How to interpret the Principle of Double Effect?

[fakename]

I think that it is formulated like this: that the action to be done should be intrinsically either morally good or morally indifferent; second, that the bad result not be directly intended; third, that the good result not be a direct causal result of the bad result; and fourth, that the good result be proportionate to the bad result.

But what does “direct causal result” mean? If I have a duty to take care of my health(by say standing in line and buying medicine) but also a duty to avoid being shot by a guy in the same line, I could do either because me standing in line doesn’t directly cause the guy to shot me. Of course, it is debatable that the result is proportionate to the bad but I think there is a good argument to be made that in some situations there may be a dire need to both preserve health and to avoid being shot and yet in either choice, wouldn’t you be sinning against the moral rule to generally preserve one’s health?

That’s why I question my interpretation and I wish for someone to come and correct any mistakes they see.

 

[Bookcat]

Here:

catholicreference.net/index.cfm?id=33215

 

[Salvatore123]

The previous poster did, indeed, cite the tenets for “double effect”:

*1. the act to be done must be good in itself or at least morally indifferent; by the act to be done is meant the deed itself taken independently of its consequences;

1. the good effect must not be obtained by means of the evil effect; the evil must be only an incidental by-product and not an actual factor in the accomplishment of the good;
2. the evil effect must not be intended for itself but only permitted; all bad will must be excluded form the act;
3. there must be a proportionately grave reason for permitting the evil effect. At least the good and evil effects should be nearly equivalent.

All four conditions must be fulfilled. If any one of them is not satisfied, the act is morally wrong.*

I believe that from a logician’s standpoint, theology is playing with the rules.

For example, consider the case where a woman has an ectopic pregnancy (that is, the fertilized egg implants itself inside of one of the woman’s fallopian tubes instead of the uterus). Catholic theologians always state that the “doube effect” doctrine permits the
OB/GYN to cut the part of the fallopian tube that contains the fertilized egg in order to save the woman’s life because if the child was allowed to develop in the tube, it would kill both the mother and the child.

I think it is disingenuous, at best, to suggest that the doctor and everyone involved in the decision to go forward with such a surgery, really did not intend to “kill” the child. Well of course they did not intend to kill the child per se. But to say that it is an unintended consequence of removing the fallopian tube containing the unborn child is ignoring the facts. Surely they realized that such a surgery would result in the death of the child. So although not what they WANTED, it was certain to follow the surgical act.

In law, we have a definition of intent that permits two scenarios to be characterized as an actor intended the consequences: (1) I act INTENDING that my act cause a consequence, or (2) I act in a manner so that it is SUBSTANTIALLY CERTAIN TO FOLLOW that my act will cause the consequences.

Many people use a warfare scenario where someone bombs a city containing a huge munitions factory, but the factory is surrounded by civilians. Is it okay to bomb that factory if it is playing a large role in killing my countrymen? Certainly. If I bomb the plant, can in REALLY say that I am not intending to kill civilians? Well, I can say that all I want - I still have to live with the fact that I KNOW that bombing that plant will kill civilians. I may not want or intend that they did, but I KNOW that my act will lead to their death.

I think it is time we re-evaluate this “double effect” doctrine and simply call it for what it is, especially when it comes to abortion and warfare.

In both instances, removing the baby from the fallopian tube and bombing the factory WILL DEFINITELY RESULT IN A KILLING WE DON’T WANT TO HAPPEN, YET WILL.

I have no problem with either - especially the ectopic pregnancy, because in that case, the woman and child will die as ectopic pregnancies do not go to term. The tube will burst and the child and woman will bleed to death.

So let’s just call it for what it really is: we don’t like the idea of killing the baby in the fallopian tube, but we cannot say that “it is unintended” when we know darned well that removing the tube WILL kill the child. What does the doctor think - the baby can continue to grow in a tube outside of the woman’s belly? Of course not! He acts accordingly because he knows that a failure to act will result in two deaths.

