Opportunity, Risk and the Hierarchy of Goods in the Economic Order

By Patrick O’Meara
Presented: November 19, 2011 — Toruń, Poland — “Higher School of Social and Media Culture”
IVth International Congress – Catholics and the Economy: Opportunity and Risk
• (printable version)

Behold I make all things new (Rev 21:5)

So far in this colloquium we have heard from economists and economic actors from five continents. In their discussions we have heard of the needs of the people of God and the imperative to address those needs. My talk will represent the sixth continent and I wish to add to the discussion with a distinct viewpoint that will be the undercurrent of my remarks. I will set that tone, or undercurrent, with a quote from St. Ambrose, “In the Gospel we are taught to have faith and not draw back from doing those things which are above our human strength. Hope is an incentive to Labor.” I add to this with the knowledge that our hope is based upon Revelation.

“Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth. The former heaven and the former earth had passed away and the sea was no more. I also saw the holy city, a new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, ‘Behold, God’s dwelling is with the human race. He will dwell with them and they will be his people and God himself will always be with them. He will wipe away all tears from their eyes, and there shall be no more mourning, wailing, or pain for the old has passed away. The one who was on the throne said ‘Behold I make all things new.’”

We start this discussion on opportunity, risk and the hierarchy of goods in the economic order with a fundamental question: “Is there a uniquely Catholic viewpoint on risk and opportunity and how does it differ from a secular view on risk and opportunity?”

Opportunity and risk have been historically discussed using the language of utility (or expected utility) and probability. This discussion has been framed by Prospect Theory, which has driven new fields of study, in particular behavioral finance. Behavioral finance comes as an evolution of the historical understanding of value being insufficient in describing how rational choices are made in the economic sphere. When purely economic or even pecuniary value was weighed against the probabilities it was not found predictive of how financial decisions, rational decisions, were made every day in the real world. Missing from this discussion was an anthropology that correctly defined the subject of economic decisions.

Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky were awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics in 2002 for creating the field known as prospect theory. This evolution from value to utility came from an understanding that there was an insufficiency of the idea of economic decision making when looking purely from a monetary standpoint and other factors weighed in how opportunity and risk were assessed, particularly psychological factors. These psychological principles that weigh into assessment of risk and opportunity drive perception. Certainty (and pseudo certainty), or a desire for stability, as well as the framing of choices can impact the decisions weighed using utility and probability. These decisions, in order to understand them as rational, are based upon preferences that are transitory. Preferences (which are transitory) with regard to life, monetary state, welfare, and health influence how we look at risks pertaining to those items. Kahneman and Tversky use the classical example of an Asia disease outbreak.

Problem 1

Imagine that the US is preparing for the outbreak of an unusual Asian disease, which is expected to kill 600 people. Two alternative programs to combat the disease have been proposed. Assume that the exact scientific estimate of the consequences of the programs is as follows:

If Program A is adopted 200 will be saved. [72 percent of respondents favored this approach.]

If program B is adopted there is a 1/3 probability that all 600 people will be saved and 2/3 probability that no one will be saved. [28 percent of respondents favored this approach.]

Which would you favor?

The majority choice in this problem is risk averse: the prospect of certainly saving 200 lives is more attractive than a risky prospect of equal expected value that has a one in three chance of saving 600 lives.

A second group of respondents was given the cover story of Problem 1 with the different formulation of the alternative programs as follows:

Problem 2

If Program C is adopted 400 people will die. [22 percent favored this approach.]

If Program D is adopted there is 1/3 probability nobody will die, and a 2/3 probability that 600 people will die. [78 percent favored this approach.]

Which of the two programs would you favor?

Between the first and second set of answers there is an exact inversion of outcomes based purely upon the framing of how the choices were placed in front of them. Where each of us stand today with the unique set of economic, political, religious, and personal uncertainty, as we look at the opportunities and risks in front of us – is there a difference of how we, as Christians, should look at them? When we frame the questions of both opportunity and risk and we move forward particularly in the economic realm, we propose that the answer is unequivocally yes. As Catholics, we must frame questions differently and not only should we frame questions differently, which will lead to different outcomes, but we must inform the broader discussion so that others can begin to frame the questions correctly, so that when they perceive opportunity and risk they do so informed with a moral structure, (which contains objective goods), that allows them to understand the consequences of their choices related to both opportunity and risk.

