Don't understand third condition of double effect

[TheAdvocate]

The third condition of the principle of double-effect states that the “good result not be a direct causal result of the evil result.” Since the first condition of double effect states that the act must be good (or at least morally neutral) to begin with, violating the third condition would mean the following:

I do something good, and it leads to an evil effect, which leads to a good effect.

Can anyone think of an example of this?

Can anyone think of an example of the third condition being violated?

 

[Bookcat]

It not there dealing with the good action but is getting into the two* effects* --one good and intended and the other not good and not intended. That the good effect cannot be by the* means* of the evil effect. For the end does not justify the means.

 

[Bookcat]

I do something good, and it leads to an evil effect, which leads to a good effect.

Right. The good act cannot cause the good effect by means of an evil effect.

 

[TheAdvocate]

It not there dealing with the good action but is getting into the two* effects* --one good and intended and the other not good and not intended. That the good effect cannot be by the* means* of the evil effect. For the end does not justify the means.

Thanks so much for your response. But can you provide an example whereby a good effect would come by means of the evil effect? I am looking for an example where this third condition is violated.

 

[Bookcat]

Thanks so much for your response. But can you provide an example whereby a good effect would come by means of the evil effect? I am looking for an example where this third condition is violated.

Hum…lets see. Sometimes that one is more difficult admittedly I am sure moralists have loads of them…like in the medical field etc. But here is one:

I give alms (a good or neutral act) to a person asking me --so the person will leave my street (the good effect I am aiming at-for I do not want them around my children) because I know the person will take the money and go get drunk (evil effect- objective sin). The effect of the person leaving my street was by means of the effect of their going to the bar in another place to get drunk with the money I gave them (I know this -for I know the person and what they will do with it). But it gets rid of him so my kids can play outside.

(all fiction here…happily).

 

[Gorgias]

Thanks so much for your response. But can you provide an example whereby a good effect would come by means of the evil effect? I am looking for an example where this third condition is violated.

Consider an ectopic pregnancy. The desired effect is the restoration of the mother’s health. The foreseeable but unintended evil effect is the death of the baby.

If the action is surgery to remove the compromised section of the fallopian tube, then the good effect comes about by means of the action (surgery) not the evil effect (baby’s death), and therefore, it’s morally licit. However, if the action is the administration of medicine that kills the baby, then the restoration of the mother’s health (the good effect) happens as a direct result of the baby’s death (the evil effect); that’s not a morally licit action, then.

Does that help?

 

[TheAdvocate]

Consider an ectopic pregnancy. The desired effect is the restoration of the mother’s health. The foreseeable but unintended evil effect is the death of the baby.

If the action is surgery to remove the compromised section of the fallopian tube, then the good effect comes about by means of the action (surgery) not the evil effect (baby’s death), and therefore, it’s morally licit. However, if the action is the administration of medicine that kills the baby, then the restoration of the mother’s health (the good effect) happens as a direct result of the baby’s death (the evil effect); that’s not a morally licit action, then.

Does that help?

Getting warmer. Thanks so much!

 

[TheAdvocate]

Consider an ectopic pregnancy. The desired effect is the restoration of the mother’s health. The foreseeable but unintended evil effect is the death of the baby.

If the action is surgery to remove the compromised section of the fallopian tube, then the good effect comes about by means of the action (surgery) not the evil effect (baby’s death), and therefore, it’s morally licit. However, if the action is the administration of medicine that kills the baby, then the restoration of the mother’s health (the good effect) happens as a direct result of the baby’s death (the evil effect); that’s not a morally licit action, then.

Does that help?

But…is it possible to keep the first condition while violating the third? I can’t, and therefore I think that the third condition is redundant to the first one.

 

[thewanderer]

But…is it possible to keep the first condition while violating the third? I can’t, and therefore I think that the third condition is redundant to the first one.

Well, maybe practically speaking (although just because we can’t think of a good example doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist). But isn’t it still important for understanding the way moral actions are determined? That the ends do not justify the means. Wouldn’t that still be a good reason for including it as a condition?