Just acknowledge that in these cases, although we are not intending to kill a baby or civilians, we KNOW they will be killed, and we ACCEPT they will be killed, as there is no other way to save another’s life because allowing both to continue (developing baby in tube and manufacture of munitions) will result in other deaths. So we choose the only way “out” of our dilemma.

I think the “double effect” doctrine is an attempt to give “cover” to someone’s conscience.

Of course, just my humble opinion.

 

[Ender]

In law, we have a definition of intent that permits two scenarios to be characterized as an actor intended the consequences: (1) I act INTENDING that my act cause a consequence, or (2) I act in a manner so that it is SUBSTANTIALLY CERTAIN TO FOLLOW that my act will cause the consequences.

This is illogical. I think you can see this from the very example you gave of a woman with an ectopic pregnancy. If you choose not to operate “it is substantially certain” that the fetus will die. If you chose to operate “it is substantially certain” that the fetus will die, so by your definition you are guilty of intending the death of the fetus simply by being presented with the dilemma. It’s a pretty good bet that if the conclusion is irrational then one of the premises is wrong, and in this case it is your definition of intent.

Ender

 

[Salvatore123]

Ender,

The “two prong” definition of “intent” is not MY definition - it is rooted in Roman law that goes back several thousand years.

I cannot throw a watermelon off of a 5 story building into a crowd of people packed so tightly together that they are almost literally face to face, and then claim I didn’t mean to hurt anyone.

A judge or jury would laugh that defense out of court. How could someone claim they did not intend to harm someone when they act in a way that is substantially certain to cause harm to someone? They cannot.

The ectopic pregnancy scenario that you use to supposedly “destroy” my definition (again - it is not MY definition; it is rooted in law hundreds of years old) is different in one major way: something bad will happen whether one acts or not.

In the scenario where someone ACTS in a certain manner (not refrains from acting), claims they really didn’t intend to harm someone, but yet acted in a manner where reasonable people cannot help but conclude that such an act is substantially certain to result in harm to another person, then that person can be found liable for an intentional harm.

Finally, the way you analyze the ectopic pregnancy scenario is EXACTLY the reason why I think the “double effect” explanation is disgingenuous. Regardless of how someone acts, the unborn child will die. My solution is to just recognize the obvious: yes, removing the unborn child from the fallopian tube will result in the child’s death, and everyone knows that it will. Simply say that in such a scenario, it is permissible to allow such a substantially certain event to occur without attaching legal/ethical/moral consequences to it.

I think you would agree that I cannot drop an atomic bomb on an industrial city and then claim, “well, I really didn’t intend to kill anyone not engaged in the munitions industry”. I may not have WANTED to kill non-workers, but I definitely cannot legitimately claim that it was not substantially certain that such non-workers would die.

That makes no sense.

 

[PeteO]

Whenever I hear the term double effect I shudder at the moral gymnastics we use to rationalize violations of the difficult teachings of Christ.

I try not to view things in such black and white, literalistic terms- however, when Christ gives us his laws, perhaps he was on to something more important than our subjective wants.

I hate to get all strangely utilitarian and fundamentalist but I struggle with this concept-

What if we just do what Christ said?
He gave us two commands which include all of the law and the Ten Commandments.

Self-sacrifice is a main idea of the law.
If a woman has an ectopic pregnancy, we claim we are allowed to kill the child to save the woman. Merely because you kill the child directly through abortion in one manner, or you kill the child by removing the life-sustaining environment from the child- the fact remains is you kill the child.
Perhaps the result of an ectopic pregnancy is the Providence of God? I do not really know.
What I do know is that Catholics often view suffering as a test from God to strengthen our souls for the sacrificial love we must show.

We kill one another to prevent each other from killing one another- what if one group merely stopped killing?
Most likely we could say they would die. I would present however, the situation of the Church Fathers- they ran, they hid, but they did not kill those who killed them. Millions died, yet Catholics converted the entire region in a fantastically short time.

People came to the faith even though for many it was a death sentence.

What if we just stopped doing actions that bring about obvious evil? That would be a start.
God says don’t kill humans, so don’t kill humans.
God says to not lie, so do not lie.

