Questions on Double Effect

[capoly]

Fone Bone 2001:

The moral agent does not refuse to admit that he intended to do what he did.
Rather, the moral agent refuses to admit that he intended one of the effects of what he did.
The latter is perfectly sensible and logically legitimate.

Nonsense. Let’s take a very simple an uncontroversial scenario. You push someone into water, with the intention of making him clean. There is an “foreseen” consequence that the person will get wet. You cannot “defend” yourself by saying that youe knew he will get wet, but you never intended it. Let’s make it clear: “what you intended is irrelevant”. You did something with a foreseen consequence, and it does not matter if you intended it or not. You must accept the responsibility for the consequence.
Fone Bone 2001:

That doesn’t mean he desires every effect of his action to happen.

Who cares? Look at the question above.
Fone Bone 2001:

Okay, sure, but I do find it puzzling and a little amusing that you are so incapable of seeing the intellectual value of that particular hypothetical: by pitting two horrific outcomes against each other and mandating one of them, you make the dilemma as hard as possible for the ethical philosopher to solve.

There is no problem for me. I posited a different scenario to show how irrational the church’s position is. To contend that performing one act of self-gratification is somehow lower on the ethical scale than saving a few million people from being slaughtered is the ultimate in irrationality. And that is what the church advocates.
Fone Bone 2001:

So… are you admitting that double effect is not a cheap method for rationalizing what would otherwise be considered morally dubious actions?

No, I am waiting for your response to the question posted above. Do you contend that performing one act of self-graticifaciton to save a few million lives is “unacceptable”? Please answer.
Fone Bone 2001:

I agree with you that in devising a universally accessible set of ethical standards, we can’t appeal to the will of any deity. The divine command theory of ethics isn’t a good one, anyway; Plato made mincemeat of it in the Euthyphro.

It is most gratifying to have an agreement on that.
Fone Bone 2001:

The position you’re identifying as “the Church-advocated” one isn’t necessarily a religious position. Utilitarianism is rejected not just by the Catholic Church, but even by secular philosophers such as Immanuel Kant.

What is the point? I am not Kant.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Nonsense. Let’s take a very simple an uncontroversial scenario. You push someone into water, with the intention of making him clean. There is an “foreseen” consequence that the person will get wet. You cannot “defend” yourself by saying that youe knew he will get wet, but you never intended it. Let’s make it clear: “what you intended is irrelevant”. You did something with a foreseen consequence, and it does not matter if you intended it or not. You must accept the responsibility for the consequence.

I agree with you there. The water is the reason, the cause of that person’s becoming more clean. If they somehow avoid getting wet, they’re not going to be more clean. Thus the moral agent in your scenario does will that the person he pushes becomes wet; he wills this as a means.

There are plenty of instances, though, when the undesirable/bad effect is not a means to the good/desired effect, but rather both are effects of the act taken. The example cited earlier, for instance, of the removal of an ectopic pregnancy.

No, I am waiting for your response to the question posted above. Do you contend that performing one act of self-graticifaciton to save a few million lives is “unacceptable”? Please answer.

I promise I’ll answer your question if you answer mine: if double effect can’t even justify one little act of masturbation to save hundreds of thousands of innocent lives from fiery oblivion, how can you reasonably consider it a mere tool to rationalize what seems right but is - according to the Church - technically wrong, if double effect is apparently so bad at enabling such rationalization?

It is most gratifying to have an agreement on that.

Oh, good. Yes, of course I agree on that. Divine command theory doesn’t work.

What is the point? I am not Kant.

The point is that the position you’re identifying as “the Church’s” is not exclusively the Church’s position - non-religious people hold it, secular philosophers have held it, etc.

I cited Kant because his ethics definitely opposes utilitarian and consequentialist ethics, but he is not a religious philosopher. Thus illustrating that such a position is not a “religious” one, even if it is one that many religions happen to hold.

