Choices by Lewis Smedes, Chapter 2, "Sorting out the Categories"

Posted by Sarah M. White 

Welcome to week two of the Choices series! If you're new, you can read week one's post here. 

"Sorting out the Categories"

Chapter 2, "Sorting out the Categories," gives us several ways to think about the types of morally wrong things that people do instead of just "wrong." It turns out that "wrong" needs much more nuance than I've ever imagined! How is it wrong? These are Smedes' categories: 

• Is it forgivable? 
• Is is excusable? 
• Is it permissible? 
• Is it tolerable? 
• Is it obligatory? 

A morally wrong action looks different in each of these categories. Here's a summary of the main points from each type of moral wrong: 

Is it forgivable? 

For something to be forgivable, we must believe that the person did wrong and that the person made a choice to do wrong. We must blame them before we can forgive them (23). 

Is it excusable? 

When we excuse someone, we also believe that they have done a moral wrong, but we don't hold them responsible because we think that any normal person would probably have done the same thing under the same circumstances (24-25). 

Is it permissible? 

The category of permissible wrong is about asking whether or not doing a moral wrong is acceptable under special circumstances. One example he gives is the question "Is it permissible to steal bread if you are poor and your family needs to eat?" A couple of things to note about this category. Smedes says, "When we say that something is permissible, we are not giving it a four-star rating on the rightness scale" (26). He goes on to say, "When we wonder whether we are permitted to let our aged father die or to have an abortion, we are usually walking on the edge of the meaning of our lives. We are talking about whether our humanity is being undermined" (26). 

Is it tolerable? 

This question is more about what kinds of behaviors society will allow. Smedes says, "When we tolerate it, we only decide that we shall not prevent other people from doing what we think is wrong" (27). A moral wrong may be tolerable, but not everything that is tolerable is a moral wrong. 

Is it obligatory? 

In this category, instead of being in the wrong because of doing something, you can be in the wrong for not doing something, for failing to do something. Smedes points out here that all of the moral wrongs are shadows of the moral rights that we are obligated to do: treat people fairly, be faithful, be honest (27-28). 

Is it excellent? 

Moral excellence is the pinnacle and means that someone is going beyond just what is obligatory. They are doing good and they are doing it well, not clumsily (28). Moral excellence means tapping into "unselfish love or unexpected courage" (29). 

Discussion

This chapter definitely broadened my thinking about how things could be wrong. You can be wrong by action or inaction. Your execution of a moral act can be so poor that it negates the good that you were doing! I have never thought about doing a moral act with skill the way that Smedes describes in "Is it excellent?" 

What's the application for moms? 

One thing we can teach our kids from this chapter is the principle that every wrong is connected to a right. We can tell them "Do not hurt others," but we can also tell them "We treat people well." We want to create a beautiful landscape for them with all of the moral goods: fairness, goodness, faithfulness, etc. Another thing we can teach them is that when people do wrong, we can forgive them. We can model asking for forgiveness when we mess up and teach them to do the same. 

Feel free to share your thoughts on this chapter!