Question about the two-fold (double) effect

[Ak112]

This is what the twofold effect is:

The principle that says it is morally allowable to perform an act that has at least two effects, one good and one bad. It may be used under the following conditions: 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; 2. 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; 3. the evil effect must not be intended for itself but only permitted; all bad will must be excluded form the act; 4. 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.

My question is about the 4th requirement:

1. there must be a proportionately grave reason for permitting the evil effect. At least the good and evil effects should be nearly equivalent.

How do you measure the goodness of an action, so that you can know if it’s goodness is as equally good as the bad action?

For example, what if a doctor tells a man he has to masturbate in order to fix a serious health problem?

Would it be considered a mortal sin or not? How do you measure if the action of fixing the serious health issue is good enough to outwiegh the mortal sin?

Please help.

 

[1ke]

For example, what if a doctor tells a man he has to masturbate in order to fix a serious health problem?

Such an action does not meet #1. It is not in itself a good act. Therefore, it cannot be chosen.

 

[Ak112]

Such an action does not meet #1. It is not in itself a good act. Therefore, it cannot be chosen.

Killing somebody is not a good act in itself, yet you can do it only if the intention is defend yourself.

The catechism of the catholic church says:

“By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs IN ORDER to derive sexual pleasure.”

So you might be able to do it for another reason, but the intended GOOD result has to be equal or something, so how do you know if the goodness measures up to be 100% the exact opposite of the bad effect?

I guess I’m asking: what’s the opposite of mortal sin? You can measure evil actions in degrees: mortal and venial, so how do you measure goodness in degrees?

 

[GEddie]

Killing somebody is not a good act in itself, yet you can do it only if the intention is defend yourself.

The catechism of the catholic church says:

“By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs IN ORDER to derive sexual pleasure.”

So you might be able to do it for another reason, but the intended GOOD result has to be equal or something, so how do you know if the goodness measures up to be 100% the exact opposite of the bad effect?

I guess I’m asking: what’s the opposite of mortal sin? You can measure evil actions in degrees: mortal and venial, so how do you measure goodness in degrees?

The opposite of mortal sin might be understood as heroic virtuosity, but even then, that doesn’t fit.

Mortal sin is an act that causes the human being to fall from spiritual grace. But there is no action, other than repentance and Confession, that would bring someone back into spiritual grace.

Your question about gradations of good is a good one, though, so here is my MX$.02:

Just as mortal sin cannot be proclaimed based on only the action (grave matter) but requires full knowledge and consent, the amount by which good outweighs evil would depend on the need to be met.

It would not, for example, be moral to steal a large amount of money to celebrate a child’s birthday. It **might **be morally acceptable to do so in order to treat someone’s severe illness (depending on the harm done to those stolen from.)

Both the good and evil done are situational and so not readily compared.

ICXC NIKA

 

[nodito]

“By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs IN ORDER to derive sexual pleasure.”

In that same section of the catechism, it also says, “The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose.” So I would agree with 1ke that in this case, condition 1 is not met.

But to speak to your larger question, I don’t think it is specifically delineated anywhere as to what good effects balance bad effects, but we can make some reasonable inferences. I’d argue it’s proportional to save one life at the risk of losing another (such as in the case of separating conjoined twins) or to fix one aspect of one’s health at the risk of destroying another aspect of it (as in the case of taking medication for an illness that has infertility as a side effect).

In the end, I don’t think God is going to hold up a giant scale and say, “Ooh, you were close. The goodnes here was 2 degrees less than the bad effect. Hell for you!” We must inform our consciences properly and act within certain guidelines that the Church sets forth and then do what we feel is moral.

But if the effect is “mortal sin” then the act itself must be evil, in which case you can not balance it with any virtuous or good result. This is why direct abortion is always immoral.

 

[Corki]

Killing somebody is not a good act in itself, yet you can do it only if the intention is defend yourself.

The morality of killing in self-defense is not due to the principle of double effect but due to the moral right to protect ones own life against an unjust aggressor.

 

[Zachary]

The morality of killing in self-defense is not due to the principle of double effect but due to the moral right to protect ones own life against an unjust aggressor.

…whereas masturbating isn’t likely to save your life. There would likely be an easily accessible and reasonable alternative.

 

[Ak112]

In that same section of the catechism, it also says, “The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose.” So I would agree with 1ke that in this case, condition 1 is not met.

But to speak to your larger question, I don’t think it is specifically delineated anywhere as to what good effects balance bad effects, but we can make some reasonable inferences. I’d argue it’s proportional to save one life at the risk of losing another (such as in the case of separating conjoined twins) or to fix one aspect of one’s health at the risk of destroying another aspect of it (as in the case of taking medication for an illness that has infertility as a side effect).

In the end, I don’t think God is going to hold up a giant scale and say, “Ooh, you were close. The goodnes here was 2 degrees less than the bad effect. Hell for you!” We must inform our consciences properly and act within certain guidelines that the Church sets forth and then do what we feel is moral.