 

[JerBear_Meaux]

I dont believe there can ever be a universal ethical standard that applies to everyone everyone adheres to different beliefs and has a different set of standards we ourselves cant even agree on one philosophicle arguement regarding double effect, why doesnt one intend to do the right thing and accept the consequences for acting badly? and then learn from the mistake we made…
we learn from our mistakes and we would understand the next time what not to do, we can not prevent anything bad from happening unless we learn self control until we admit our faults and decide to learn and put the teachings into practice, for christians this means putting the teachings of jesus into practice. This double effect the next time you can, See if it works whatever it is that their arguement is and learn from the truth

 

[guanophore]

Nonsense. Let’s take a very simple an uncontroversial scenario. You push someone into water, with the intention of making him clean.

One cannot remove intention from the formula of double effect.

Why, if I wanted to make a person clean, would I “push” them into the water, rather than inviting or assisting them? Your scenario is complicated by excessive control and aggression on the part of the actor.

There is an “foreseen” consequence that the person will get wet. You cannot “defend” yourself by saying that youe knew he will get wet, but you never intended it. Let’s make it clear: “what you intended is irrelevant”. You did something with a foreseen consequence, and it does not matter if you intended it or not. You must accept the responsibility for the consequence.

Yes, intention does matter. Certainly there are many foreseen consequences to human actions, but one’s intention is critical in moral culpability.

Who cares? Look at the question above.

You may not care if your decisions and actions have an evil effect upon other life forms, but Christians have a moral culpability to care about these things. For a variety of reasons, we are held accountable for our intentions before God.

There is no problem for me. I posited a different scenario to show how irrational the church’s position is.

It is clear that you have very little understanding of the Church’s position, and why it is such. If you have “no problem”, why are you on a Catholic forum trying to pursuade us that our faith does not make sense? People that don’t have problems do not invest the time and energy to do what you are doing. It is fine if you want to come here and work out your problems in matters of faith and morals. That is one reason why CAF is here, but you cannot expect to make converts out of people who are also rational, thinking, educated and faithful human beings just because we think differently. You seem to want to believe that we think as we do because we are irrational or ignorant. Perhaps you don’t realize that many of us spend decades studying to get where we are in the faith today.

To contend that performing one act of self-gratification is somehow lower on the ethical scale than saving a few million people from being slaughtered is the ultimate in irrationality. And that is what the church advocates.

I think I might have lost you here. I thought you were talking about barbequing an infant to save a whole city? Are you saying that killing the baby is an act of self-gratification?

Or are you talking about gratifying yourself in some other way? Are you comparing the mortal sin of masturbation to slaughtering the baby?

No, I am waiting for your response to the question posted above. Do you contend that performing one act of self-graticifaciton to save a few million lives is "unacceptable"? Please answer.

Can you give a post number to the question?

In general, the end does not justify the means. Acting in sin, whether one does so ostensibly to “save a few million people” is not justified. God does not hold us responsible for the fate of the “few million”, but of our own choices and our own soul.

Dying to save others, therefore, is considered the epitome of love. This is one reason that the Church opposes abortion so strongly. Most people seek them because they find pregnancy inconvenient. They are unwilling to give up their lives to save the life of the child, either to raise it, or to put it up for adoption.

It is most gratifying to have an agreement on that.

What is the point? I am not Kant.

 

[capoly]

Well, I was talking to Fone Bone 2001, but I will gladly address your post. What I quoted below if the crux of the problem.

guanophore:

In general, the end does not justify the means. Acting in sin, whether one does so ostensibly to “save a few million people” is not justified. God does not hold us responsible for the fate of the “few million”, but of our own choices and our own soul.

Here comes problem number one. You cannot hide behind the “defense” of “hey, I did not do it! He did it!”, if you have the ability to prevent the act. Ever heard of Ponte Pilate “washing his hands”??? To actively commit or passively allow the act carries the same culpability (all other things being equal).

