Double Effect?

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]police arrest members of a terrorist cell planning a bombing, but the actual suicide bomber and bomb have already left for their mission. The terrorists know when and where the bomber will strike, but refuse to tell more, except that "it'll all be over soon." waterboard them?

a kidnapper who has kids in a sealed underground vault with only a few moments left to live? isn't waterboarding the proper thing to do to get that vault open, if it's the only viable way of doing it?[/quote]

so let's say you take these bad guys.... and tie them to a post in the ocean. you're not doing anything to them torture wise. (unless you call that torture.... really, it's not clear when it becomes torture when you start thinking about it, even if waterboarding clearly is there's things in between) you know the ocean will start pounding them sooner than later etc. is this morally permissible... seeing as how you're not directly torturing andor killing them, but rather letting nature take its course?
isn't this the same as removing a tube in ectopic pregnancies?
and if you say putting the man out there isn't nature taking its course.... isn't killing the embryo by removing it not nature taking its course? so again, aren't they the same thing?

aren't these really just rationalizations, that are really justifying the means?

[Deb]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1457570' date='Feb 8 2008, 12:57 PM']so let's say you take these bad guys.... and tie them to a post in the ocean. you're not doing anything to them torture wise. (unless you call that torture.... really, it's not clear when it becomes torture when you start thinking about it, even if waterboarding clearly is there's things in between) you know the ocean will start pounding them sooner than later etc. is this morally permissible... seeing as how you're not directly torturing andor killing them, but rather letting nature take its course?
isn't this the same as removing a tube in ectopic pregnancies?
and if you say putting the man out there isn't nature taking its course.... isn't killing the embryo by removing it not nature taking its course? so again, aren't they the same thing?

aren't these really just rationalizations, that are really justifying the means?[/quote]


I suggest that any action taken by anyone that they know will cause the injury or death of another human being should never be done. Any action. any any any lalalalallalalallalala

[kenrockthefirst]

[img]http://picayune.uclick.com/comics/trall/2008/trall080202.gif[/img]

[Jaime]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1457570' date='Feb 8 2008, 12:57 PM']so let's say you take these bad guys.... and tie them to a post in the ocean. you're not doing anything to them torture wise. (unless you call that torture.... really, it's not clear when it becomes torture when you start thinking about it, even if waterboarding clearly is there's things in between) you know the ocean will start pounding them sooner than later etc. is this morally permissible... seeing as how you're not directly torturing andor killing them, but rather letting nature take its course?
isn't this the same as removing a tube in ectopic pregnancies?
and if you say putting the man out there isn't nature taking its course.... isn't killing the embryo by removing it not nature taking its course? so again, aren't they the same thing?

aren't these really just rationalizations, that are really justifying the means?[/quote]

no
no
no
no

and

no

That pretty much covers all your questions.

When you come up with something that is not a faulty premise, I'll invest more time in responding

[dairygirl4u2c]

okay i admit there's some holes in that one.


here's one. a doctor gives to much meds to a pateient is who terminally ill in pain etc that the patient dies. the doctor knows the patient will almost surely die. assuming euthanasia is wrong..... was this act wrong?
could good catholics legitimatley disagree?

this isn't jsut a far fetched hypo but actually happened and is very relevant to today:
[url="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/background_briefings/euthanasia/331263.stm"]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/backgrou...asia/331263.stm[/url]

well, i guess you could have a case where it's reasonable to disagree. and by defiition, if it's double effects, then it's legit.

and my main argument is that you could always find a way to rationalize torture andor killing.... i guess i haven't been making that point very well. i'll have to think about it.

Edited February 8, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_double_effect#Intentional_hm_versus_side-effects"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_...us_side-effects[/url]

that link actually indicates that using pain killers that kill can be legit, as in my hypo.
the question is at what point is the risk of death permisisble.
at least that level of degree isn't black and white.

here's some more ideas... a baby is going to kill the mother but if you remove it then your purpose is good. this effectively allows the exception for the mothers health... at least in many if not most of the situations.

what about bombing afghanistan with nukes? your intention was to kill osama and you thought he was there. this to a smaller degree is how civilians are allowed to be killed "princple of double effects". so.... if thats allowed, why not nuking the place up?

i'm all for absolute truth in theory. absolute truth doesn't mean clear truth though. when fundamentalists try to weasle out of argument by claiming absolute truth are not really saying anything meaningful at all.

Edited February 8, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[kafka]

dairygirl,

This might help you with a better grasp of the principle of double effect:

Principle of Double Effect
1. the act is either moral or neutral in morality; if the act is intrinsically evil, then the principle of double effect does not apply.
2. the act is done with good intention; any act done with ill intent is immoral due to the intention, even if the act itself is good (such as donating to charity)
3. the act has two effects: one good and one bad

For the act to be moral, the good effect must outweigh the bad effect.

Hope this helps.

Edited February 8, 2008 by kafka

[kafka]

[quote name='kafka' post='1457778' date='Feb 8 2008, 04:44 PM']dairygirl,

This might help you with a better grasp of the principle of double effect:

Principle of Double Effect
1. the act is either moral or neutral in morality; if the act is intrinsically evil, then the principle of double effect does not apply.
2. the act is done with good intention; any act done with ill intent is immoral due to the intention, even if the act itself is good (such as donating to charity)
3. the act has two effects: one good and one bad

For the act to be moral, the good effect must outweigh the bad effect.

Hope this helps.[/quote]

Here is a hypothetical example:

The setting would be just a war. Three men are climbing a mountain to engage an enemy target. There climbing gear is connected to all three of them. The bottom of the three climbers slips and loosens the the grip of the safety rope spiked into the side of the mountain.

The bottom climber percieves that the spike cannot hold the weight of all three climbers and so he decides to cut himself off the rope, resulting in death from fall in order to save the top two climbers.

1. the act of cutting the rope is morally neutral
2. the intention is to save the life of the other two climbers
3. the good effect is that two lives are saved, and the military mission is saved, the bad effect is that one life is lost.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i still claim there's some rationalization going on with double effect.

but i think i'm just more of a consequentialist and do not have to force the conclusion that if you're for this stuff etc then you'd be for so many other loop holes etc.

[Slappo]

One more thing to add to the principle of double effect.

The good effect must come before or simultaneously with the bad effect.

Example: Super obese person gets stuck in a doorway that others are trying to escape a fire out of. It is the only exit. You have an axe. It is IMMORAL to chop the obese person up and remove him from the doorway to save the life of others EVEN if it is impossible to save the obese person no matter what actions are taken (I.E Obese person will either die of the fire, or of your axe). Proper action: Cut a hole in the wall with the axe, or cut the frame around the door off.

The escape of the people does not come until after the death of the obese man. Therefore double effect is broken.

Edited February 16, 2008 by Slappo

[dairygirl4u2c]

so... there's the lying exception to the ends justifying the mean to save people's lives who are innocent... and i'd be willing to bet the "i'd steal food if i had to from the rich" exception if i pushed it...
these are exceptions from other polls that i've been feeling is the sentiment.

it sounds like ends only justifies the means when it works for your agenda, and they don't when it doesn't work for it...