Moral Question

[pyranima]

[quote name='Semperviva' post='1020462' date='Jul 9 2006, 08:45 AM']
The difference between an abortion and removing a uterus that [i]happens[/i] to have a small human inside seems merely semantic.
The principle of Double Effect seems to me like an abuse of reason.

Why does it not take into account the fact that you[i] know[/i] both effects beforehand, the good and the bad effect and then (in some way) [i]do [/i] will the bad effect? You have to will the negative effect as well as the good one in some way.
How can we isolate these effects into a hierarchy of seperate realities, when in fact they occur suimultaneously?
[/quote]
Atheist view....
this could with ease (and when i was an atheist was) be applied to God himself. God has two wills, one active and one passive, God does not will evil though he knows it will happen and allows it. the question in the case of double effect is does the ends justify the means, i would not say yes for all cases. however i would say there are a few cases i would say the lesser evil is needed. i will remind you i said that even in a case like the example i gave i said it is my personal belief that abortion should not be allowed because although the direct effect of saving the mothers life is positive (though the death of the child is negitave) there are those who would abuse this once case and try to apply it to those who did not need it. it is not that abortion is not wrong it is not that takeing the life of the child is some how moral, that is not what is in question at all, it is still murder. however the culpability is greatly lesser. let me put it to you this way and this might help to understand the lesser of two evils.

there are two people hanging on the edge of a cliff, you can only save one of them because they are too far apart and you only have just a few seconds to think. you are exactly in the middle between the two of them. now you have to decide what to do, do you save jack, or do you save fred? to choose one life is to condemn the other to death, to not choose is to condemn them both. if you choose one then according to one of your previous posts i am degrading the others value because i am saying he is not worth saving, and his blood is on your hands. if you dont choose then both of their blood is on your hands. what do you do? you choose. how you choose is another question.

now lets change things up a little bit, instead of jack and fred you have jack and sue. who are most people going to want to save? sue, why? because jack is a man and sue is a woman, but there will be those who are inclined to want to help jack still so lets add a little more incentive to choose sue. sue is 6 months pregnate. now who are you going to choose? sue. but lets say someone still wants to choose jack, well chooseing jack would mostlikely be a grave sin. why? you are choose one life over two.

if the mother is allergic to the pregnacy then the objective is to stop the allergic reaction before it kills the mother but in the process an evil must be done because the greater evil is to let both people die.

Take the movie John Q he was going to kill himself so his son could get his heart. i of course am not one to judge souls however i do not beleive he would have gone to hell because the first objective was not to kill himself but rather to save his son. this is a much more complex scenario though

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='Semperviva' post='1020462' date='Jul 9 2006, 08:45 AM']
The difference between an abortion and removing a uterus that [i]happens[/i] to have a small human inside seems merely semantic.
The principle of Double Effect seems to me like an abuse of reason.

Why does it not take into account the fact that you[i] know[/i] both effects beforehand, the good and the bad effect and then (in some way) [i]do [/i] will the bad effect? You have to will the negative effect as well as the good one in some way.
How can we isolate these effects into a hierarchy of seperate realities, when in fact they occur suimultaneously?
[/quote]

It is not merely semantic precisely. There is a real distinction between different ways that we can will something. A thing can be "willed" by permission, but this is not the same thing as "willing" for the event to occur for its own sake. In the case of the ectopic pregnancy, the distinction is absolutely [i]critical[/i], because in the act of removing the section of the fallopian tube, both doctor and mother are clearly willing actively only the health of the mother, and willing only permissively the (extremely likely) death of the child. The fact is, double effect prevents us from willing an evil as an a true "end" of an action, and only permits evil to be an effect, and even then in only some cases.

An abuse of reason only enters the discussion when the negative effect is identified with the end of the action.

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='pyranima' post='1020413' date='Jul 9 2006, 01:01 AM']
i disagree for several reasons, one of which is the professor may choose himself in that case it is not sucide to say it is would be to say Christs death was sucide it is a sacrafice. secondly choosing a student would not degrade the student at all in fact one way he may choose a student would be to ask for a volunteer(also not sucide). many martyers of the Early Church volunteered their deaths for example Saint Maximilian Colby. as for the abortion the double effect still applies, the objective is not to kill the second person though it does appear that way, killing the second person is a biproduct of trying to save the mothers life thus it is not immoral. it is the same as abortions in the case of birthcontrol pills take to help regulate hormones. you do not intend to have an abortion you take the pill not for contraceptive purposes but to regulate hormones but the double effect is the abortion of the child.
[/quote]

I agree with this analysis. Double Effect allows for the teacher (or St. Maximilian Colby) to sacrifice him or herself. Here are the principles of the theory of Double Effect:

1.) The act itself must be morally good or at least indifferent.
2.) The agent may not positively will the bad effect but may permit it. If he could attain the good effect without the bad effect he should do so.
3.) The good effect must flow from the action at least as immediately (in the order of causality, though not necessarily in the order of time) as the bad effect. In other words the good effect must be produced directly by the action, not by the bad effect. Otherwise the agent would be using a bad means to a good end, which is never allowed.
4.) The good effect must be sufficiently desirable to compensate for the allowing of the bad effect

Now, what is the act in question? The act in question is offering to die in the place of another. This action is not just indifferent, it is morally good.
Does the agent positively will the evil effect? No, the person does not will for a murder to occur, he is willing that, should a murder occur, it should be him or her that dies rather than others.
Does the good effect flow immediately from the action, rather than the negative effect? Yes, the act of taking the place of the other, not the act of dying unjustly, is what effects the saftey of the other.
Is the good effect sufficiently desireable? Absolutely yes.