Of course I agree that the “end” - in and by itself - cannot justify the means, but one cannot spearate the means and the end. They both must be considered in order to make a good evaluation of the act. The concept of judging an act to be “intrinsically evil” separates the outcome, and looks at ONLY the act itself, as if the “end” did not matter. Just as disregarding the “intent” would be an error, it is also an error to disregard the outcome. In other words: “there is no intrinsically evil act”. By the way, this is not moral “relativism”.

guanophore:

I think I might have lost you here. I thought you were talking about barbequing an infant to save a whole city? Are you saying that killing the baby is an act of self-gratification?

That was the original scenario, which was just emotionalism. People are generally horrified at such a possibility, and with good reason. But, yes, if one is forced into a scenario, where there are two “bad” outcomes, one must choose the path to minimize the “bad”, even if the act is as horrifying as barbecuing a baby. I suggested a non-emotional dilemma: “perform a masturbation, or the terrorist will blow up a few million people”. I am still waiting for an answer to that dilemma. What is your answer?

guanophore:

Are you comparing the mortal sin of masturbation to slaughtering the baby?

Both are considered “intrinsically evil, mortal sins”, under any and all circumstances. That is what I point out, the absolute irrationality of such an “ethical system”. According to the “infallible” teaching of the church, a volitional act of masturbation can never be justified, it is “intrinsically evil”, not even if by performing such an act would save millions.

Of course the main problem is to assert that there is a difference between actively performing or passively allowing an evil act to happen.

 

[fakename]

That’s a lot to ponder. I’m definitely not sure.

I suppose I would need examples to decide what I think - a hypothetical or two that purports to show me a person who intends what you’re calling an “incidental cause,” which I’m also not sure really qualifies as a cause in the context of double effect…

A lot to think about here.

I think this definitely comes down to the very root of the meaning of double effect. If double effect says that one cannot directly cause a bad thing to happen, then we must quibble over whether something is or is not a direct cause or effect.

For instance, in the ectopic pregnancy case, the baby is removed and consequently dies.

Now the baby’s removal is not the per se cause of the mother surviving but from the POV of survival, the mother survives because she has proper bodily strength, sufficient blood, etc. So per survival, the removal of the baby is only indirectly related to the mother’s survival. But the removal of the fallopian tube is the direct cause of surviving, for if the fallopian tube remained where it was, then the mother would die. However, why would the mother die if the fallopian tube remained in place? Because there was a growing baby inside of it. So now we are trapped in a chicken and egg problem. Well what is essential is both direct and always, so unless babies always cause their mothers to die, then babies must not be the essential or direct causes of the deaths of their mothers. So we see that the fallopian tube failure is rather the direct cause. However one can say that a-baby-growing-in-the-wrong-spot is a direct cause too, and yet it is not properly a description of a baby per baby but only of a baby per impediment to life. Therefore can one intend to get rid of the baby not per baby but per impediment?

Also, by getting rid of the baby one is removing an impediment to the direct danger, just as one who wants to learn music must both concentrate-on-music (a direct cause) and shun outside noise (an accidental-external cause) and must close his door (an incidental cause (for closing doors are not the real or universal causes of shunning noise but just happen to gain that end in this case)). Therefore can we intend to get rid of the baby as either an accidental or an incidental cause just as the learner must so intend?

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

I think this definitely comes down to the very root of the meaning of double effect. If double effect says that one cannot directly cause a bad thing to happen, then we must quibble over whether something is or is not a direct cause or effect.

Double effect says that one can directly cause a bad thing to happen, if:

(1) The object of the actual act performed is morally acceptable.
(2) The bad thing that happens is not willed by the moral agent, either as an end or as a means to the good thing that happens.
(3) The circumstances justify permitting this bad thing to happen: i.e. the good to be expected is proportionate to or greater than the evil effect, all things considered.

For instance, in the ectopic pregnancy case, the baby is removed and consequently dies.

