Summaries / Resúmenes - Studia Moralia

56 BRIAN V. JOHNSTONEdeath, in relation to intention, does not follow as the result ofnot giving the gift of life, nor from the taking away of the gift oflife, since a giving of the gift of life is not available to be intended.The death, therefore, can be said to be “outside the intention.”Thus, the kinds of action which are envisioned, the surgicalinterventions as described above, can be a true expressionof the intention to give the gift of life. They are not preventedfrom being so, by reason of the death of the embryo, since thatdeath is outside what is intended. It is the framework of giftwhich enables us to discern what is constitutive of the intended,unified process and what falls outside it. That is, it enablesus to explain what counts morally and why it counts. I offerthis as a thought experiment.Part 2: ProportionalismSelling protests, asking how I can claim to find the proportionalisttheory “incoherent,” if I have not read any of the proportionalists’writing. He further asserts that, “Johnstone admits thathe has not attempted to investigate the writings of any so-calledproponents of proportionalism.” There is no such “admission” inmy text. I said nothing of the kind, as a reading of my text wouldclearly show. Further, I did not say this for the simple reason thatit would not be true. I first published an article on proportionalismin 1985 and have published further on the topic. 26 I canclaim, at least, to have “attempted” to investigate these texts. Iwill now report some of the results of my investigations.Within the limits of this article, I will use the term “ proportionalism”in a general, inclusive sense. 27 I suggest that the theoryof “separation” that I proposed may help to explain certain26”The Meaning of Proportionate Reason in Contemporary MoralTheology,” The Thomist 49 (1985) 223-247; “The Revisionist Project inRoman Catholic Moral Theology.” Studies in Christian Ethics 5 (1992) 18-31; Lacoste, Jean-Yves, ed. Dictionaire Critique de Théologie. Paris: PressesUniversitaires de France, 1998. S. v. “Proportionalism, ” by Brian V.Johnstone.27It is not necessary here to enter into a discussion of the differencesbetween “proportionalism” and “revisionism.” See Salzman, Deontology,517.