The insufficiency of the purely economic view goes beyond a failed definition of utility that is entirely variable to each person. The Blessed John Paul II discusses another failure in Laborem Exercens 9; “We can call the error of economism, that of considering human labor solely according to its economic purpose. This fundamental error of thought can and must be called an error of materialism, in that economism directly or indirectly includes a conviction of the primacy and superiority of the material, and directly or indirectly places the spiritual and the personal (man’s activity, moral values and such matters) in a position of subordination to material reality.” We see the casual reference to the individual as a commodity as a constant reality in the economic discussion that is currently engaged at the level of the state, academia, within the popular media, and in the commercial marketplace. Only when the discussion descends to the level of the individual actors do we begin to hear about moral convictions weighing in the equation. It is typically in individual discussion that an understanding is articulated that financial decisions have a human dimension and a human impact.

We will talk more about Pope Benedict XVI and his writing Caritas in Veritate later in this discussion but we see that when we go from the micro to the macro there is an abdication of an understanding of the reality of the human dimension of these economic decisions and there is a movement away from the understanding of the role of the human. The economist has tried to have the variability of the human dimension be held within a single definition of utility so that each in their own articulation of utility can help rationalize the decision making. However this failed notion has been failing for 3000 years. The Church at this time, in this discussion, must be a troubadour for a hierarchy of goods that exists, which supersedes transitory preference of the individual in weighing risk and opportunity and affirm that for an economic decision to be sound, the economic decision must be weighed against this hierarchy of goods, which is in fact objective and universal. Key within these goods is Man’s own identity and self-possession.

I go back and quote from Kahneman & Tversky’s first writings that led to their Noble Prize on this topic, where they wrote:

“An essential feature of the present theory is that the carriers of value are changes in wealth or welfare, rather than final states. This assumption is compatible with basic principles of perception and judgment. Our perceptual apparatus is attuned to the evaluation of changes or differences rather than to the evaluation of absolute magnitudes. When we respond to attributes such as brightness, loudness, or temperature, the past and present context of experience defines an adaptation level, or reference point, and stimuli are perceived in relation to this reference point. Thus, an object at a given temperature may be experienced as hot or cold to the touch depending on the temperature to which one has adapted. The same principle applies to non-sensory attributes such as health, prestige, and wealth. The same level of wealth, for example, may imply abject poverty for one person and great riches for another–depending on their current assets.”

I believe that Kahneman & Tversky are absolutely accurate in this assumption but this is a secular view of man which does not have the deeper and more fundamental understanding of man that the Church could give and should give to this discussion. Specifically there is explicit in the discussion of weighing opportunity and risk, an entirely variable standpoint and we, as Church, must speak to this and, as Christians, must not only speak to this, but evidence something more.

The central moment of all human existence is the Resurrection. Absent that central moment of human existence, we can and do make rational decisions regarding opportunity and risk based on our own perception of utility (the variables by which we weigh decisions). Yet when weighed in light of that unchanging central point we would, and should, come to different decisions based upon this and other goods, which are not variable.

Blessed John Paul II writes to us on this central fact which we must bring to bear in all discussion which is swayed by the variable of man’s own unique state of mind:

“The crucified Son of God is the historic event upon which every attempt of the mind to construct an adequate explanation of the meaning of existence upon merely human argumentation comes to grief. The true key-point, which challenges every philosophy, is Jesus Christ’s death on the Cross….The wisdom of the Cross, therefore, breaks free of all cultural limitations which seek to contain it and insists upon an openness to the universality of the truth which it bears. What a challenge this is to our reason, and how great the gain for reason if it yields to this wisdom!” (Fides et Ratio, 24)

The Christian then has an obligation to use the wisdom of the economy of salvation in the framing of economic decisions. We have already seen that the framing of prospects or opportunity can color risk assessment or probability and what we see here is a fundamental shift in how opportunity and risk for a Christian should be seen as differentiated from the secular man. This differentiation is the owner versus the steward.