Now the baby’s removal is not the per se cause of the mother surviving but from the POV of survival, the mother survives because she has proper bodily strength, sufficient blood, etc. So per survival, the removal of the baby is only indirectly related to the mother’s survival. But the removal of the fallopian tube is the direct cause of surviving, for if the fallopian tube remained where it was, then the mother would die. However, why would the mother die if the fallopian tube remained in place? Because there was a growing baby inside of it. So now we are trapped in a chicken and egg problem. Well what is essential is both direct and always, so unless babies always cause their mothers to die, then babies must not be the essential or direct causes of the deaths of their mothers. So we see that the fallopian tube failure is rather the direct cause. However one can say that a-baby-growing-in-the-wrong-spot is a direct cause too, and yet it is not properly a description of a baby per baby but only of a baby per impediment to life.

I agree.

Therefore can one intend to get rid of the baby not per baby but per impediment?

**Yes. **One only intends to get rid of the baby per baby if one of these is the case: (a) The doctor actually would like that baby to die; or, (b) the baby’s death is a necessary means to the end of the mother’s survival.

 

[capoly]

fakename:

I think this definitely comes down to the very root of the meaning of double effect. If double effect says that one cannot directly cause a bad thing to happen, then we must quibble over whether something is or is not a direct cause or effect.

There is another contradiction here. The concept of “intrinsically evil” act says that the act is evil, in and by itself, regardless of the intenstions and the outcomes. The concept of double effect directly contradicts that. If the result is not intended and foreseen, it is merely an ununtended side-effect and the outcome more than outweighs the act itself, then the act is permissble. A veritable example of doublethink.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

There is another contradiction here. The concept of “intrinsically evil” act says that the act is evil, in and by itself, regardless of the intenstions and the outcomes. The concept of double effect directly contradicts that. If the result is not intended and foreseen, it is merely an ununtended side-effect and the outcome more than outweighs the act itself, then the act is permissble. A veritable example of doublethink.

No, Capoly. If that’s what you think, you don’t really understand double effect.

The first criterion itself of double effect is that the act must not be intrinsically evil. If it is, double effect itself says that this act cannot be justified.

This is the way the New Catholic Encyclopedia explains the first criterion:

1. The act itself must be morally good or at least indifferent.

See? So double effect does not contradict the assertion that one may not commit an intrinsically evil act, even if the circumstances and intentions are good.

 

[capoly]

Fone Bone 2001:

The first criterion itself of double effect is that the act must not be intrinsically evil. If it is, double effect itself says that this act cannot be justified.

This is the way the New Catholic Encyclopedia explains the first criterion:

1. The act itself must be morally good or at least indifferent.

See? So double effect does not contradict the assertion that one may not commit an intrinsically evil act, even if the circumstances and intentions are good.

Sorry, that makes no sense at all. If an act is morally good, or indifferent, there is no need to justify it. Only a morally “problematic” act would need justification - where the justification would be outside the act itself, namely the intent and the outcome. It is not a coincidence that in the real life legal system there are the concepts of mitigating and exacerbating circumstanstances. There is the act itself, and the surroundings, the “why”-s (intent) and the “wherefore”-s (outcome). But the church does not accept that, everything is either white or black. So the quoted text is nonsensical.

By the way, it looks like that you overlooked the post where I asked your evaluation of the hypothetical terrorist, who does not ask you a “bay-bee” to be barbecued, rather to tell you to perform a masturbation and if you do, then he will spare those millions. Would you refuse to do it, and allow the incineration of untold millions? Very curious…

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Sorry, that makes no sense at all. If an act is morally good, or indifferent, there is no need to justify it.

Even an act that is good in itself may have a bad outcome.

It is such situations that double effect purports to address.

Only a morally “problematic” act would need justification

An act that is good in itself can be morally problematic if it leads to a negative outcome. Is such an act justified? Maybe, maybe not. Double effect purports to offer a way to tell if such an act, in its particular circumstances, is justified.