 

[Bookcat]

Hum…lets see. Sometimes that one is more difficult admittedly I am sure moralists have loads of them…like in the medical field etc. But here is one:

I give alms (a good or neutral act) to a person asking me --so the person will leave my street (the good effect I am aiming at-for I do not want them around my children) because I know the person will take the money and go get drunk (evil effect- objective sin). The effect of the person leaving my street was by means of the effect of their going to the bar in another place to get drunk with the money I gave them (I know this -for I know the person and what they will do with it --But it gets rid of him so my kids can play outside.)

(all fiction here…happily).

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Consider an ectopic pregnancy. The desired effect is the restoration of the mother’s health. The foreseeable but unintended evil effect is the death of the baby.

If the action is surgery to remove the compromised section of the fallopian tube, then the good effect comes about by means of the action (surgery) not the evil effect (baby’s death), and therefore, it’s morally licit. However, if the action is the administration of medicine that kills the baby, then the restoration of the mother’s health (the good effect) happens as a direct result of the baby’s death (the evil effect); that’s not a morally licit action, then.

So it appears that when medicine is administered that kills the baby, the baby dies and then because of its death, it stops growing and is flushed out naturally. If the baby did not die, the beneficial effect on the mother’s health could not be realized. On the other hand, if it were possible to reach into the tube with an instrument and pull the baby out (without removing the tube) then the death of the baby, which would be just as certain, would not be essential to the success of the operation, and thus it would be licit. I mean, in principle the removed baby might be sustained outside the womb, even though that is not possible with today’s technology.

 

[weller2]

On the other hand, if it were possible to reach into the tube with an instrument and pull the baby out (without removing the tube) then the death of the baby, which would be just as certain, would not be essential to the success of the operation, and thus it would be licit.

Incorrect. This procedure is a direct abortion and therefore illicit: ncbcenter.org/page.aspx?pid=940

The idea is that –

• if a good effect proceeds from a bad effect, then it is ILLICIT
• if a bad effect proceeds from a good effect, then it is LICIT

Or, in images –

• action → bad effect → good effect → ILLICIT
• action → good effect → bad effect → LICIT

So in case of ectopic pregnancy –

• you remove the tube to cause a good effect (remove the threat to woman’s life), but tube removal has a bad effect of killing the embryo; however, since death of the embryo is secondary, then the procedure is licit
• if you remove the embryo, then the death of the embryo is a primary consequence, and the good effect (saving the woman) proceeds from that, which renders the procedure ILLICIT

At least, this is the official view.

Now, the consequentialist view (which got some people excommunicated) is that it’s all hogwash: there’s no such thing as a primary or secondary effect, the action simply has two equivalent effects. The effects proceed from the action, not from each other. So, removal of the embryo from the tube simply results in saving the woman AND the death of the embryo. You can’t have one without the other.

This is best demonstrated when discussing killing someone in self-defense. Say that someone is attacking you with a knife and you have a gun. The double effect is normally used to justify that firing your gun at the attacker is legit, because the primary effect of the shot is stopping the attacker, while the attacker’s death is an unfortunate, but intended and secondary effect of your action. But one could as well say that attacker’s death is a primary effect, and your safety is a secondary effect (a dead attacker cannot hurt you, your safety proceeds from his death) – which would render self-defense illicit.

Obviously, something cannot be both licit and illicit based on the same rule.

