Now, we turn to the question of the consequences which follow human actions. There are some actions which have both good and bad consequences. These are known as acts with double effects.
The problem is that it is difficult to decide whether such actions are good or bad.
For resolving such questions, moralists have proposed the following general principles.
¤ The action which produces the double effects must be either good or indifferent.
¤ If it is inherently bad, it can never become good, and will continue to be bad.
¤ The good effect must be direct i.e. it should not happen via a bad effect.
¤ The intention or purpose of the act must be good.
¤ There must be a reason or cause upfront for performing the action.
¤ The good effect must be proportionately much more than the bad effect.
In acts with double effects, the main problem is to decide whether the good effect is the outcome of the bad effect. In that case, the act becomes bad. If the good effect persists when the evil effect is removed, then the good effect is not caused by the evil effect. In case of doubt, one needs to make certain that the good effect is not subordinated to the bad one. The point to note is that for a double effect to be good, the good effect should not be caused by the evil effect.
A few examples will help in explaining the principle of double effect. St. Thomas Aquinas first formulated the principle, and illustrated it with an example of self defence. X is attacked by Y. While protecting himself, X kills Y. The good effect is that X saved himself. The bad effect is that Y got killed. Aquinas regarded the act as good since X did not intend to kill Y. It happened as an unintended consequence or by-product of his self defensive action. Aquinas, however, made it clear that the force used in self defence should not be excessive, but just sufficient to serve the purpose of saving X. The currently popular term ‘collateral damage’ refers to actions with double effects. It takes comic form in movie car chases in which villains pursue the hero and the heroine, but in the process, drive helter skelter the people sitting in wayside cafes.
Our next example is from the Stanford encyclopaedia of philosophy.
The terror bomber aims to bring about civilian deaths in order to weakenthe resolve of the enemy: when his bombs kill civilians this is a consequence that he intends. The tactical bomber aims at military targets while foreseeing that bombingsuchtargetswill cause civiliandeaths. Whenhisbombskill civiliansthis is a foreseenbut unintended consequence of his actions. Even if it isequally certain that the two bomberswill cause the same number of civilian deaths, terror bombing is impermissible.
As we mentioned earlier, actions with double effects should produce many more beneficial than harmful effects. This is the standard traditional philosophical view.
Criticisms of the Doctrine of Double Effect
¤ Moral agents are responsible for all the anticipated consequences of their actions.
¤ If moral agents can foresee the two effects of their actions, they have to take moral responsibility for both effects. They cannot evade responsibility by deciding to intend only the effect that suits them or the good effects.
¤ Some people (those who believe in moral objectivism) argue that intentions of individuals are irrelevant, and that morality cannot decide the rightness or wrongness of an act by looking at the intention of the person who carries it out. In their view, some acts are objectively right or wrong, and the intention of the person who carries out those acts is irrelevant.
¤ However, most legal systems regard the intention of a person (or mens rea in legal terminology) is a vital element in deciding his culpability and the gravity of the crime, particularly in cases of causing death.
Case Study
Michael is a surgeon in the United States. On the issue of abortion, social opinion is sharply divided in the USA. There is one group of conservative, religious and pro life activists, who regard human life from its inception as sacrosanct. They totally oppose abortion in principle. They also belong to the right wing of the political spectrum.
The other group consists of liberals of various hues including women’s rights activists. They are known as pro choice, and advocate that a pregnant woman should have full freedom to undergo abortion. For them, the decision of a woman to continue or terminate her pregnancy is her individual choice and not a matter of social or religious policy.
As a prolife protagonist, Michael believed that abortion was wrong, even in order to save the mother’s life. So, he refuses to perform an abortion for Martha who fears that her pregnancy might endanger her health in some ways. Since Martha had faith in Michael’s skills, she decides reluctantly to go to another clinic.
After a couple of years Martha is pregnant again and this time she is diagnosed with cancer, and goes to Michael for an operation. He agrees to perform a hysterectomy on Martha although the foetus might die in the process.
1. Do you think that Michael’s decisions show his moral inconsistency?
In this case, we can apply the doctrine of double effect. It makes a subtle distinction between a result which a moral agent intends, and a result which follows as a side effect of what he does. In the first situation, the result (death of foetus) is a direct consequence of his action; he intends it. In the second situation, though he may foresee the result, he does not intend it.
This principle explains why Michael later agreed to perform the operation. Had he performed abortion, he would have intended the death of the unborn baby. This would be against his moral principle of valuing life. But in carrying out the hysterectomy to treat Martha’s cancer, Michael would aim to save Martha’s life while merely foreseeing the death of the foetus. It would be an unfortunate side effect. Performing an abortion, by contrast, would involve intending to kill the foetus as a means of removing risks to Martha’s health.