Parable of the Talents:

“It will be as when a man who was going on a journey called in his servants and entrusted his possessions to them. To one he gave five talents; to another, two; to a third, one—to each according to his ability. Then he went away. Immediately the one who received five talents went and traded with them, and made another five. Likewise, the one who received two made another two. But the man who received one went off and dug a hole in the ground and buried his master’s money. After a long time the master of those servants came back and settled accounts with them. The one who had received five talents came forward bringing the additional five. He said, ‘Master, you gave me five talents. See, I have made five more.’ His master said to him, ‘Well done, my good and faithful servant. Since you were faithful in small matters, I will give you great responsibilities. Come, share your master’s joy.’ [Then] the one who had received two talents also came forward and said, ‘Master, you gave me two talents. See, I have made two more.’ His master said to him, ‘Well done, my good and faithful servant. Since you were faithful in small matters, I will give you great responsibilities. Come, share your master’s joy.’ Then the one who had received the one talent came forward and said, ‘Master, I knew you were a demanding person, harvesting where you did not plant and gathering where you did not scatter; so out of fear I went off and buried your talent in the ground. Here it is back.’ His master said to him in reply, ‘You wicked, lazy servant! So you knew that I harvest where I did not plant and gather where I did not scatter? Should you not then have put my money in the bank so that I could have got it back with interest on my return? Now then! Take the talent from him and give it to the one with ten.’

For to everyone who has, more will be given and he will grow rich; but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. And throw this useless servant into the darkness outside, where there will be wailing and grinding of teeth.” (Matt 25:14-30)

A secular man is the owner of the capital that he holds and views, as owner, preservation of capital is his primary duty. A Christian’s duty is higher than that of purely owner, he is a steward. Once the steward has gratefully received the gifts that he has, his job is to return them with increase to the Master upon the Master’s return. We all, when we look at the capital that we have, whether it is influence, monetary, human (souls in our care), whatever capital that we have, we are to be using it with the end in mind of building the Kingdom of God. We do so, understanding that in fact we do have a jealous master who reaps where he does not sow. Our job is to return to him with increase. A classic example that we have used in our discussions is of a man at sea in his yacht. He has grown wealthy through his labors and has employed many people and at some state in his life he takes all of his business ventures, monetizes them and he goes on a large yacht and sails about the ocean. He is concerned only with the preservation of his capital so that he may live in ease. From a purely economic standpoint the investment in low-returning, low-risk investments so that he could have the utility of a life at ease is a good economic decision. From a Christian standpoint, from a Catholic standpoint, the goods that have been subordinated so that his individual comfort can be assured, is clearly disordered. And in fact, that is not the action of anyone who would call himself a steward or a Christian but rather those assets must be utilized, as a steward, so that he can return them, with increase, but also as a member of the body of Christ and understanding that he is within both the mystical body and the family of man within which family he must operate and do so with responsibility. This subordination of numerous goods to the individual’s desires has an objective impact on people, but also on the persons themselves; they are deformed from whatever right relationship exists to one that has become primarily a consumer.

This framing of decisions regarding opportunity and risk as it relates to identity and self possession should be looked at by the Church herself as she looks at this Parable of the Talents. In many places we see the Church weigh the risk of preaching the Gospel particularly in a society that is antithetical to the Church and the Church’s funding can come into question if the Gospel of Jesus Christ and Him crucified is preached. We would propose that the correct framing of the question to weigh the risk is, what are the consequences if we do not preach the Gospel? The preservation of the Patrimony of the Church (temporal goods) is a worthwhile goal as long as the Mission of the Church is never curtailed to do so. To curtail the work of the Church in preaching the Gospel to somehow preserve the funding sources of the Church is the subordination of a higher good (the salvation of souls) for an instrumental good (Can. 1752 et prae oculis habita salute animarum, quae in Ecclesia superma semper lex esse debet). Should the Church ever make such a decision, her whole identity would change and become denigrated and in the economic decision making the primary cost of our own identity and self-possession as Church is in the crux. The salt would lose its saltiness. This is in fact the greatest measure of risk mitigation and risk management. Our Lord and Savior said to us, “For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul?” (Matt 16:26). In the self-possession of our soul that we give as gift to God the Father, we have an identity; but if that identity can be lost, that is the greatest form of risk that we can engage in. This risk, or discussion, is not something new; it has been discussed for thousands of years.

