Christian reflection advances decisively beyond the undifferentiated concept of "cause," replacing it with the act-analytical distinctions between choosing or intending and permitting or accepting. As one reads through the writings of sophisticated proportionalist moralists of the late twentieth century, one sees with amazement that they everywhere lose their grip on the distinction. They have fallen back into the undifferentiated problematic of "causing" evils (including, of course, the Enlightenment extension of "cause" to include whatever one could have prevented but did not, a concept incompatible with Christian understanding of divine holiness).
(John Finnis, Moral Absolutes: Tradition, Revision, and Truth [Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1991], 77 [footnote omitted])
Note from KBJ: Proportionalists (i.e., consequentialists) hold that one is as responsible for what one allows, permits, or accepts as for what one chooses, intends, or does. If I allow a stranger to die, for example, I am as culpable as if I had killed him or her. You can see why consequentialism is so demanding, especially when you conjoin it with impartialism. It's one thing to say that we are responsible for what we allow to happen to those with whom we stand in special relationships; but when everyone counts, and counts equally, you get a doctrine that requires that individuals work full time to alleviate suffering. This is what Ayn Rand railed against. She understood that consequentialism enslaves us to others.
Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D. 