It is not a coincidence that in the real life legal system there are the concepts of mitigating and exacerbating circumstanstances. There is the act itself, and the surroundings, the “why”-s (intent) and the “wherefore”-s (outcome). But the church does not accept that, everything is either white or black.

Capoly, you’re incorrect about what the Church acknowledges. Take a look at this section of the Catechism of the Catholic Church and see for yourself: what you’re calling the “act itself,” the “surroundings” and “outcome,” and the “intent” are all included in that section and said to be critical components for assessing the morality of an act, according to the Catholic Church.

The difference between your view and the Church’s lies rather in this: the Church says that if even one of those components is bad, then the act is immoral.

But this is not the same thing as ignoring the fact that intention and circumstances do matter.

By the way, it looks like that you overlooked the post where I asked your evaluation of the hypothetical terrorist, who does not ask you a “bay-bee” to be barbecued, rather to tell you to perform a masturbation and if you do, then he will spare those millions. Would you refuse to do it, and allow the incineration of untold millions? Very curious…

I didn’t overlook it; I told you I’d answer that question if you answered mine first. Check the relevant post if you wish to proceed.

(And by the way, I’m growing tired of explaining to you the value of the baby-vs.-bomb scenario: forcing someone to choose between two blatantly horrific options forces the moral philosopher not to cheat by simply picking the most palatable. But you seem unwilling or unable to understand this… so please keep condescending comments aout “bay-bees” to yourself, at least until you understand double effect, which judging by your last reply, I can assure you, you do not yet…)

If this goes on much longer, I’m going to post a brief explanation. Of double effect. Maybe that’s what’s in the best interest of the thread.

 

[capoly]

Fone Bone 2001:

Even an act that is good in itself may have a bad outcome.

How can the “goodness” or “badness” of an act determined if it is decoupled from the circumstances and the outcome? Suppose all you know that someone wields a scalpel - that is the act itself. Without knowing “why” he does it, and what he wishes to achieve, there is no way to make a judgment call. If he uses to cut a rope, it is a morally neutral act. If he tries to correct a medical problem, it is a good act. If he tries to murder someone, it is a bad act (unless the act is justified, for example in self defense). An act “in and by itself” cannot be called good or bad - and that is precisely where the teaching of the church is unacceptable.
Fone Bone 2001:

An act that is good in itself can be morally problematic if it leads to a negative outcome.

On what grounds can you say that the act is good, if the outcome is bad?
Fone Bone 2001:

Take a look at this section of the Catechism of the Catholic Church and see for yourself: what you’re calling the “act itself,” the “surroundings” and “outcome,” and the “intent” are all included in that section and said to be critical components for assessing the morality of an act, according to the Catholic Church.

But the church also teaches that some acts are “intrinsically bad”, which is contradicted by the the following sentence: “The object, the intention, and the circumstances make up the “sources,” or constitutive elements, of the morality of human acts”. As such the act itself cannot be called either good or bad, unless we take all the circumstances into consideration. In other words: “acts - in and by themselves - are neither good, nor bad, they are neutral”.
Fone Bone 2001:

I didn’t overlook it; I told you I’d answer that question if you answered mine first. Check the relevant post if you wish to proceed.

What post are you talking about? And what was your particular question? Let me hear it precisely. Because my point was simple: according to catholicism both masturbating and slaughtering that baby () are intrinsically evil - there is no difference between them as far as your moral judgment call. So don’t try to wiggle out any longer.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

How can the “goodness” or “badness” of an act determined if it is decoupled from the circumstances and the outcome? Suppose all you know that someone wields a scalpel - that is the act itself. Without knowing “why” he does it, and what he wishes to achieve, there is no way to make a judgment call. If he uses to cut a rope, it is a morally neutral act. If he tries to correct a medical problem, it is a good act. If he tries to murder someone, it is a bad act (unless the act is justified, for example in self defense). An act “in and by itself” cannot be called good or bad - and that is precisely where the teaching of the church is unacceptable.