As we enter into this discussion for Catholics in the economy and chances, dangers and opportunities and risk we understand that if we wish to speak of this with a supernatural sense that infuses the natural, that perfects the natural, then we must first understand the natural. The natural assumes anthropology where we understand man, as an acting person and his nature, which is fallen. Additionally we must have an epistemology and teleology that is clearly articulated. The natural must be in place and understood and coherent and in sync with the secular discussion, then we can begin to inform and elevate with a supernatural wisdom that Blessed John Paul II referenced, “then upon this reason, great gains can be had” if the supernatural wisdom can perfect it.

In the anthropology is an understanding of man as an acting person, who is a subject capable of fully knowing himself, se nosse, as he beholds other goods that have intrinsic value in themselves and not just to him as a consumer. This man also has a fallen nature. (‘The only part of Christian dogma that did not need to be defended is this truth.’) An epistemology where we affirm that there is truth, it is knowable, and we can understand it. That there are goods which have value unique from us as actors, and in fact we come to know ourselves more perfectly when we are in right relationship with those goods. This truth can be understood that first there are goods, second that they are universally good, and third that the discussion of the moral discussion not be replaced by the technical.

As we enter into an ever more sophisticated monetary system, the abdication of moral decision making because of the technical complexity of the structures must not be allowed. We must not give in to that. We must speak to an underlying hierarchy of goods and be technically competent to discuss application of the technical and their relations to the objective goods to whom we as actor must be in right relationship. The laity in particular are called to do this ordering of the temporal affairs to the Kingdom of God.

Lastly a teleology. This teleology does not necessarily need to be defined in the broader discussion within the public square, but rather that there is an end for man. This end that we are seeking must not be societal but individual. Justice, freedom, these parts of the natural law that we seek for the common good are not a societal end but an individual end.

If we can speak to these three things, anthropology, epistemology and teleology we have the ability for the supernatural to perfect them.

I will speak to the anthropology as we talk about risk and opportunity and how we must understand utility and probability. This is not new, the concept of the variable nature of man (and his preferences) and the decision making in each moment for which it seeks some fixed point to which it can affix himself for surety is something that has been going on for thousands of years. The classic example cited by Kahneman & Tversky is when Ulysses lashes himself to the mast before he hears the sirens call because he knows that if he is not lashed to the mast, he will not be able to make a good decision. Ulysses knew that the sirens’ song will lead to his demise if he is not anchored to a fixed point. Just as surely we know that in this world, in this economic world driven by fear and greed, mania and obsession, unless we as Church speak to the goods which endure to which man might anchor himself we will, in the name of risk and opportunity, lead ourselves and others to ruin.

One of my favorite quotes from Cardinal Ratzinger, prior to his elevation to the Papacy is that “a purely harmonious system of beauty is not enough when the gas chambers of Auschwitz are operating.” An ethos of peace and beauty that is the primary ethos that we see today crumbles when faced with sin and death. In each man’s life, economically, socially, when there is destruction of life, war, petulance, economic crisis, this ethos of beauty and peace or even just economic prosperity is not enough. On a micro level, an individual life, we see this played out. Plato spoke about this. He asked his followers, “will you engage in the whole risk of being human?” Will we engage in the risk as Church preaching to the world the need for our Savior? The Church must articulate the goods, not provide models. In fact, she states positively in Centesimus Annus that the Church has “no models to offer.” But rather the Church must speak and articulate these goods which are objective and universal. This has been the role of the moral speaker in the argument of pure utility and the removal of the moral from decision making for millennia.

We see the justification of a completely secular view of moral decision making in the ‘Ring of Gyges’ in Plato’s Republic where Glaucon speaks to man’s ethical decision making based purely on a fear of the risk of being caught in an immoral act. In the story of the ring of gyges the owner is able to create fantastic opportunity through immoral means due to a magic ring. Glaucon says this is proof that all men would choose the immoral life if the consequences of immoral actions could be avoided. Plato responds to this and speaks to him of the goods that must be upheld, if the identity and the man himself is corrupted, his own identity is destroyed.

