Proportionalism / the law of double effect

[RosesforMary]

Could you help me out with the differences between the law of double effect and proportionalism?
Sometimes they seem to overlap or to be very similar…

I have read that:

'To make such a determination, one must analyze an action on the basis of four conditions; all of which must be met for the action to be morally justifiable. The conditions of the principle of double effect are the following:

1. The act-in-itself cannot be morally wrong or intrinsically evil
2. The bad effect cannot cause the good effect.
3. The agent cannot intend the bad effect.
4. The bad effect cannot outweigh the good effect; there is a proportionate reason to tolerate the bad effect.’

(source - virtual mentor. google ‘proportionalism double effect’ to find it as I don’t think I can post links)

Is the key to the difference between the two point one in the above list?

Could you justify the following scenarios by the law of double effect:

• shooting down a plane full of people to prevent it being crashed into a highly populated area
• assassinating Hitler in order to bring about the end of the Second World War sooner
• operating on a women with a etopic pregnancy
• condom use to prevent AIDS infection
• any other (probably better) examples you can think of…?

Many thanks!

 

[john_doran]

Could you justify the following scenarios by the law of double effect:

• shooting down a plane full of people to prevent it being crashed into a highly populated area

yes - you’re not intending the deaths of the passengers of the plane, but rather the safety of the people on the ground.

• assassinating Hitler in order to bring about the end of the Second World War sooner

no - you’d have to intend the death of hitler, which is intrinsically wrong.

• operating on a women with a etopic pregnancy

yes - you’re not intending that the baby die, but that the mother live.

• condom use to prevent AIDS infection

i would say yes, as long as what you’re intending is not that pregnancy be made impossible, but only that the disease not be spread. this, of course, assumes that the sexual act in which the condom is being used is itself morally licit (i.e. between a man and a woman who are married to each other).

a good test for the justifiability of an act by double effect is this: is it possible for the goal of the action to be achieved without the bad effect? if so, then the act can be *prima facie *justified by the principle of double effect.

for example: even if you could get every passenger off the plane before you shot it down, you would still achieve your goal: saving the people in the city.

on the other hand, in order for you to get what you want out of the hitler example, hitler must die. which means that you must intend to kill him. which is always wrong.

and so on.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

…

1. The act-in-itself cannot be morally wrong or intrinsically evil
2. The bad effect cannot cause the good effect.
3. The agent cannot intend the bad effect.
4. The bad effect cannot outweigh the good effect; there is a proportionate reason to tolerate the bad effect.’

…

Could you justify the following scenarios by the law of double effect:

• shooting down a plane full of people to prevent it being crashed into a highly populated area
• assassinating Hitler in order to bring about the end of the Second World War sooner
• operating on a women with a etopic pregnancy
• condom use to prevent AIDS infection
• any other (probably better) examples you can think of…?

Many thanks!

In my opinion only “operating on a women with a etopic pregnancy” would be allowed. The condom has a few problems of which the first is no need to have sex. As for Hitler it would seem his death alone would not end the war. Though just war doctrine may apply. Concerning the plane the details would be interesting however the concept of you knowing the future is worse if allowed to fly is the key. Maybe the plane would land on a highway, in a land fill, or an airport. Don’t most planes fly over “highly populated area(s)”? and all have a chance to crash, yet it is more probably the plane will land on a runway.

 

[RosesforMary]

In my opinion only “operating on a women with a etopic pregnancy” would be allowed. The condom has a few problems of which the first is no need to have sex. As for Hitler it would seem his death alone would not end the war. Though just war doctrine may apply. Concerning the plane the details would be interesting however the concept of you knowing the future is worse if allowed to fly is the key. Maybe the plane would land on a highway, in a land fill, or an airport. Don’t most planes fly over “highly populated area(s)”? and all have a chance to crash, yet it is more probably the plane will land on a runway.

Sorry - I didn’t make myself clear about the plane.
I meant to ask if shooting the plane down in the type of situation that took place on 9/11 would be justified.

Also, I realise that, historically, Hitler’s death alone would not end the war. Again, I didn’t make myself clear (sorry!), but I just meant to use that figure to evoke the large scale of the tragedy that was WWII. My actual question for that one should have been something like, ‘is it morally justifiable to kill one man, with the certainty that his death will prevent the deaths of millions?’
Because answering yes seems very like proportionalism…?

Thanks for your responses!

 

[Newbie2]

In my opinion only “operating on a women with a etopic pregnancy” would be allowed. The condom has a few problems of which the first is no need to have sex. As for Hitler it would seem his death alone would not end the war. Though just war doctrine may apply. Concerning the plane the details would be interesting however the concept of you knowing the future is worse if allowed to fly is the key. Maybe the plane would land on a highway, in a land fill, or an airport. Don’t most planes fly over “highly populated area(s)”? and all have a chance to crash, yet it is more probably the plane will land on a runway.

I gotta agree with TR on this.

 

[john_doran]

Sorry - I didn’t make myself clear about the plane.
I meant to ask if shooting the plane down in the type of situation that took place on 9/11 would be justified.

yes, it would be justified, as long as one was not intending, for example, the deaths of the terrorists, but rather only that the people on the ground be saved.

RosesforMary:

Also, I realise that, historically, Hitler’s death alone would not end the war. Again, I didn’t make myself clear (sorry!), but I just meant to use that figure to evoke the large scale of the tragedy that was WWII. My actual question for that one should have been something like, ‘is it morally justifiable to kill one man, with the certainty that his death will prevent the deaths of millions?’
Because answering yes seems very like proportionalism…?

answering yes ***is ***proportionalism.