I agree with you. And though you won’t admit it, so does Catholic teaching.

In your example, wielding a scalpel is what Catholic theology would call the “object” of the act. And you’re perfectly correct that the object alone doesn’t dictate the morality. Seriously, read the one or two paragraphs I linked to above. Object, intention, and circumstances all matter, and that is Catholic teaching.

But the church also teaches that some acts are “intrinsically bad”, which is contradicted by the the following sentence: “The object, the intention, and the circumstances make up the “sources,” or constitutive elements, of the morality of human acts”. As such the act itself cannot be called either good or bad, unless we take all the circumstances into consideration. In other words: “acts - in and by themselves - are neither good, nor bad, they are neutral”.

It doesn’t contradict that sentence. The Church believes what that sentence says, but also teaches that for an act to be morally acceptable, all three of those components must be morally acceptable.

For instance, let’s look at an act of sexual intercourse between a married couple.

The object of the act - vaginal intercourse - is morally good (according to the Church).

The intention, in our hypothetical, is good, let’s say. Obviously this can vary.

But oh, wait, look at this - one of the circumstances is that they’re having sex in a crowded hotel lobby. That’s really not a good thing.

So the negative aspect of the circumstances makes the act bad, even though it is objectively good, and also done with good intention.

Anyway, I agree with you that you can’t say an act is good or bad without looking at all these components of the act. But what the Church calls the object of the act - “wielding the scalpel,” as you put it in your example - can be good or bad in itself. Obviously, the example you gave is morally neutral.

What post are you talking about? And what was your particular question? Let me hear it precisely. Because my point was simple: according to catholicism both masturbating and slaughtering that baby () are intrinsically evil - there is no difference between them as far as your moral judgment call. So don’t try to wiggle out any longer.

Here it is, in two of its iterations:

I promise I’ll answer your question if you answer mine: if double effect can’t even justify one little act of masturbation to save hundreds of thousands of innocent lives from fiery oblivion, how can you reasonably consider it a mere tool to rationalize what seems right but is - according to the Church - technically wrong, if double effect is apparently so bad at enabling such rationalization?

So… are you admitting that double effect is not a cheap method for rationalizing what would otherwise be considered morally dubious actions?

If you are admitting that, great.

If you’re not, then let me ask you this: What kind of convoluted philosophical justification for getting around the Church’s moral positions could possibly stink so much at the very rationalization it’s supposed to enable that it can’t even justify one act of masturbation to save hundreds of thousands of people?

 

[capoly]

Fone Bone 2001:

It doesn’t contradict that sentence. The Church believes what that sentence says, but also teaches that for an act to be morally acceptable, all three of those components must be morally acceptable.

The contradiction is this: On one hand the teaching goes that all three facets need to be considered. On the other hand it says that evaluating the “act” in and by itself is enough.
Fone Bone 2001:

For instance, let’s look at an act of sexual intercourse between a married couple.

The object of the act - vaginal intercourse - is morally good (according to the Church).

The intention, in our hypothetical, is good, let’s say. Obviously this can vary.

But oh, wait, look at this - one of the circumstances is that they’re having sex in a crowded hotel lobby. That’s really not a good thing.

Unfortunately all these examples presume that sexual behavior is correctly prescribed and proscribed by the church. Nothing could be further from the truth. During the tens and hundreds of thousands of years the sexual behavior was not in synch with what the church teaches. There is nothing inherently wrong with having a sexual intercourse even in crowded hotel lobby. It is simply the prevailing custom which makes it “objectionable” (though it could be performed without anyone finding out what is happening). In a simple tribal society people never worried about sex being performed in public.
Fone Bone 2001:

Here it is, in two of its iterations:

Very well, let’s me answer it, hopefully to your satisfaction.