We see an even better example of this in Wagner’s opera Siegfried where Fafner becomes a dragon to protect the treasure he gained. The dragon he becomes is not the majestic dragon that is classically depicted in literature but a revolting one. In the seeking of this good in his own mind, this apparent good, his identity is transformed, he becomes revolting. After Siegfried slays the dragon and as Fafner is dying he says, “this gold will change you, it will kill you” and Siegfried responds, “all men seek gold, all men will die” so he takes the treasure. The greatest good, the identity of the individual is transformed into something horrific. This risk of the transformation of man to something less than himself where he loses himself to his passions is nothing new, but we have devised ever more sophisticated methods with which to slake the thirst of our greed and we must respond to these sophisticated instruments and speculations that they only have value within a context of a hierarchy of goods, not a single good such as return to the shareholder, but a hierarchy of goods.

This concept that the moral should be kept away from the economic is destructive. We see the excess and we, as Church, must speak to the anthropology of the destructive nature of decisions that are made purely from a viewpoint of opportunity, or utility and probability, where capital is seen as the highest good. But rather we must insert the discussion of all the goods that are there. This insertion into the discussion of the fixed reference point to which man can lash himself in preparation for the certain sirens’ song in absolutely necessary for a fallen man. The Holy Father speaks to this in number 34 in Caritas in Veritate, “the conviction that the economy must be autonomous, that it must be shielded from ‘influences’ of a moral character, has led man to abuse the economic process in a thoroughly destructive way. In the long term, these convictions have led to economic, social, and political systems that trample upon the personal and social freedom, and are therefore unable to deliver the justice that they promise. As I said in my Encyclical Letter (Spe Salvi), history is thereby deprived of Christian hope.”

This human element must be clearly articulated when we look at risk and opportunity and utility and probability, but also identity and self-possession. Man as subject is in relationship to other goods that must be held as object, as goods in and of themselves not things which man consumes. We must recall that every financial decision includes a human dimension. We must remember that human costs always include economic costs and economic dysfunction always involves human costs.

We speak specifically to both the micro, as individual actors making decisions at the micro level, and the macro societal or enterprise level, as unique actor, that there are goods out there to which we must be in right relationship. As Blessed John Paul II says eloquently in Laborem Exercens, “Man is subject,” and there are goods out there which we must behold and see as object and be in relationship to those goods, right relationship. The capital that we utilize (on a non-human capital level) is merely an instrument and man must always be the efficient cause. This is why the Church says man is a priority of labor over capital. In the secular economic discussion of opportunity and risk this priority has fallen by the wayside. This is clearly something that the Church has the ability to speak to that at this moment, at this time, and at this place, the world needs desperately to hear this portion of the Good News. We must speak to this because as we speak to the individual dignity, in the individual dignity it becomes apparent that we have hope, where man is destined for more. There is a need for hope, for Christian hope, in unique moments of crisis. This goes beyond a mere secular optimism.

The Holy Father in Caritas in Veritate (pg.29) makes this clear:

“God is the guarantor of man’s true development, inasmuch as, having created him in his image, he also establishes the transcendent dignity of men and women and feeds their innate yearning to ‘be more’. Man is not a lost atom in a random universe: he is God’s creature, whom God chose to endow with an immortal soul and whom he has always loved. If man were merely the fruit of either chance or necessity, or if he had to lower his aspirations to the limited horizon of the world in which he lives, if all reality were merely history and culture, and man did not possess a nature destined to transcend itself in a supernatural life, then one could speak of growth, or evolution, but not development. When the State promotes, teaches, or actually imposes forms of practical atheism, it deprives its citizens of the moral and spiritual strength that is indispensable for attaining integral human development and it impedes them from moving forward with renewed dynamism as they strive to offer a more generous human response to divine love.”

This reaches to an understanding of an anthropology and the teleology that when we speak of justice it must be justice at the individual level, not societal because a societal teleology will lead to outcomes which are destructive to the individual. We must speak to the reality that man is made for more, that man is subject and there are goods to which he must be in correct relationship. We as the Church must provide a listing and a hierarchy of those goods.

