o_mlly - You say we merely simplified, but we actually radically changed the kind of act. That is what I’m trying to show.
- The vegetal soul is the principle causing the fetus to be lethal… It’s growing, that’s the problem. Perhaps it is also to some extent the material principle on its own. You’d have to ask a doctor.
I submit that the lethality of the fetus for itself and its mother is its very being and, more directly, the accident of where the fetus is being – in the fallopian tube.
The lethality of the lifeboat occupant occurs only when the swimmer grabs the lifeboat.
The swimmer, like the fetus, is already in a lethal situation and will probably die regardless of any action or non-action taken or not taken by the lifeboat occupant or the mother.
The lifeboat occupant, like the mother, will probably not die if, and only if, the “grabbbing” swimmer’s location, and for the mother, the fetus’ location, changes.
If the fetus or the “grabbing” swimmer do not change locations then 2 instead of 1 will probably die.
- Removing the organ is not like pushing someone away from the boat, nor is it like throwing someone off the boat. There is no clean corollary in our examples. But removing the fetus instead of the organ would be like throwing someone off the boat. It is NOT like pushing someone away from the boat, because, as you noted, the fetus is NOT an aggressor (in the plain sense, at least).
No one is throwing anyone off the boat in the simplified scenario.
The act is “pushing away” which you have agreed is not an intrinsically evil act.
The excision of the section of fallopian tube has the intended effect of saving the mother’s life.
Pushing away the swimmer has the intended effect of saving the lifeboat occupant’s life.
The fetus’ life is not directly attacked in the surgical procedure.
The “grabbing” swimmer’s life is not directly attacked by pushing him away.
Regardless of what the lifeboat occupant does or does not do, the swimmer probably dies.
- I missed the surgeon bit in my response. Sorry. (She is acting in self-defense, but she is not targeting a human being, just the affected organ which happens to have a human being inside it.)
Neither fetus nor swimmer are “targeted.” See below.
- “Can we act in self-defense against those who aren’t aggressors, strictly speaking?” Yes, see point #6. There is a subtlety involved. You can’t target that individual - he is innocent, and you become an aggressor to him by intentionally putting him into a lethal situation.
The swimmer, as the fetus, is already in a lethal situation. The lifeboat occupant does not intend nor does his action to push away the swimmer create or change the swimmer’s lethal situation. Therefore, the lifeboat occupant cannot be described as an aggressor.
The lifeboat occupant, like the mother, wants to remove the cause – the location of the swimmer and the location of the fetus – of their lives being in a lethal situation. If the mother’s act is moral so is the lifeboat occupants act moral. No one is “targeted.”
The verb “target” means to select an object for attack and implies intention as used in double effect morality cases and is coupled with the phrase “direct attack” either on fetuses or innocent civilians. However, you use the verb “target” in some sense as an attitude of the actor independent of his intent. As I understand your argument, you would examine circumstances or consequences and incorporate “targeting” into the very object of the act calling it “demarcating” the act. This mental gymnastic makes no sense to me. The object of an act is a source of determining morality that is always independent of intention or circumstances. Do you have a Magisterial citation to support your claim that the object of an act (not the morality) may be determined using intent or circumstances that are outside the definition of the act itself?
Again, success is our litmus test for the object - if you started to throw a man overboard, but then he sprouted wings and flew away, you would have failed to achieve the proximate goal, despite your intention being satisfied. You wanted this innocent man to go into shark infested waters.
No, the intention is to prevent the lifeboat from sinking. Success is lightening the boat. You continue to confuse intentions with foreseeable bad effects. One may foresee and not intend an evil effect. One may and should also hope that the evil effect not occur.