There is a very interesting article arguing that the problem arises from considering a textbook formulation of the doctrine in isolation from its original philosophical context. The author essentially argues that it should be about the primary intent of the action:

…killing the attacker with the intention of saving one’s life is not a means
prior to the achievement of this end. Instead, killing the attacker and saving one’s life are
the same action, only differently described. (Otherwise we are not talking about a
case of double effect.) For one does not kill the attacker (call this action 1) and then,
thereafter, save one’s life (call this action 2). Instead, killing the attacker is
immediately saving one’s life. It might be countered—rightly—that the killing is
initiated before the saving of one’s life is realized; but it is also right that the
initiation of the killing is the initiation of the saving of one’s life. From the point of
view of the agent acting with the intention to save his or her life, there is not first
one action (killing) and then another (self-defense). Instead, there is one, indivisible
action guided by the intention of self-defense. To claim, to the contrary, that the
agent is guided here by evil seems simply false. Instead, it is the good end of saving
one’s life that does the guiding. Accordingly, it is misleading to say that one is
doing evil here that good may come. What one is doing is seeking to save one’s
life—full stop.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Incorrect. This procedure is a direct abortion and therefore illicit: ncbcenter.org/page.aspx?pid=940

The idea is that –

• if a good effect proceeds from a bad effect, then it is ILLICIT
• if a bad effect proceeds from a good effect, then it is LICIT

Or, in images –

• action → bad effect → good effect → ILLICIT
• action → good effect → bad effect → LICIT

So in case of ectopic pregnancy –

• you remove the tube to cause a good effect (remove the threat to woman’s life), but tube removal has a bad effect of killing the embryo; however, since death of the embryo is secondary, then the procedure is licit
• if you remove the embryo, then the death of the embryo is a primary consequence, and the good effect (saving the woman) proceeds from that, which renders the procedure ILLICIT

At least, this is the official view.

Now, the consequentialist view (which got some people excommunicated) is that it’s all hogwash: there’s no such thing as a primary or secondary effect, the action simply has two equivalent effects. The effects proceed from the action, not from each other. So, removal of the embryo from the tube simply results in saving the woman AND the death of the embryo. You can’t have one without the other.

This is best demonstrated when discussing killing someone in self-defense. Say that someone is attacking you with a knife and you have a gun. The double effect is normally used to justify that firing your gun at the attacker is legit, because the primary effect of the shot is stopping the attacker, while the attacker’s death is an unfortunate, but intended and secondary effect of your action. But one could as well say that attacker’s death is a primary effect, and your safety is a secondary effect (a dead attacker cannot hurt you, your safety proceeds from his death) – which would render self-defense illicit.

Obviously, something cannot be both licit and illicit based on the same rule.

There is a very interesting article arguing that the problem arises from considering a textbook formulation of the doctrine in isolation from its original philosophical context. The author essentially argues that it should be about the primary intent of the action:

The procedure I was thinking of was not a scoping out of the baby in the sense of an abortion, which causes the immediate death of the baby before or simultaneous with the good effect of improving the mother’s health. I was thinking of a procedure that carefully removed the baby intact, with the possibility of being reimplanted in the uterus or nurtured in some other manner… I know that is not possible with today’s technology, but it is possible in principle. Delivering a baby by C-section when it is very premature was unthinkable 200 years ago, but today it is possible. So if the baby were removed in this manner, it would not yet be dead. It would be just as alive as if it were going along for the ride as the section of tube is removed in the other procedure. So the killing of the baby would not precede the good effect. That would come after, if a suitable new environment cannot be found, just as in the tubal removal.

 

[Gorgias]

This is best demonstrated when discussing killing someone in self-defense. Say that someone is attacking you with a knife and you have a gun. The double effect is normally used to justify that firing your gun at the attacker is legit, because the primary effect of the shot is stopping the attacker, while the attacker’s death is an unfortunate, but intended and secondary effect of your action. But one could as well say that attacker’s death is a primary effect, and your safety is a secondary effect (a dead attacker cannot hurt you, your safety proceeds from his death) – which would render self-defense illicit.

No. Use of deadly force, when it is not necessary in order to achieve the desired good effect – that is, intending to murder – is not morally licit. If the intent is self-defense, and the foreseen need is to use a gun to defend oneself, and the side-effect (unintended but foreseen) is the death of the aggressor, then it’s morally licit. The two are not the same case, as the notion of intention differs between the two examples.