Another question on double effect

[fakename]

Does the evil that is caused by the good thing, have to be a direct consequence of the good thing or an indirect one? For instance, a direct consequence would be -I want to defend against an enemy soldier but I’ll end up accidentally killing a civilian. An indirect consequence would be -I don’t want to defend against an enemy (perhaps because he has human shields) but to not defend against him would allow him to attack me.

In the first scenario the bad thing is an event caused by an agent. In the second scenario the bad thing is a possibility or certitude caused by the relationship between concepts -not defending allows the enemy a likely chance to attack.

 

[Joel_PF]

Both cases are the same, morally speaking. After all, if you do attack your enemy, you do want to defend yourself, in either case.

In the first you do it with full conviction, in the second you do it begrudgingly, but that doesn’t change the morality of the act.

In both cases, since the cause of war is just and the harm you would generate from not defending would be great, the defense is justified, even knowing that some civilian will be killed.

Imagine if some crazy dictator sent his soldiers to invade your country, each one with a machine gun on one hand and a living baby on the other. Should the whole country surrender into servitude because it would be wrong to kill those babies used as human shields? Of course not. In fact, the guilt for the babies’ death lies with the attackers, not the defenders, in this case.

 

[fakename]

Does the double effect apply to effects that are far-off but still predictable?

I used to think that it didn’t, but if that were true it seems difficult to figure out how we are to deal with situations where indeed, some evil far-removed in time can be predicted.