First is an identity of man who has been made in God’s image, and that he has been told to subdue the earth, not as an owner, or as a consumer, but as a steward. As we place ourselves in positions where we look at utility and probability we must infuse it with a deeper sense of understanding because we have the ability to be transformed into the Fafner, where our identity is destroyed. Or worse we lead not only ourselves, but others to destruction, because we fail to recognize the dangers ahead and we do not lash ourselves to the objective when the siren begins her song. What good is it if we lose our soul but we gain the world? So first an identity, where we understand who we are as a creature created in the image and likeness of God: we are the adopted sons and daughters of the Father through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Second, we look at goods or talents we have as “what is our unique vocation as decision maker?” What is the mission, the end, of that which we are trying to achieve? Third, we begin to look at the specific utilization of resources and operations, and then here we get to a listing of other goods;

1. The obligations to employees
2. To the enterprise (which has value in and of itself as an instrument that creates good)
3. To our shareholders
4. The community in which we operate
5. To our customers/clients/end users

This may only be a partial listing but it is a good beginning for a broader discussion. We understand here, as the Holy Father said in Leborem Exercens that we are subject. Blessed JPII said that the solution of the social question may be found in a correct understand of work. I propose that this is also true when we look at opportunity and risk and utility and probability, as we look to deploy capital, and gauge an opportunity in uncertain circumstance.

The ability of the Christian to have an identity where the value/utility/preferences are not variable, where hot and cold is something to which we have become acclimated but rather is in relation to the absolute, is in and of itself a good for all of society. This lessens the likelihood of us seeing what the Holy Father refers to as, “Mans Darkened Reason,” where one good is used as an excuse to blot out all the other goods, such as a description of return to shareholders as the highest and only good. We have seen examples of destruction where there is no acknowledgment or no obligation of the corporation to the rights of the employees – that they have a right to a piece of their work bench, to the environment in which they operate, to the community in which they live, to the customers. These other goods must be in right relationship.

We must understand man as decision maker as subject, looking at opportunity and risk and these external goods as objects unique to themselves with absolute value so as not to become merely a consumer. We begin to see that the transformation in discussion of risk and return begins with this correct articulation of anthropology, an understanding that flows into an epistemology, when we understand the goods, when we are in a right relationship to those goods and these truths can be known. The technical informs them based only upon an understanding of universal goods. Then we have the ability to make decisions correctly because we have teleology. We understand our identity; we understand our own vocation, what our role is as Christians. We are stewards who have gratefully received and we are seeking to return with increase to the master when he returns. We are building, literally, the Kingdom of God and that must be within the framework of how we frame our decisions of risk and opportunity.

We go back again to the Church herself. The risk of preaching the Gospel at this time might be great and it might be out of fashion in many places, particularly in Western Europe. But the risk of not preaching is greater because our identity is at risk. “Behold,” the One on the throne said, “I make all things new.” We can then talk about the natural, the anthropology, the epistemology, the teleology where within the brotherhood of man we seek justice. We have the ability for the wisdom of revelation to perfect and lift up the natural and make it supernatural. The social doctrine of the Church is not built on justice, but on mercy.

In Scripture we find that we are called to where we build the sense of justice that is not distributive or commutative but it’s familial. Our Savior tells us in Matt 20:

“For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire workers for his vineyard. He agreed to pay them a denarius[a] for the day and sent them into his vineyard.

“About nine in the morning he went out and saw others standing in the marketplace doing nothing. He told them, ‘You also go and work in my vineyard, and I will pay you whatever is right.’ So they went.”

“He went out again about noon and about three in the afternoon and did the same thing. About five in the afternoon he went out and found still others standing around. He asked them, ‘Why have you been standing here all day long doing nothing?’

“‘Because no one has hired us,’ they answered.

“He said to them, ‘You also go and work in my vineyard.’

“When evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, ‘Call the workers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last ones hired and going on to the first.’

“The workers who were hired about five in the afternoon came and each received a denarius. So when those came who were hired first, they expected to receive more. But each one of them also received a denarius. When they received it, they began to grumble against the landowner. ‘These who were hired last worked only one hour,’ they said, ‘and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and the heat of the day.’

“But he answered one of them, ‘I am not being unfair to you, friend. Didn’t you agree to work for a denarius? Take your pay and go. I want to give the one who was hired last the same as I gave you. Don’t I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?”

“So the last will be first, and the first will be last.”

Here is a sense of justice that is truly familial.

