How do you seperate the object itself from the effect in double effect?

[Victorious_song]

I think I’ve come to understand double effect well, except for one thing; one of the requirements is that the act itself must be morally neutral or morally good…but it seems it can often be a blurry line, seperating the act from the unintended consequences. I’ve read that we’re to entirely seperate the act and treat it as a single thing, but how? I can’t quite come up with an example, only a few things, like, if you know a morally good or neutral act might be an occasion of sin for someone you’re with, but it would also have beneficial effects, and not doing it would result in far worse results to your friend, do you consisder the “act” to be the morally neutral act in and of itself, with the potential occasion of sin being the unwanted bad effect? Or does the morally neutral act become an instristic evil in this case?

 

[Michael_Mayo]

if you know a morally good or neutral act might be an occasion of sin for someone you’re with,

Like talking about faith with a strong atheist who is likely to lose temper and become nasty?

but it would also have beneficial effects, and not doing it would result in far worse results to your friend,

Like unless you share your faith this person may never have a change of heart?

do you consisder the “act” to be the morally neutral act in and of itself, with the potential occasion of sin being the unwanted bad effect?

I think so.

Or does the morally neutral act become an instristic evil in this case?

I don’t think so.