Avant-propos - Studia Moralia

202 TODD A. SALZMAN
means in asserting that, while general principles hold, their specific
application varies according to the unique context or circumstances?
Certainly revisionism would agree that unique aspects
make no difference to morality if those aspects are not
morally significant. However, GRISEZ does not provide a clear definition
for what he considers to be the “unique aspects of one’s
actions” or criteria for determining whether or not they affect
the morality of what one does. For if it is the case that “one’s
morally significant act will include only what one deliberately
chooses to do and permit – that is, what one understands about
what one is doing – and one’s practical understanding can be
wholly determined by moral principles,” 98 what purpose do specific
norms play? In addition, does not this open the door to
rampant subjectivism and voluntarism that the BGT clearly rejects?
For the BGT, it seems that dispensing from some (but not
all) of the “unique aspects of one’s action” is essential to posit
certain specific norms as absolutes and, therefore, as the appropriate
object of the secondary object of infallibility taught by the
ordinary magisterium.
Conclusion
Some have claimed that the methodological debate between
the BGT and revisionism is interminable due, in large part, to a
“theoretical gulf” between the principles and methods of each
theory. 99 An investigation into the methodological differences
between these two theories tends to support this claim. Not only
is it clear that the BGT and revisionism have very unique understandings
of Tradition and tradition as sources of moral
knowledge that shape their ethical theories, but also the other
Marriage and Condoms,” Ethics and Medics 13 (September 1988) 3-4. For revisionist
perspectives on this issue, see JAMES F. KEENAN, ed., Catholic Ethicists
on HIV/AIDS Prevention (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 2001).
98 GRISEZ, Christian Moral Principles 269.
99 See for example, GRISEZ and BOYLE, “Response to Our Critics and Our
Collaborators” 229. One must note too, however, that fundamental theological
and ideological differences divide these two theories and shape their respective
methods.