But if the effect is “mortal sin” then the act itself must be evil, in which case you can not balance it with any virtuous or good result. This is why direct abortion is always immoral.

I guess you are right about masturbation.

I agree that God probably won’t judge a good effect on a scale like that, all I wanted to know was 1 thing:

Is there a way to judge if a good thing is more good than another good thing?

Because I remember reading something about measuring goodness in St. Thomas Aquinas’s Summa Theologica and then I heard about the double effect and I saw a connection and was curious to see if I could get some clarification.

 

[nodito]

Is there a way to judge if a good thing is more good than another good thing?

Because I remember reading something about measuring goodness in St. Thomas Aquinas’s Summa Theologica and then I heard about the double effect and I saw a connection and was curious to see if I could get some clarification.

It’s an interesting question. The catechism talks about degrees of harms and mentions, for example, that injuring your parents is more sinful than injuring a random stranger. There’s probably a way to extend that line of thought to goodness…

 

[Ak112]

It’s an interesting question. The catechism talks about degrees of harms and mentions, for example, that injuring your parents is more sinful than injuring a random stranger. There’s probably a way to extend that line of thought to goodness…

Well, okay, 3 things actually :

Are there things that are more good than other things?

If goodness if measurable in degrees, then how do you know when a good is more or less equivalent to the evil?

And now I’m curious about the point you brought up: can you balance out a mortal sin with something equally good or not?

 

[nodito]

Well, okay, 3 things actually :

Are there things that are more good than other things?

If goodness if measurable in degrees, then how do you know when a good is more or less equivalent to the evil?

And now I’m curious about the point you brought up: can you balance out a mortal sin with something equally good or not?

Nothing can justify a mortal sin. One may not do evil so that good can come from it. If the action is evil, it can never be permitted; no amount of good can make it worthwhile to commit that evil act.

So, for example, suppose you had the ability to save 1 million lives if you abort your baby. We agree that saving lives is good and saving a 1 million is very good. But since abortion is intrinsically evil, it would not be moral to abort one’s baby in order to save a million other lives.

I think some of what is good is written on our hearts. We know it’s good to love God. We know it’s good to honor our parents. We know it’s good to take care of one’s body, health, spouse, children, neighbors, etc. I think even secular culture recognizes that some things are inherently good: honesty, love, generosity, etc, even if it disagrees with us about how to apply those virtues in real life.

I think each situation would have to be weighed individually. For example, we might agree that it is legitimate to take a drug that destroys fertility if the intended effect is to cure a heart problem. We might say that same drug is not legitimate if the intention is to merely make one’s hair grow a little faster. But that may not always be the case. It may be legitimate to take such a drug if, for example, the recipient was recently balded from cancer and is likely unable to have children anyway. In that case, we might judge that the good (hair growth) outweighs the bad (reduced fertility). I think it’s a matter of looking at each unique situation and judging for ourselves.

 

[Rau]

…If goodness is measurable in degrees, then how do you know when a good is more or less equivalent to the evil?

And now I’m curious about the point you brought up: can you balance out a mortal sin with something equally good or not?

When evaluating the morality of an act one must examine three things, often referred to as the “fonts” of morality:
Font 1 - the Intention - the wider motivation for the Act;
Font 2 - the Moral Object - the end in moral terms to which the act chosen is ordered;
Font 3 - the Circumstances (including consequences).
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a4.htm

For an act to be moral, Font 1 must be good, Font 2 must be good (no evil), and Font 3 must on balance be good.

The question you raise may arise in examining Font 3 since in this font, both good and evil consequences may arise. The balancing to be done may be easy and derived directly from moral principles. Or it may be very difficult - involving personal judgements made to the best of one’s ability. We will not be culpable for poor choices where we did our best.

Your question about balancing out mortal sin probably rests on a wrong assumption. The Bad consequence(s) that may flow from an act do not equate to “sin”. Sin would arise, for example, when one chooses to commit an immoral act - that is, one that has failed the test above. Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent.

 

[Rau]

…How do you measure if the action of fixing the serious health issue is good enough to outwiegh the mortal sin?

To this specific point, “fixing a health issue” is the Intention (font 1), and it is Good. But good intentions do not make moral an act which is itself an “intrinsically evil” act. [Intrinsically evil acts are those where Font 2 is bad/evil.] So no “Intention”, no matter how wonderful, will ever make moral an act that is intrinsically evil. This is what we mean by “the Ends do not justify the Means”. This is a principle of Catholic Moral Theology.

The Double Effect principle does not ever make intrinsically evil acts “OK”. What it can do is help you resolve whether an act which produces bad outcomes (as well as good outcomes) is moral or not.

Intrinsically evil acts include: homicide, abortion, fornication, contraception, adultery, lying, calumny…

 

[Blue_Horizon]

The morality of killing in self-defense is not due to the principle of double effect but due to the moral right to protect ones own life against an unjust aggressor.

