Principel of Double Effect - Do I understand this correectly?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ahs
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

ahs

Guest
The more I try to explain it, the more complicated it seems to me.

The scenario:

A store clerk (Wal-Mart, for example), sell contraceptives to a customer. Is he guilty of sin?

**My explanation (that I’d like some critique of, please) **:

It’s “material cooperation” in sin, unless you are approving of the use of the contraception, or you are have direct control over what the store offers for sale…then it could be “formal cooperation”.

Formal cooperation is what holds you to the same guilt as the person committing the sin. Material cooperation is just you trying to earn a paycheck and having no control over what your customers choose to purchase (unless, again, you have control over what they purchase/what is available).

So, the short answer is, no, not sinful if you are just a cashier selling goods at a store that happens to offer these. However, if your conscience bothers you about it, you are obliged to follow your well-informed conscience [formed on the teachings of the Church] and seek alternatives.

The conditions of double effect* are met:
  1. the action is morally good or neutral [selling goods to customers]
  2. one does not share in the evil intent [clerk does not support use of contraceptives nor promote them]
  3. action does not directly cause evil [clerk selling the item is not using, not condoning their use, not would a refusal to sell affect the choice of the customer]
  4. sufficient reasons allow for the evil affect [person needs a job to provide for himself and family, and refusal could mean unemployment, per se]
(*using the “Beginning Apologetics” series, #5 on Moral Issues…pretty much quoted these directly from the book.)
 
And in case I had been too clear, I decided to dive on in and complicate things really well by going further :o :

Here is the basis upon which one might say,“the clerk is guilty of cooperation”:

1868 Sin is a personal act. Moreover, we have a responsibility for the sins committed by others when we cooperate in them:
  • by participating directly and voluntarily inthem;
  • by ordering, advising, praising, or approving them;
  • by not disclosing or not hindering them when we have an obligation to do so;
  • by protecting evil-doers.
However,
before a judgment can be made on cooperation, we have to evaluate what the “obligation to [hinder]” is in this case. In order to hinder a person from a purchase, the clerk has to have some influence on the person [and this case, it’s not likely] and must avoid rash judgment. One is guilty of rash judgment “who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor” (CCC 2477).

Also,
“To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way” (CCC 2478)

This brings us back to CCC 1853…the object of sin…what the sin “is”. So, name the sin. If the clerk supports contraception, works at a store that exclusivley sells it, actively promotes it, encourages the customers, etc…then he is “formally cooperating” in the sin and is guilty of the contraception, as a “formal” accomplice, so to speak. He is guilty, by formal cooperation, per CCC 1868, of contraception.

However, if he does NOT support it, condone it, encourage it, etc…then he is not formally cooperating. He is materially cooperatig in so far as he is providing an avenue of purchase, by default. He is a clerk. So, he is not guilty of contraception. His “act” of the will is “being a clerk”, which is morally nuetral, or possibly good. He is not obliged to hinder because doing so requires a potential rash judgment [though he is free to inquire of the customer, and then instruct if he chooses…which could cost him his job]. Material cooperation, no sin on his part, met by the principle of double effect, regardless of whether he knows contraception is evil.

So…did I do well and stick to the meat and potatoes…or did I stray off somewhere and potentially misrepresent Church teaching?
 
I would look at the principle of double effect in terms of the three fonts of morality:
intention
moral object
circumstances (consequences)

The principle of double effect applies if your act has two substantial consequences, one good and the other bad (or two sets of consequences). However, if you act with a bad intention (intended end), the act is always a sin. Or if you deliberately choose an act that is intrinsically evil, then it is always a sin. The principle of double effect never justified a bad intention or a bad moral object. That is why a list of conditions for an act to be justified under this principle always specifies a good intention and a good act.

Essentially, the principle of double effect justifies an act if the totality of the reasonably anticipated good consequences equals or outweighs the totality of the bad consequences.

The store clerk who takes payment for the contraceptive commits an act of material cooperation. He does not provide authorization for the contraceptive, nor does he dispense the contraceptive. His act pertains to the circumstances, i.e. accepting payment for the contraceptive. And the money received does not go to him personally, but to the store. In such a case, the evaluation of the good and bad consequences applies. If he needs the job and would suffer substantial harm in trying to change jobs, then his act might be justified under the principles of double effect and material cooperation.
 
Even if it weren’t for double effect, you’re forgetting the fact that buying a condom is not sinful… and so naturally, selling a condom is not sinful. The sinfulness comes with actually using a condom while having sexual intercourse, but just because someone buys a condom, doesn’t mean they’re going to use it for that.

They might just be planning on using them for water balloons or for playing a prank on someone.
 
^Or even for foreplay so they can “last longer” before taking it off to finish.
 
ahs said:
The more I try to explain it, the more complicated it seems to me.

The scenario:

A store clerk (Wal-Mart, for example), sell contraceptives to a customer. Is he guilty of sin?
Click to expand...
In my opinion…Yes, he would be guilty of a sin. If you remember a few years back, pharmacists and the stores they worked for, went thru this regarding the morning after birth control pill, and I believe, birth control in general. The Pharmacists argued, they cannot in good conscience, sell these devices to consumers asking for them, and to do so, they would be committing a sin. However Im not sure how this was resolved, I believe the pharmacists won though, in that they COULD decide on whether they would sell a particular product to a customer, but I think there is other aspects of it too.

