Ahh, white lies ^____^
For deciding on any action that may have both good and bad effects (for example, protecting Jews from prowling Nazis, or protecting your wife—or is it yourself?
---- from the reality of the mirror), any good Catholic should always refer to what is called the
Principle of Double Effect.
A good definition of this principle can be found
here:
The New Catholic Encyclopedia provides four conditions for the application of the principle of double effect:
- The act itself must be morally good or at least indifferent.
- 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.
- 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.
- The good effect must be sufficiently desirable to compensate for the allowing of the bad effect (p. 1021).
The conditions provided by Joseph Mangan include the explicit requirement that the bad effect not be intended:
Code:
A person may licitly perform an action that he foresees will produce a good effect and a bad effect provided that four conditions are verified at one and the same time:
Code:
1. that the action in itself from its very object be good or at least indifferent;
2. that the good effect and not the evil effect be intended;
3. that the good effect be not produced by means of the evil effect;
4. that there be a proportionately grave reason for permitting the evil effect” (1949, p. 43).
Let us now examine a couple of the examples mentioned in this thread. I will use the first definition, the one provided by The New Catholic Encyclopedia.
Classic example is this-Would you lie to a nazi if you where hiding jewish people in your house?
1. Is the act itself morally good or at least indifferent?
If your act is to lie,
of course it is not morally good; lying will always be evil. However, your act in this case is
to protect the Jews hiding in your house from certain death, not to lie! Therefore the act itself is morally good.
2. Is the evil effect positively willed? Is there no other way to produce the good effect?
I would have to assume that it is not your will to lie, but, being roused out of your home by barking Nazi soldiers armed to the teeth, no one could blame you if at that time you had no choice but to lie.
*3. Does the good effect 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, is the good effect produced directly by the action, not by the bad effect.? *
Yes! Although unfortunately the moment you open your mouth you are lying, at that same moment you are
simultaneously protecting the Jews in your home.
4. Is the good effect sufficiently desirable to compensate for the allowing of the bad effect?
Definitely!
So according to the principle of double effect this instance of lying is not a sin, as it is unavoidable and licit to prevent a more grievous sin.
Then when my wife asks me if her behind looks big in this dress then I guess I will be a sinnin.
1. Is the act itself morally good or at least indifferent?
Your act is either (1) to protect yourself from the wrath of your wife, or (2) to protect your wife’s ego. I guess either is at least morally indifferent.
2. Is the evil effect positively willed? Is there no other way to produce the good effect?
Ah, that IS the question, ain’t it? Is there no other way to produce the good effect?
I may not be married yet, but I have a girlfriend for almost 6 years, and I am almost brutally honest about her atire, but I try to be nice about it. And now she trusts me so much about what looks good on her or not that she always consults me whether I like what she’s going to buy or not.
…wait, is that good…?
3. Does the good effect 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, is the good effect produced directly by the action, not by the bad effect.?
Well, yes. From the previous example, the good effect simultaneously flows from the act as the bad effect.
4. Is the good effect sufficiently desirable to compensate for the allowing of the bad effect?
Definitely not, in my opinion, especially when you consider that you may be lessening the trust your wife has in you.
Of course, I may be wrong, as I am not married yet
