further away from religion would be more applicable to everyone as accepting religious teachings is matter of a subjectivity. Consequently, a normative ethic such as Mill’s Rule Determinism may seem to promote ethical behaviour from a more objective point of view since it can be argued that everyone can relate to idea of producing the greatest happiness for the greatest number in conjunction with certain rules and the harm principle.
Lastly, perhaps the main reason that Proportionalism can be seen to promote immoral behaviour can be found in its widely teleological approach. Whilst this can be considered to be a refreshing approach to ethics in comparison with rigid deontological theories such as natural law, the consequentialist nature of Proportionalism means that it is effectively based on guess work. In order to weigh up the value and disvalue of an action, one must predict the outcomes of certain actions. Whilst there is of course an element of this in human thinking in general, an ethical system based on such predictions can seem to be unjust especially considering the example of capital punishment. If Proportionalism can be seen to promote capital punishment on the grounds that getting rid of a murderer can prevent further innocent deaths, this involves predicting that the person will not change and stop their murdering ways. Moreover, there are people who have been on death row and even executed even though they were afterwards found to be innocent; since 1973, 144 people on death row have been exonerated in the USA. Therefore, since Proportionalism can be seen to support such an immoral act on the basis of guess work, one could conclude that it does indeed promote immoral behaviour.In conclusion, despite the advantages of Proportionalism in its form as a hybrid of teleology and deontology, it does seem as though its foundation in Natural Law and its possible justifying of certain actions, widely considered to be inherently evil and immoral, means that it promotes immoral behaviour. 
In conclusion, despite the advantages of Proportionalism in its form as a hybrid of teleology and deontology, it does seem as though its foundation in Natural Law and its possible justifying of certain actions, widely considered to be inherently evil and immoral, means that it promotes immoral behaviour.