I realize this is a very simplistic concept- but has it really ever been tried? We try to legitimize our “hedging of the law”, but we see none of it lasts, nor truly works- nor would I expect it to, as an earthly Utopia is not possible.
I also speak as someone who did not live the most difficult life, but also as someone who’s life isn’t without severe trials- my lack of horrific situations I’m sure affects my opinion on such a thing.

 

[vz71]

Let’s throw a wrench in the works…

What if there is a medical procedure that will allow removal of the fertilized egg while leaving the tube completely intact.
While at the same time the technology is simply not there to allow moving the fertilized egg out of the tube.

What then?
Do we then consider the removal of just the egg a double effect case?
Do we remove the tube entirely as we do now for this double effect and mutilate perfectly healthy organs? Of course, how can it be a double effect if the removal (of the tube) is not really necessary?
What if the new procedure to remove the egg is non-invasive and poses nearly zero risk to the mother, but the tube removal is surgery, with all the risks entailed by that.

Of course, the scenario is hypothetical…for now.
But I can see this becoming a reality easily within my lifetime.

 

[Ender]

I cannot throw a watermelon off of a 5 story building into a crowd of people packed so tightly together that they are almost literally face to face, and then claim I didn’t mean to hurt anyone.

True, but this is nothing like the extopic pregnancy situation.

How could someone claim they did not intend to harm someone when they act in a way that is substantially certain to cause harm to someone? They cannot.

That’s not the point either. Take the scenario of using lethal force in self defense. If I kill someone out of necessity there is no legal penalty - nor is there a moral objection. If I shoot someone with the intent of protecting myself I am guiltless even if he dies. Although I may not intentionally kill him I may shoot him at point blank range with a shotgun if necessary, the key point being that in shooting him my intent was to protect myself, not to kill him. He’s dead either way but it is my intent that determines the moral validity of the act. The intent, which led to the positive outcome, was protection; the negative outcome - his death - was not directly intended. The situation with the ectopic pregnancy is similar. The intent of the operation was to save the life of the mother, not to end the life of the fetus.

In the scenario where someone ACTS in a certain manner (not refrains from acting), claims they really didn’t intend to harm someone, but yet acted in a manner where reasonable people cannot help but conclude that such an act is substantially certain to result in harm to another person, then that person can be found liable for an intentional harm.

As should be clear from the case of self defense, this claim is not universally true.

Finally, the way you analyze the ectopic pregnancy scenario is EXACTLY the reason why I think the “double effect” explanation is disgingenuous.

The nature of the act itself does not - except in cases of something that is intrinsically evil - determine whether an action is moral or immoral. In every other case it is the intent that determines morality.

Regardless of how someone acts, the unborn child will die. My solution is to just recognize the obvious: yes, removing the unborn child from the fallopian tube will result in the child’s death, and everyone knows that it will. Simply say that in such a scenario, it is permissible to allow such a substantially certain event to occur without attaching legal/ethical/moral consequences to it.

The Church’s solution is to identify the criteria that must be applied to difficult situations to provide a guard against rationalizations.

Ender

 

[ConstantineTG]

In an ectopic pregnancy, the intention is to save the mother’s life by cutting her tubes. There is no direct intention to abort the fetus, the fetus just dies as an after effect. Same with chemo, the intention of chemo is to kill cancer cells. An unintended effect is the death of the fetus.

Now if one were to directly abort the fetus for whatever reason, then thats directly acting on a human life and is murder.

 

[Salvatore123]

Ender,

You said: “That’s not the point either. Take the scenario of using lethal force in self defense. If I kill someone out of necessity there is no legal penalty - nor is there a moral objection. If I shoot someone with the intent of protecting myself I am guiltless even if he dies. Although I may not intentionally kill him I may shoot him at point blank range with a shotgun if necessary, the key point being that in shooting him my intent was to protect myself, not to kill him. He’s dead either way but it is my intent that determines the moral validity of the act. The intent, which led to the positive outcome, was protection; the negative outcome - his death - was not directly intended.”