Our identity is clear and we understand the external goods, the goods of these other people, of our employees, of our brothers and sisters, within our polis, and without, are not means to an end for us as decision makers but they are ends of themselves who are participating in a teleology, each of their own, but hopefully of which there is unity as we focus and move forward in building the Kingdom of God. As we begin to understand this we get to these other concepts where we then have a higher concept that the Holy Father said we go not just to mercy but Charity in Truth and there is this Logic of Gift.

The Holy Father in Caritas in Veritate 34 tells us, “The human being is made for gift, which expresses and makes present his transcendent dimension.” This logic of gift makes our transcendental nature present because we transcend completely our own self-interest. And when you look at utility and probability and opportunity and risk, and you say, how can there be any logic of gift where man transcends all self-interest for gift and true charity and understanding opportunity and risk, unless there is a fuller dimension of the understanding of utility?

Decisions are made where identity and self-possession and relationship to other goods can be beheld and utility is a much deeper and broader definition that is not entirely variable, as Kahneman & Tversky said. Whereas we as Christians, we are Ulysses begging to be strapped to the mast, to the Crucifixion, the central point of our human existence. So that each decision may be made, not with fear and greed and mania and obsession, driving the decision that in this unique moment looks right but is not grounded to this deepest identity, to our vocation, and to the end of which we seek – namely of building the Kingdom of God. If we do that, how we perceive opportunity, how we perceive risk, is clear. We look to Romans 12 where we talk about the body of Christ with the very different gifts and we must make a sober assessment of our own role, where we are a single member of the body of Christ, some with more responsibility or less than others, yet members nonetheless. In this unique moment we understand that we are a part of the body of Christ acting together and this concept of subsidiary, that we own our own decisions that are unique to us as stewards. There is not an abdication to others because we own not only our own identity but the goods to which our decisions must be made to which we add technical competence. We have a teleology in mind so that we can understand the utility fully and then we weigh probability and then we can make decisions and take risks and look at the opportunities and risks correctly.

I ask your forbearance as I end with a new form of the problems we looked at in the beginning of the presentation:

Problem 3

Imagine that the Church is dealing with a new scandal which will cause entire countries to renounce their faith, in particular 21 countries. Two alternative programs to combat the scandal have been proposed. Assume that the exact scientific estimates of the consequences of the programs are as follows:

If Program A is adopted 7 will keep the faith.

If Program B is adopted, there is a 1/3 probability that 21 countries will retain the faith and 2/3 probability that all the countries will renounce the faith.

Which would you favor?

Problem 4

(Assuming circumstances as problem three)
If Program C is adopted 14 will lose the faith.

If Program D is adopted there is a 1/3 probability that the all countries will retain the faith and 2/3 probability that 21 countries will renounce the faith.

Which of the two programs would you favor?

We are called to a natural response and then let the wisdom of revelation transform us…

“What do you think? If a man owns a hundred sheep, and one of them wanders away, will he not leave the ninety-nine on the hills and go to look for the one that wandered off? And if he finds it, truly I tell you, he is happier about that one sheep than about the ninety-nine that did not wander off. In the same way your Father in heaven is not willing that any of these little ones should perish.” (Matt 18:24)

I would like to end with a poem from Gerard Manley Hopkins:

As Kingfishers Catch Fire

As kingfishers catch fire, dragonflies draw flame;
As tumbled over rim in roundy wells
Stones ring; like each tucked string tells, each hung bell’s
Bow swung finds tongue to fling out broad its name;
Each mortal thing does one thing and the same;
Deals out that being indoors each one dwells;
Selves – goes itself; myself it speaks and spells,
Crying What I do is me for that I came.

I say more; the just man justices;
Keeps grace: that keeps all his goings graces;
Acts in God’s eye what in God’s eye he is –
Christ. For Christ plays in ten thousand places,
Lovely in limbs, and lovely in eyes not his
To the Father through the features of men’s faces.

SOURCES

1. The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice
   Amos Tversky; Daniel Kahneman
   Science, New Series, Vol. 211, No. 4481. (Jan. 30, 1981), pp. 453-458.
2. Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk
   Daniel Kahneman; Amos Tversky
   Econometrica, Vol. 47, No. 2. (Mar., 1979), pp. 263-292.