Transcript The good effect must be at least equivalent in importance to

Review:



What’s the Object?
Motive?
Circumstances?
“Double Effect”
…Continued after notes on Object,
Motive, Circumstances…
Principle of Double Effect


What if a bad side
effect cannot be
avoided. Can you still
take action?
E.g., to beat an
infection, you must
have a leg removed.
Is that ethical?
Is it moral to…







1. Kill a fat guy to get his food in a famine?
2. Lie to make someone feel better?
3. Kill embryos for research to help others?
4. Kill a serial killer, because the police don’t
have enough evidence?
5. Try to save lives if I drop atomic bomb on
Japan? (300,000 vs. 1 million)
6. Kill myself to give my son a heart?
7. Lie to the Nazis about hiding Jews?
Is it moral to…






8. Jump on a live grenade to save my platoon?
9. Cut a rope because fallen climbers are pulling
us all down?
10. Commit suicide to avoid pain from disease?
11. Give clean needles to addicts on the street?
12. Do racial profiling to stop terror?
13. Declare war on a country that is committing
grave injustices
Is it moral to…







14. Begin the American Revolution against
England?
15. Sell weapons to the enemy of my enemy?
16. Shoot someone in self defense?
17. Shoot through a hostage to get the terrorist?
18. Abort a child to save the mother?
19. Torture someone to get information to save
lives?
20. Take the Native Americans’ land for settlers?
Overall evaluation


Morality can be tricky.
When does the end justify the means?




When there are enough people helped?
A good proportion of dead to alive?
When it betters the human race?
When the person helped is someone close to
me?
Overall evaluation

The end NEVER justifies the means


(justify = to make right)
Common sayings:


Two wrongs don’t make a right.
“The road to hell is paved with good
intentions.”
End does not justify the means

Three reasons:
1. What criteria (rule) should we use to
decide when it does and when it doesn’t?
End does not justify the means
(ENJM)

Three reasons:
1. What criteria (rule) should we use to
decide when it does and when it doesn’t?
2. Who gets to decide?
End does not justify the means
(ENJM)

Three reasons:
1. What criteria (rule) should we use to decide
when it does and when it doesn’t?
2. Who gets to decide?
3. When I choose evil, I’m, in a way, becoming
evil, because our actions affect our will and our
soul.
Plato said:
“It is far better to suffer evil than to do it.”



The Greeks, Romans, Jews, and Christians
all taught absolutes about morality.
Included in foundation of the U.S.
“We hold these truths to be SELFEVIDENT

All men are Equal, Life, Liberty, Freedom
For example, we don’t negotiate with
terrorists. Why not?
For example, we don’t negotiate with
terrorists. Why not?
a. The president knows he’s not
responsible for the deaths; the terrorists
are
b. We would end up on a slippery slope
of encouraging more terrorists and not
knowing which ones to appease…

But there are times we can do good things
for good reasons, with bad side effects
that are unchosen. The formal steps are…
Four parts of the P.D.E.—KNOW!
1.
2.
3.
4.
The action must be morally good in itself
or at least morally neutral
The good must be willed and the evil
effect merely tolerated
The good effect must not come about as
a result of the evil effect, but must come
directly from the action itself
The good effect must be at least
equivalent in importance to the evil
effect (“proportional”)
Double Effect
Review



Not every action only has only good
effects or bad effects.
Sometimes, there are bad results even
though the act itself, the intention, and
the circumstances, are ALL good.
We use the principle of double effect to
determine whether or not actions that
have both good and evil effects are
permissible.

The decision to perform an action which,
as a consequence, has unintended bad
results may only be made when…
1) The good effect cannot be reasonable
brought about in any other way…
2) And when 4 conditions have been met.
4 Principles
1.
2.
3.
4.
The action must be morally good in itself
or at least morally neutral
The good must be willed and the evil
effect merely tolerated
The good effect must not come about as
a result of the evil effect, but must come
directly from the action itself
The good effect must be at least
equivalent in importance to the evil
effect (“proportional”)
The action must be morally good in
itself or at least morally neutral


The action must be GOOD (or indifferent)
(remember) It is never okay to perform a
BAD act in order to get a good
outcome/result.
Abortion to save the life of the
mother?

Some have tried to justify abortion
through the principle of double effect.



