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?

 

[St_Francis]

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?

The evil result needs to be a “side effect” which is unrelated to the good result.

Hmmmm, let’s take the example of giving someone a sufficient amount of pain killer to relieve the pain, but which may hasten death. The intention is to relieve the pain, the hastening of death is an unintended side effect.

However, one could not decide to use a fast -acting poison with the intention of relieving pain by causing the death. See? The pain relief cannot be *caused *by the death of the patient, it can only be a side effect.

 

[TheAdvocate]

The evil result needs to be a “side effect” which is unrelated to the good result.

Hmmmm, let’s take the example of giving someone a sufficient amount of pain killer to relieve the pain, but which may hasten death. The intention is to relieve the pain, the hastening of death is an unintended side effect.

However, one could not decide to use a fast -acting poison with the intention of relieving pain by causing the death. See? The pain relief cannot be *caused *by the death of the patient, it can only be a side effect.

Thank you, that’s not bad, but in your example, the first principle is violated too, for administering poison is a bad act to begin with.

Is it possible for the third condition of double-effect to be violated without violating the third one?

It just seems to me that the third condition is redundant to the first one. In fact, the third one just seems like a forgone conclusion based on the first one.

 

[runningdude]

Thank you, that’s not bad, but in your example, the first principle is violated too, for administering poison is a bad act to begin with.

Even water can be a poison in extreme doses; however drinking water is not morally evil. Taking a pain relieving medicine is the same; an extreme dose that causes immediate death would be wrong. Increasing the dosage in proportion to extreme pain, knowing even knowing that it could hasten death is not wrong. Death need not be avoided at all costs, only not deliberately hastened.

 

[tonyrey]

Even water can be a poison in extreme doses; however drinking water is not morally evil. Taking a pain relieving medicine is the same; an extreme dose that causes immediate death would be wrong. Increasing the dosage in proportion to extreme pain, knowing even knowing that it could hasten death is not wrong. Death need not be avoided at all costs, only not deliberately hastened.

Irrefutable!

 

[TheAdvocate]

Even water can be a poison in extreme doses; however drinking water is not morally evil. Taking a pain relieving medicine is the same; an extreme dose that causes immediate death would be wrong. Increasing the dosage in proportion to extreme pain, knowing even knowing that it could hasten death is not wrong. Death need not be avoided at all costs, only not deliberately hastened.

Thanks, but what does that have to do with the third condition being violated?

It just seems to me that the third condition of double-effect is redundant.

Can anyone think of an example where the act is good to begin with (keeping, therefore, with the first principle), but then an evil outcome arises from the evil effect? Is it possible to violate the third principle while keeping the first one?

For your reference, here is double effect as explained by the New Catholic Encyclopedia:

1. The act itself must be morally good or at least indifferent.
2. The agent may not positively will the bad effect but may permit it. If he could attain the good effect without the bad effect he should do so. The bad effect is sometimes said to be indirectly voluntary.
3. The good effect must flow from the action at least as immediately (in the order of causality, though not necessarily in the order of time) as the bad effect. In other words the good effect must be produced directly by the action, not by the bad effect. Otherwise the agent would be using a bad means to a good end, which is never allowed.
4. The good effect must be sufficiently desirable to compensate for the allowing of the bad effect“

 

[runningdude]

Thanks, but what does that have to do with the third condition being violated?

It just seems to me that the third condition of double-effect is redundant.

Can anyone think of an example where the act is good to begin with (keeping, therefore, with the first principle), but then an evil outcome arises from the evil effect? Is it possible to violate the third principle while keeping the first one?
…

Well, death caused by the narcotics would be an example of the evil. A person with a severe traumatic injury could theoretically survive for several months, though in extreme pain. Heavy doses of pain killers may shorten his expected survival time significantly, but risk of death is proportionate to the pain of dying due to his injuries.

Death is an “evil” outcome hastened by the morally good action of tempering his pain with power medications.

There is also the classic example of a child who implanted on a fallopian tube of his mother (an ectopic pregnancy). Giving the mother poison to kill the child directly is moral repugnant, but removing the diseased organ is not, because it directly treats the illness of mother. The child sadly dies in both cases, which is an evil, but is only a natural evil rather than a directly intended evil. The proportionate good is the treatment of the mother’s illness, possibly saving her life.

 

[vames]

“The good effect must flow from the action at least as immediately (in the order of causality, though not necessarily in the order of time) as the bad effect. In other words the good effect must be produced directly by the action, not by the bad effect. Otherwise the agent would be using a bad means to a good end, which is never allowed.”
IMO this condition was introduced simply as a guarantee - to prevent people from attributing the good result to the bad side effect and then concluding that the first condition (good/neutral action) is in fact unnecessary or not always necessary.

To take the classical example of ectopic pregnancy:

1. Good/neutral action - removal of the Fallopian tube
2. Good result - survival of the mother
3. Bad side effect - death of the embryo
   The third condition compels us to conclude that the survival of the mother is the direct result of removing the Fallopian tube.
   Without this accepted causal succession, the conclusion could be that the survival of the mother can be directly attributed to the death of the embryo, which in turn would allow eliminating the first condition and using any other method (“direct abortion”) to get rid of the ectopical pregnancy.

To take St Francis’ example:

1. Good/neutral action - painkillers
2. Good result - reducing pain
3. Bad side effect - hastening death
   The third condition compels us to conclude that pain reduction is the direct result of administering painkillers.
   Without this accepted causal succession, the conclusion could be that pain reduction can be directly attributed to hastening death, which in turn would allow eliminating the first condition and using any other method (euthanasia, suicide, or shooting the patient in the head) to get rid of the pain.