The way I take this, it is pretty close to a cashier selling condoms or other birth control devices, and since the religious pharmacists had a problem with it, Im sure they had good reason to go forward with this and retaining lawyers as well. I also believe they had the backing of the church too.

Anyone else remember this, I think it was around 2002-2004, but I could be wrong about the dates…?
 
mikekle said:
In my opinion…Yes, he would be guilty of a sin. If you remember a few years back, pharmacists and the stores they worked for, went thru this regarding the morning after birth control pill, and I believe, birth control in general. The Pharmacists argued, they cannot in good conscience, sell these devices to consumers asking for them, and to do so, they would be committing a sin. However Im not sure how this was resolved, I believe the pharmacists won though, in that they COULD decide on whether they would sell a particular product to a customer, but I think there is other aspects of it too.

The way I take this, it is pretty close to a cashier selling condoms or other birth control devices, and since the religious pharmacists had a problem with it, Im sure they had good reason to go forward with this and retaining lawyers as well. I also believe they had the backing of the church too.

Anyone else remember this, I think it was around 2002-2004, but I could be wrong about the dates…?
Click to expand...
Lol, so basically it’s sinful to be a cashier at any grocery store or any pharmacy, considering they all sell condoms…

Eh, I don’t think so.
 
ahs said:
The scenario:

A store clerk (Wal-Mart, for example), sell contraceptives to a customer. Is he guilty of sin?
Click to expand...
The store clerk is a rather small cog in this scenario. What if you play slightly with the details of the scenario and see if / how / when you’d come to a different conclusion. For example, what about this:

Scenario 2
The local cake-shop accepts an order from a homosexual couple for a “wedding” cake. Does the cake-shop proprietor sin?
 
A man sells empty plastic jugs to another man who makes moonshine. There is nothing illegal about selling plastic jugs. Still, has the first man broken the law because of who he sold it to?
 
Lost_Sheep said:
A man sells empty plastic jugs to another man who makes moonshine. There is nothing illegal about selling plastic jugs. Still, has the first man broken the law because of who he sold it to?
Click to expand...
I dont think God ever said moonshine was something he was against, so that would not be the same thing, that is one of mans laws, not Gods.
 
mikekle said:
I dont think God ever said moonshine was something he was against, so that would not be the same thing, that is one of mans laws, not Gods.
Click to expand...
I’m using the analogy of sins = laws. That’s all.
 
ahs said:
The more I try to explain it, the more complicated it seems to me.

The scenario:

A store clerk (Wal-Mart, for example), sell contraceptives to a customer. Is he guilty of sin?

**My explanation (that I’d like some critique of, please) **:

It’s “material cooperation” in sin, unless you are approving of the use of the contraception, or you are have direct control over what the store offers for sale…then it could be “formal cooperation”.

Formal cooperation is what holds you to the same guilt as the person committing the sin. Material cooperation is just you trying to earn a paycheck and having no control over what your customers choose to purchase (unless, again, you have control over what they purchase/what is available).

So, the short answer is, no, not sinful if you are just a cashier selling goods at a store that happens to offer these. However, if your conscience bothers you about it, you are obliged to follow your well-informed conscience [formed on the teachings of the Church] and seek alternatives.

The conditions of double effect* are met:
  1. the action is morally good or neutral [selling goods to customers]
  2. one does not share in the evil intent [clerk does not support use of contraceptives nor promote them]
  3. action does not directly cause evil [clerk selling the item is not using, not condoning their use, not would a refusal to sell affect the choice of the customer]
  4. sufficient reasons allow for the evil affect [person needs a job to provide for himself and family, and refusal could mean unemployment, per se]
(*using the “Beginning Apologetics” series, #5 on Moral Issues…pretty much quoted these directly from the book.)
Click to expand...
The principle of double effect is complicated, as you rightly say. St. Thomas Aquinas first conceived of the principle of double effect. However, it is important to note that for Aquinas, the most important thing is act, and that act entails some effect (act being the cause). In this case, the only action considered is the store clerk. The store clerk wills the action of selling product, which is not intrinsically evil. But there is no second effect as a necessary result of the selling of the product: the customer may or may not utilize this condom. This effect is not directly related to the clerk’s action, and as such is not properly considered as related to the principle of double effect.

The reason I have stated this is not a principle of double effect, is precisely because there is no second effect stemming from the act (which is always one). Otherwise, we would be responsible for many evils in the world. You could sell some rope, but the customer might strangle someone with it. The second effect must be a direct consequence of the act.

The act of using a condom is not directly related to the act of selling a product.

Whereas, in the case of a bomber who intends to attack a military target, there may be a second unintended but direct effect of the action of bombing: civilian death. This would be the principle of double effect, because of the two direct effects of the act of bombing.

Also, in the case of a woman who “needs” a hysterectomy while pregnant, the principle of double effect sees one action (removing the uterus) and two effects: health and death of the child. These two effects are necessarily related to the cause/act of removing the uterus.

If you were to sell a firearm to a minor, which is illegal, there would be grave moral sin. This is because although the act of selling is good, the person you are selling to might not be rationally capable of using the weapon which has a purpose of injuring or killing. As such, you, as the rational person might be responsible for the effect of the act, because the recipient may not have enough rationality to use it.

I hope this helps.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top