The truth is that the examples are incorrect to demonstrate the principle of the double effect, for one very simple reason: “the acts which are purported to prevent the bad outcome have no physical cause-effect relation with the outcome”. A valid example would be: “you hold a gun and the only way to prevent the terrorist, is to fire the gun and kill the terrorist”. In this case you can try the defense of “I knew that firing the gun will kill the person, but I did not intend to kill him” - which is vessel of fertilizer. In these examples there is no physical connection between either barbecuing the baby or performing a masturbation and the threat issued by the terrorist - and that is the crux of the matter. You simply have to trust that terrorist that by performing the action the terrorist will actually keep his word and your action will not be in vain. Do you see the point? If there would be a physical cause-effect relationship, that somehow performing the act would “immobilize” the terrorist, so that the threat could be negated, then you would have a proper example of the double effect.

Now here is one more time. Assuming that the terrorist will act as promised (or the act would somehow prevent the outcome) could you assert that not performing the act of masturbation, and thus condemning those millions of people to death is the better, or more ethical way? Remember, there is no morally “good” outcome here (from you perspective, of course - I would have no problem with the masturbation), you need to choose between two “bad” outcomes. However, from the church’s teaching the act of masturbation is intrinsically evil, so you cannot perform it. That leaves you with the option of not doing anything, even though the non-action also carries consequences. Are you happy with “washing your hands”?

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

The contradiction is this: On one hand the teaching goes that all three facets need to be considered. On the other hand it says that evaluating the “act” in and by itself is enough.

Not true. If the object of the act - a.k.a. the “act” in and of itself - is good, you still need to look at the intention of the moral agent and the circumstances of the act. That’s what the Church says, anyway. And the fact that the Church says that means it’s not accurate to claim the Church maintains that “evaluating the ‘act’ in and by itself is enough.” It is not enough.

There is nothing inherently wrong with having a sexual intercourse even in crowded hotel lobby. It is simply the prevailing custom which makes it “objectionable” (though it could be performed without anyone finding out what is happening). In a simple tribal society people never worried about sex being performed in public.

Yes, you just paraphrased my point there. The hypothetical scenario as I described it does not involve an act that is “inherently” wrong. It is only the circumstances that make it so.

Very well, let’s me answer it, hopefully to your satisfaction.

The truth is that the examples are incorrect to demonstrate the principle of the double effect, for one very simple reason: “the acts which are purported to prevent the bad outcome have no physical cause-effect relation with the outcome”. A valid example would be: “you hold a gun and the only way to prevent the terrorist, is to fire the gun and kill the terrorist”. In this case you can try the defense of “I knew that firing the gun will kill the person, but I did not intend to kill him” - which is vessel of fertilizer. In these examples there is no physical connection between either barbecuing the baby or performing a masturbation and the threat issued by the terrorist - and that is the crux of the matter. You simply have to trust that terrorist that by performing the action the terrorist will actually keep his word and your action will not be in vain. Do you see the point? If there would be a physical cause-effect relationship, that somehow performing the act would “immobilize” the terrorist, so that the threat could be negated, then you would have a proper example of the double effect.

I really don’t see why the cause-effect relationship has to be physical. That’s an incredibly arbitrary criterion.

Although I definitely agree that the inherent uncertainty involved in having to trust the terrorist does factor into the morality of the decision.

Anyway, that wasn’t really my question, but thank you for intending to address it, so I’ll now address yours as promised.

Now here is one more time. Assuming that the terrorist will act as promised (or the act would somehow prevent the outcome) could you assert that not performing the act of masturbation, and thus condemning those millions of people to death is the better, or more ethical way? Remember, there is no morally “good” outcome here (from you perspective, of course - I would have no problem with the masturbation), you need to choose between two “bad” outcomes. However, from the church’s teaching the act of masturbation is intrinsically evil, so you cannot perform it. That leaves you with the option of not doing anything, even though the non-action also carries consequences. Are you happy with “washing your hands”?