Food for thought - your post reminded me of the almost universal order given to law enforcement officers: if you have to draw your gun on someone and fire, you do NOT shoot to injure - you specifically shoot to kill. The reason is obvious - a wounded criminal can still shoot back.

It may not change what we were discussing, but it does get a bit more into the “intent” point of all this.

 

[Ender]

Food for thought - your post reminded me of the almost universal order given to law enforcement officers: if you have to draw your gun on someone and fire, you do NOT shoot to injure - you specifically shoot to kill. The reason is obvious - a wounded criminal can still shoot back.

It may not change what we were discussing, but it does get a bit more into the “intent” point of all this.

This is a good point and it does go to the overall question of intent, which can get quite complicated. The officer shoots to kill so in that sense his intent in shooting is to kill, but that action is only part of a larger objective where his intended purpose is to eliminate the threat. That is his ultimate goal. Shooting is necessitated by the nature of the threat and shooting to kill is necessitated by the extent of the options available to him, but a policeman’s ultimate objective is not killing someone but ending a threatening situation.

Ender

 

[antunesaa]

Whenever I hear the term double effect I shudder at the moral gymnastics we use to rationalize violations of the difficult teachings of Christ.

I try not to view things in such black and white, literalistic terms- however, when Christ gives us his laws, perhaps he was on to something more important than our subjective wants.

I hate to get all strangely utilitarian and fundamentalist but I struggle with this concept-

What if we just do what Christ said?
He gave us two commands which include all of the law and the Ten Commandments.

Self-sacrifice is a main idea of the law.
If a woman has an ectopic pregnancy, we claim we are allowed to kill the child to save the woman. Merely because you kill the child directly through abortion in one manner, or you kill the child by removing the life-sustaining environment from the child- the fact remains is you kill the child.
Perhaps the result of an ectopic pregnancy is the Providence of God? I do not really know.
What I do know is that Catholics often view suffering as a test from God to strengthen our souls for the sacrificial love we must show.

We kill one another to prevent each other from killing one another- what if one group merely stopped killing?
Most likely we could say they would die. I would present however, the situation of the Church Fathers- they ran, they hid, but they did not kill those who killed them. Millions died, yet Catholics converted the entire region in a fantastically short time.

People came to the faith even though for many it was a death sentence.

What if we just stopped doing actions that bring about obvious evil? That would be a start.
God says don’t kill humans, so don’t kill humans.
God says to not lie, so do not lie.

I realize this is a very simplistic concept- but has it really ever been tried? We try to legitimize our “hedging of the law”, but we see none of it lasts, nor truly works- nor would I expect it to, as an earthly Utopia is not possible.
I also speak as someone who did not live the most difficult life, but also as someone who’s life isn’t without severe trials- my lack of horrific situations I’m sure affects my opinion on such a thing.

I think you’re being too simplistic in the following sense. Our Lord Jesus Christ gave us certain rules that we cannot break. He said marriage cannot be broken by men; that we will not kill our fellow men; etc. He never specifically mentioned ectopic pregnancies, so we must infer what is the moral thing to do. That we cannot kill, it’s certain, including ourselves. We cannot kill ourselves. We cannot kill others.

Ectopic pregnancy is completely distinct from other cases of abortion (if the term abortion is appropriate, in the same way as the substantive “kill” sometimes cannot be replaced by “homicide”) because there is proportionality in the effects of the act of removing the Falopian tubes. I wonder what is the good act here… At some point me and my wife thought she had an ectopic pregnancy (she hadn’t). She decided that she would only accept any external intervention until the Falopian tube burst and the embryo was dead, thereby risking her life but not wilfuly killing the embryo. I admired her for that. This somehow restored proportionality in the option of not doing anything. But I think that the usual practice seems reasonable. You can call it abortion, but, again, that is no more appropriate than calling the man who killed someone in self-defense an assassin. You can do it, but that doesn’t do justice to the situation.