Proportionalism and the doctrine of double effect Lesson Objective To explore what is meant by the doctrine of double effect and proportionalism

Last lesson we said that, for Aquinas, carrying out a deontologically good action is more important that doing it for a moral reason. However, intention is still important for Aquinas. What problem did we identify? (saving someone’s life, and as a result killing someone) Read the quote from his summa theologica and discuss, then summarise in your notes, what Aquinas’ thoughts are about intentions and actions.

From Aquinas’ Summa Theologica “Nothing hinders an act from having two effects, only one of which is intended, while the other is beside the intention. Moral acts take their character from what is intended, not from what is outside the intention, as this is accidental…For example, the act of self-defence may have two effects; one is the saving of one’s life, the other is the killing of the attacker. Therefore, this act, since one’s intention is to save one’s own life, is not unlawful, as it is natural to everything to keep itself in ‘being’, as far as possible. However, an act might have a good intention but still be wrong if it is not proportional to the end. If a man, in self-defence, uses more violence than necessary, it will be unlawful: but if he repels force with moderation, his defence will be lawful…It is not necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defence in order to avoid killing the other man, because one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.”

If the primary intention is to save a life, then an unintended bad effect is not necessarily unlawful. What is this idea called? How can you apply the doctrine of double effect to the issue of euthanasia? If the intention is to kill a patient, it is wrong. If the intention is to ease the suffering of a patient by giving painkillers that will, as an effect, end their life, that is OK.

Four conditions must be satisfied The act must not be deontologically evil e.g. killing is not, but murder is. The evil that comes from the act must not outweigh the good that comes from it The intention of the agent must be good. They must not want to bring about an evil result A proportionately serious reason must be present to justify allowing the indirect bad effect.

Discuss the examples with reference to double effect Discuss the examples with reference to double effect. Do they raise questions about whether natural law adequately addresses the moral issues? Allowing a woman an abortion if continuing the pregnancy would inevitable lead to the death of the mother and child Shooting dead a terrorist who is about to trigger a bomb in a crowded place Ending the life of a wounded solider in a battlefield when they are begging for release from pain Sending children into prostitution to feed a starving family Write down: Explain what is meant by the doctrine of double effect. Are there any problems with it that you notice? How far do you agree with the doctrine of double effect as a feature of natural law?

Proportionalism as a way forward… Advocated by Richard McCormick and Bernard Hoose Like Aquinas, recognise the importance of reflecting on human nature to reveal general moral principles e.g. do not lie Unlike Aquinas, do not believe that natural law is always, absolutely binding Sometimes the situation will demand putting NML aside for the sake of the greater proportionate good, even though this may unavoidably entail committing ontic (pre or non-moral evils)

Kosovo women who were raped by Serbian soldiers during 1999 were given the morning after pill by the United Nations peace keeping forces. What would be the response from the traditional stance of natural moral law? What would be the response of a proportionalist?

Do you think that proportionalism can be charged with collapsing into utilitarianism?