Life of the mother is in danger
Avoid bringing an unwanted child into the
world.
This position can never fall under double
effect since the action consists of the
DIRECT killing of an innocent person.
2. The good must be willed and the
evil effect merely tolerated





The agent must have the right intention
Only the good effect can be willed.
Though foreseen, the evil effect must not
be willed, but only permitted or tolerated
One does not directly wish evil.
But it may be allowed when it cannot be
separated from the overriding good to be
intended or accomplished.


E.g. The physician who amputated a limb
to prevent the spread of disease has the
intention of stopping the disease.
He knows that he will cripple the patient
but it is for the greater good of preserving
the patient’s life.
3. The good effect must not come
about as a result of the evil effect, but
must come directly from the action
itself



The good action must be the means of the
good effect.
An evil action still isn’t justified even if it
results in a good outcome.
In order to invoke this principle, the act
itself must be good.
For example…


It is not morally justified to stage a
military operation that targets innocent
people who wield no military role or
advantage, even if it’s believed that the
action will bring about the end of the war.
The sterilization of a woman who wants to
limit the size of her family for financial or
health reasons is also not morally justified
4. The good effect must be at least
equivalent in importance to the
evil effect



The good effect must be proportional to
the evil effect
Ideally the good would outweigh the
evil.
I.e. when there is a foreseeable evil
effect of an action, there must be an
equal or greater good effect for the act
to be considered moral
Contrast:
 I choose evil motive (always wrong)
 I choose evil object for good motive
(always wrong, because ENJM)
 I choose good object for good motive (good!)
 I choose good object for good motive 
bad side effect I want
(now, bad motive!)

I choose good object for good motive
bad side effect I do not want,
but tolerate, for proportionate
reason
(this is PDE, and it can be
chosen)
Example 1

A man is climbing, and the person below
him falls and the rope is threatening to
take them both down. Can one of them
cut the rope, so the guy higher-up can
live?
Example 1

PDE says: There is one physical action,
but two effects.




The good effect is intended
The bad effect is foreseen but NOT intended.
The bad is not the means to the end.
The good effect is proportionate to the
bad effect (a life saved)
Example 1




Intended good effect: remove deadly
weight
Unintended but foreseen bad effect:
lower guy falls
The motive is good: to save the guy
higher up. You do not directly kill the
lower guy, nor hope he dies. You hope he
somehow survives.
Proportionality: life risked but life saved.
If you do nothing, both will fall.
Example 2

Jump on Grenade:
 Shield others from blast (intended good effect)
 Get blasted (foreseen but unintended bad
effect)
 Motive is good: to save life, and hoping the
grenade does NOT go off. He does not directly
kill himself, he is killed be the grenade that
someone else threw
 Proportionality: a life risked to save other lives.
Do nothing and many could die.
Example 3

Ectopic pregnancy or cancerous uterus:
cutting out a growth where the baby is…




Intended good effect: remove cancer or
unsustainable fallopian tube
Unintended bad effect: the baby won’t live.
But you are not killing the baby directly.
Motive is to save the mother’s life
Proportionality: life and life. Do nothing and
both die.
Example 4

Self-defense: I cannot stop killer except
to shoot (tried shutting door, calling
police, etc)




Intended effect: stop the killer
Foreseen but unintended effect: the killer
might die from the wound
Motive: to save my life
Proportionality: I endanger his life (or take
his life) because mine is being endangered
(and possible taken)
Principle of Double Effect

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Classic examples:
Self-defense
Just war
Removing cancerous uterus, perhaps even in
pregnancy
Ectopic pregnancy
Taking medications with side-effects
Voting (since all candidates are imperfect)
Many others…
Hierarchy of Rights





The “Hierarchy of Rights” helps resolve some
cases of proportionality more easily.
There are three inalienable rights (according to
John Locke)
Life, Liberty and Property
These are in order of importance
Life is needed to have liberty, and
liberty is needed to use property.


So…
Life trumps liberty


Liberty trumps property


(Right to life trumps mother’s liberty)
(Right of slave’s freedom trumps slaveholder’s
claim)
This makes some cases a little easier.


So…
Stealing from a rich person when starving?
Is it stealing? Is it justified?




So…
Stealing from a rich person when starving?
Is it stealing? Is it justified?
It may not be stealing at all, because it is
a life right, which trumps a property right
(as long as the rich man has enough
food).
This does not justify ordinary theft or
looting, even from the richest person.