In theory, I think the Church’s official answer would have to be that you cannot perform the act of masturbation, even if it’s the only way to stop the terrorist. Many traditional sources emphasize that sin is ultimately a far worse evil - even in one iteration - than suffering and death.

If I were in this situation, however, I admit I would probably save the people by doing what the terrorist demands. I admit that I would do so, but I also recognize that - in my view - this means I don’t have a perfectly formed conscience.

 

[capoly]

Fone Bone 2001:

Not true. If the object of the act - a.k.a. the “act” in and of itself - is good, you still need to look at the intention of the moral agent and the circumstances of the act. That’s what the Church says, anyway. And the fact that the Church says that means it’s not accurate to claim the Church maintains that “evaluating the ‘act’ in and by itself is enough.” It is not enough.

In this case there is no “intrinsically evil” act - which is what I was maintaining all the time. Obvious, since without the intent and the result, the act itself just “hangs in the air” and thus it is meaningless.
Fone Bone 2001:

I really don’t see why the cause-effect relationship has to be physical.

Just curious. What else is there? As in the examples we can say that pulling a trigger will cause the death of the person it is aimed at (if he does not wear Kevlar, etc…) and that is a physical causation and thus you can count on it. While giving in the other types of demands of the terrorist only MAY have the intended effect and as such one cannot count on it.
Fone Bone 2001:

In theory, I think the Church’s official answer would have to be that you cannot perform the act of masturbation, even if it’s the only way to stop the terrorist. Many traditional sources emphasize that sin is ultimately a far worse evil - even in one iteration - than suffering and death.

You say you “think so”. Obviously this particular scenario was not specifically addressed. Though I would not be surprised if that were the official teaching.
Fone Bone 2001:

If I were in this situation, however, I admit I would probably save the people by doing what the terrorist demands. I admit that I would do so, but I also recognize that - in my view - this means I don’t have a perfectly formed conscience.

Congratulations! Triple cheers for you. As a matter of fact your conscience is very well formed. I cannot imagine that anyone except some deranged sociopath who would refuse to avert the mass murder. I would bet that even those “traditional sources” or the writers of the pertinent sections in the catechism would yield to the demand. So I hope that the idea that the “sin of masturbation” is “far worse evil”, then allowing the death of untold millions is just an empty phrase on paper, and no decent person would act accordingly in real life. My conclusion is that if practically everyone would act (according to their conscience) and save those millions, and only a few deranged psychopaths would refuse to prevent that mass murder, then the so-called “natural moral law” (if there was such a thing) would agree with those who would help. Don’t you think so?

If it would be possible, I would gladly place those “traditional sources” into a convincing virtual reality scenario, where they would have to make that decision. It would do a world of good to them if they actually had to face such a dilemma and not just shoot their mouth about it. But this is just empty daydreaming.

 

[steve_b]

Double effect says that one can directly cause a bad thing to happen, if:

(1) The object of the actual act performed is morally acceptable.
(2) The bad thing that happens is not willed by the moral agent, either as an end or as a means to the good thing that happens.
(3) The circumstances justify permitting this bad thing to happen: i.e. the good to be expected is proportionate to or greater than the evil effect, all things considered.

I agree.

**Yes. **One only intends to get rid of the baby per baby if one of these is the case: (a) The doctor actually would like that baby to die; or, (b) the baby’s death is a necessary means to the end of the mother’s survival.

I think todays mass readings addresses the issue of “double effect”

• Matthew 23: 23 - 26 23* "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law, justice and mercy and faith; these you ought to have done, without neglecting the others*.* 24 You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel*! 25 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you cleanse the outside of the cup and of the plate, but inside they are full of extortion and rapacity. 26 You blind Pharisee! first cleanse the inside of the cup and of the plate, that the outside also may be clean.