I think you will find the CCC disagrees with you - it explicitly mentions the PODE doesn’t it?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

In that same section of the catechism, it also says, “The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose.” So I would agree with 1ke that in this case, condition 1 is not met.

But is this really the “act” referred to in principle #1?

Just like in killing or amputation - this is but part of the situation, the secondary act.
The primary “act” may be self-defence or healing rather than killing or mutilation couldn’t it?

 

[Rau]

But is this really the “act” referred to in principle #1?

Just like in killing or amputation - this is but part of the situation, the secondary act.
The primary “act” may be self-defence or healing rather than killing or mutilation couldn’t it?

Masturbation is the act, regardless of its intention. Masturbation is what it is, and it produces a semen sample, and so is a means to a diagnostic test.

Do not confuse the act and moral object with the reason to do it.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

To this specific point, “fixing a health issue” is the Intention (font 1), and it is Good. But good intentions do not make moral an act which is itself an “intrinsically evil” act. [Intrinsically evil acts are those where Font 2 is bad/evil.] So no “Intention”, no matter how wonderful, will ever make moral an act that is intrinsically evil. This is what we mean by “the Ends do not justify the Means”. This is a principle of Catholic Moral Theology.

The Double Effect principle does not ever make intrinsically evil acts “OK”. What it can do is help you resolve whether an act which produces bad outcomes (as well as good outcomes) is moral or not.

Intrinsically evil acts include: homicide, abortion, fornication, contraception, adultery, lying, calumny…

I think it is a bit more complicated than this.

Sometimes the intention can show that what we originally thought was the 2nd font (the object) was in fact something else.

So this guy wasn’t torturing or mutilating me by chopping off my leg … he was a doctor trying to heal me and was merely performing a therapeutic procedure.

Likewise I didn’t really commit a homicide, my intention was to protect my wife from an aggressor.

While frottage (we cannot assume it is masturbation if not done for pleasure) to provide a medical sample may be a disordered use of the sexual faculty… that doesn’t necessarily mean its intrinsically evil does it. Not all fully intended disordered acts are mortal.

If done for pleasure (masturbation) then yes this is regarded as intrinsically evil (ie to intentionally do so is to directly reject God).

 

[Rau]

I think it is a bit more complicated than this.

Sometimes the intention can show that what we originally thought was the 2nd font (the object) was in fact something else.

In this case, it is not more complicated than I’ve stated.

So this guy wasn’t torturing or mutilating me by chopping off my leg … he was a doctor trying to heal me and was merely performing a therapeutic procedure.

We speak of “human acts”, not frames of video on a screen devoid of moral meaning. The human act is not the movements of a surgeon devoid of explanation or knowledge of the mind of the surgeon in doing his work. That knowledge allows us to recognise the true moral object which might not be revealed solely by watching a video. We know it is good because we know the parts of the body serve and are secondary to the whole. Surgery is the right and necessary action for curing the whole.

Likewise I didn’t really commit a homicide, my intention was to protect my wife from an aggressor.

I am familiar with the moral analysis of self-defence. Analogous comments to those above apply.

While frottage (we cannot assume it is masturbation if not done for pleasure) to provide a medical sample may be a disordered use of the sexual faculty… that doesn’t necessarily mean its intrinsically evil does it. Not all fully intended disordered acts are mortal.

If done for pleasure (masturbation) then yes this is regarded as intrinsically evil (ie to intentionally do so is to directly reject God).

I am afraid there is no good object to an act of masturbation. No good comes from it. It is a means to some other good. Similarly, there is no good end to a decision to inject a pregnant woman with methotrexate to end an ectopic pregnancy for the purposes of saving the life of the mother. In both cases, there may be a good end in sight, but the act - the means - was a bad one. Contraception comes to mind as another bad act that many believe they can justify due to Intentions & Circumstances. Avoiding pregnancy , and certain dangers resulting therefrom, may be a very good end, but a wrong means has been chosen.

 

[Rau]

…While frottage (we cannot assume it is masturbation if not done for pleasure) to provide a medical sample may be a disordered use of the sexual faculty… that doesn’t necessarily mean its intrinsically evil does it. Not all fully intended disordered acts are mortal.

Thanks for teaching me a new word.

The notions of “intrinsic evil” and “mortal sin” are not tightly related. An act may be intrinsically evil, without constituting a mortal sin (eg. a lie regarding some minor matter and when not under oath). I’m not sure why you raise the question of mortal sin - I don’t think it fits into this discussion.

 

[Zachary]

It’s not like “frottage” is the ONLY cure for whatever. There is no absolute need for it.

If a semen sample is needed, there are other ways. Even a defective condom that can be used to capture a small sample while allowing the natural marital act to be fulfilled is an alternative.

(“Honey, no lie…the doctor prescribed sex. I can’t ignore doctor’s orders.”)