FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Philosophy: Double Effect
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Is the Principle of Double Effect fallacious? "A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together" (CCC §1755), and whereas one circumstance is not good, therefore is the act not good. I'd like to have your thoughts on this, as many Catholic moral theologians support the Principle.
I think he's giving a dictionary definition of morally good act rather than setting conditions that describe it
Every Catholic theologian supports the principle. At least, I don't know a single mainstream Catholic moral theologian who has not be condemned by the Church (like the rigorists or Jansenists) that denied the principle.

The definition of a morally good act is correct, but usually is put more simply : The end must be objectively good (good in itself) or morally neutral, the end must also be subjectively good (this is what we mean by circumstances), and the means to that end must also be good or morally neutral.

That an unintended secondary effect which is evil may occur is not a circumstance.

A circumstance is according to the word itself, circum-stare, what surrounds the act and the subject acting.

Normal marital relations are good for a married couple. The circumstances concern conditions around this act. Certain circumstances make the act subjectively evil (for instance, being in a public place). Normal marital relations are good, but if one is not married, they are not. Being unmarried is a circumstance. That a child may result from this action is an effect, not a circumstance, the situation surrounding the act and the condition of the persons involved are circumstances, what happens as a result is an effect, not acircumstance.

The "double effect" or as it is called in moral theology "indirect voluntary" does not concern circumstances as much as a second effect beyond the intended effect.

Provided that evil effect is not intended, there is no particular duty to prevent that evil effect, and a few other conditions including that the evil effect is not greater than the good effect, and that everything possible is done to prevent the evil effect, it may be possible to do the morally good act, even though an unintended but known evil effect may result.

The example often cited is an ectopic pregnancy. We cannot abort the child, because that is direct killing, and even to save the mother's life, one cannot murder the child. However, it is good to treat the disease, which is a swollen growth which threatens to cause rupture to a Fallopian tube. One removes that diseased part of the tube, which is normal treatment and good and a treatment for the mother. As a result of this the child will eventually die, but could still be baptized once "born". The evil effect (death) is not desired, nor is it the cause of the mother's recovery, nor is the death of the child directly caused, only indirectly, so it is permitted (but not required).

The idea is that, if there is a just reason, a good can be done, even though an unintended evil effect. That very much differs from doing evil that good may come from it.

We can remove the section of the mother's tube that contains the baby to treat her, even though the child may die (and probably will). We cannot kill the child in order that the mother recover.
Thankyou MagisterMusicae and Vox, I understand it better now.
(02-28-2020, 10:21 PM)ServusDei Wrote: [ -> ]Thankyou MagisterMusicae and Vox, I understand it better now.
ServusDei, I just read the bit of French in your signature that I'd not really noticed before. I love it!
(02-29-2020, 12:10 AM)jovan66102 Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-28-2020, 10:21 PM)ServusDei Wrote: [ -> ]Thankyou MagisterMusicae and Vox, I understand it better now.
ServusDei, I just read the bit of French in your signature that I'd not really noticed before. I love it!

Thankyou! :)