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff

[pyranima]

[quote name='JeffCR07' post='1020511' date='Jul 9 2006, 10:24 AM']
I agree with this analysis. Double Effect allows for the teacher (or St. Maximilian Colby) to sacrifice him or herself. Here are the principles of the theory of Double Effect:

1.) The act itself must be morally good or at least indifferent.
2.) The agent may not positively will the bad effect but may permit it. If he could attain the good effect without the bad effect he should do so.
3.) The good effect must flow from the action at least as immediately (in the order of causality, though not necessarily in the order of time) as the bad effect. In other words the good effect must be produced directly by the action, not by the bad effect. Otherwise the agent would be using a bad means to a good end, which is never allowed.
4.) The good effect must be sufficiently desirable to compensate for the allowing of the bad effect

Now, what is the act in question? The act in question is offering to die in the place of another. This action is not just indifferent, it is morally good.
Does the agent positively will the evil effect? No, the person does not will for a murder to occur, he is willing that, should a murder occur, it should be him or her that dies rather than others.
Does the good effect flow immediately from the action, rather than the negative effect? Yes, the act of taking the place of the other, not the act of dying unjustly, is what effects the saftey of the other.
Is the good effect sufficiently desireable? Absolutely yes.

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff
[/quote]
i just realized you end your posts with YBIC or Your Brother in Christ. thats funny. YBIC...


YBIC

[Semperviva]

[quote name='pyranima' post='1020490' date='Jul 9 2006, 09:49 AM']
Atheist view....
this could with ease (and when i was an atheist was) be applied to God himself. God has two wills, one active and one passive, God does not will evil though he knows it will happen and allows it. the question in the case of double effect is does the ends justify the means, i would not say yes for all cases. however i would say there are a few cases i would say the lesser evil is needed. i will remind you i said that even in a case like the example i gave i said it is my personal belief that abortion should not be allowed because although the direct effect of saving the mothers life is positive (though the death of the child is negitave) there are those who would abuse this once case and try to apply it to those who did not need it. it is not that abortion is not wrong it is not that takeing the life of the child is some how moral, that is not what is in question at all, it is still murder. however the culpability is greatly lesser. let me put it to you this way and this might help to understand the lesser of two evils.

there are two people hanging on the edge of a cliff, you can only save one of them because they are too far apart and you only have just a few seconds to think. you are exactly in the middle between the two of them. now you have to decide what to do, do you save jack, or do you save fred? to choose one life is to condemn the other to death, to not choose is to condemn them both. if you choose one then according to one of your previous posts i am degrading the others value because i am saying he is not worth saving, and his blood is on your hands. if you dont choose then both of their blood is on your hands. what do you do? you choose. how you choose is another question.

now lets change things up a little bit, instead of jack and fred you have jack and sue. who are most people going to want to save? sue, why? because jack is a man and sue is a woman, but there will be those who are inclined to want to help jack still so lets add a little more incentive to choose sue. sue is 6 months pregnate. now who are you going to choose? sue. but lets say someone still wants to choose jack, well chooseing jack would mostlikely be a grave sin. why? you are choose one life over two.

if the mother is allergic to the pregnacy then the objective is to stop the allergic reaction before it kills the mother but in the process an evil must be done because the greater evil is to let both people die.

Take the movie John Q he was going to kill himself so his son could get his heart. i of course am not one to judge souls however i do not beleive he would have gone to hell because the first objective was not to kill himself but rather to save his son. this is a much more complex scenario though
[/quote]


that helpsalot man. i just dont see how D. E. can be applied to[i] every [/i] circumstance. DE seems in contradiction to
"by their fruit you shall know them" but i dont know...
maybe there is a REASON for the negative effect....... maybe it shouldent be done at all....... just rambling...... but yes, bringing up the active and passive will of God helps......

Edited July 9, 2006 by Semperviva

[pyranima]

I had to deal with these issues on a very real level as an Atheist and i had to find answers that didn't involve God. There is a natural law that God created but that can be known outside of God. anotherwords, you can know there is a natural law and you can know what it is, however the problem becomes you cant know where the natural law came from without God. as an amature Moral Philosopher, and an ex-moral atheist i am able to bring a lot of what i believed as an atheist into the Church with me. it is true that i need to leave some things behind (Like the whole Nietzsche 'God is dead' thing) but as C.S. Lewis says when you are a Christian you do not need to assume that nonChristians are wrong about everything, however where their is a disagreement you must assume they are wrong. this is one of those very hard questions for both Atheists and Christians, the natural reaction of everyone on both sides is to resort to emotion because that is the easiest way to answer a difficult question. while i believe that the death of a child in the womb is sometimes permissable, i believe that it is better to not allow the action to occure at all due to the extreme danger it presents to the rest of the world. this is where we need a logical senseable society, while it is true that i would argue against letting the procedure happen under any circumstances i would concede in the most extreme circumstances (the mother allergic to the pregnacy). this seems like double talk to most but if you think about it, it makes sense. to prevent it from being abused and going to far you agrue against it in all circumstance but you concede when needed to save a life. in the best case a child would be removed from the mothers womb and implanted into an artificial womb.
it is natural and good you feel the way you do it prevents you from wanting to go to far. however we need to be careful not to go too far in the other direction which is where our reason comes in, we need to balance the two and we need to always look at our emotion through the eyes of reason. this is why we have marriage between a man and a woman. men tend to be more logical while women tend to be more emotional i believe this is why God chose men to be the head of the family. women nurture and men defend we all have our roles.