Evidently, the distinction involved is rather fine. In certain situations, as in a war of self defence, even when one foresees human losses, one does not intend it. It is an unfortunate and unavoidable side effect. But these are exceptions. By and large, one has to avoid unacceptable levels of collateral damage.
Summary
¤ Since the beginning of philosophical inquiry, some thinkers have expressed deeply sceptical views about Ethics raising doubts about the value of Ethics in human life or arguing that ethical studies can have no logical foundations.
¤ Egoism simply means that ment are only concerned with their individual advantages,
pleasures and welfare and have no care for others.
¤ Psychological egoism is not a doctrine about ethical behaviour; it is a psychological theory
according to which men are so constituted that they always act in their selfish interest.
¤ Ethical egoism is the view that people should in fact act according to their self interest. Ethical egoists argue that people do not often pursue their self interest, but that they should in fact do so.
¤ Ethical egoism can be restated as the view that one should so act as to maximise his utility and minimise his disutility.
¤ Even while pursuing selfish ends, one has to be prudent and ensure that they do not lead
to backlash from others.
¤ The theories of Thomas Hobbes, Mandeville and Adam Smith can be considered as examples of ethical egoism.
¤ Even after modifying ethical egoism into a form of enlightened (as opposed to crude) self
interest, it has certain weaknesses.
¤ Moral relativists are those who deny the existence of universal moral principles.
¤ Moral objectivism claims that there are objective moral truths, that some actions are right for all people at all times and that others are wrong for all people at all times.
¤ Moral relativism can be stated in two forms: moral subjectivism and cultural relativism.
¤ According to moral subjectivism, right and wrong is a matter of personal opinion.
¤ Cultural relativism asserts that within a given culture there may be moral standards that are true for that culture. But there is no objective standard of morality which transcends individual cultures and which can serve as basis for evaluating individual cultures.
¤ In brief, determinism holds that the decisions and actions of human beings are causally determined by external forces. Men are not autonomous agents who can decide on their own. They have no free will or independent volition.
¤ Determinism creates a problem for morality because if human beings have no free will and if their actions are all causally determined, then they cannot be held responsible for their actions.
¤ Men are acting freely when there are no external constraints or internal compulsions on them. In such situations, human beings are free moral agents and are responsible for their actions.
¤ For moral evaluation of an action, it is divided into three parts – its object, its circumstances, and its purpose.
¤ Every action has an object which is its nature or essence. An action whose object is by nature is bad will always remain so. An action which is good can become bad. An action that is indifferent (neither good nor bad) can become good or bad.
¤ Circumstances refer to the time and place of an action, to the agent carrying out the action and to the manner of doing the act.
¤ Circumstances can be aggravating, extenuating and specifying. Circumstances place actions in their situational contexts.
¤ The end is the purpose that moral agents have in mind while performing an act or their
intention in doing it.
¤ An indifferent act becomes good or bad depending on its purpose.
¤ An action that has a good object can become more or less good.
¤ An action which is inherently wrong may become a greater or lesser wrong depending on
the purpose of the moral agent.
¤ Actions with both good and bad consequences are known as acts with double effects. Ii it is difficult to decide whether such actions are good or bad. Moralists have proposed general principles for deciding the question. The standard view is that actions with double effects should produce many more beneficial than harmful effects.
¤ But one view is that moral agents cannot be absolved from responsibility in these cases. When they foresee the two effects of their actions, they have to take the moral responsibility for both effects. They cannot evade responsibility by deciding to intend only the effect that suits them or the good effects.
1. “Ethics seeks to clarify the logic and the adequacy of the values that shape the world; it assesses the moral possibilities which are projected and portrayed in the social give-and-take”. Elucidate the two conceptions of Ethics mentioned in the statement. Which of the two conceptions is more relevant to public servants and why?
2. Some moralistsproposedselfinterest as the sole criterion of rightness – a view whichopposes the traditional belief that altruism is the essence of morality. Argue the case for and against the position that pursuit of self interest always harms social good.
3. What is psychological egoism? How does it differ from ethical egoism?
4. What is moral subjectivism? Many artists claim that common rules of morality do not apply to them. Do you agree?
5. What is moral objectivism?
6. What is cultural relativism? What are the problems which cultural relativism presents to morality?
7. According to a common moral principle, “An action whose object is by nature is bad will always remain so”. X who has been a pickpocket for ten years has a change of heart and becomes a manual worker. Will he still be considered as ‘bad’?
8. Discuss the following cases which are based on the doctrine of double effects.
Case (a): A runaway trolley is rapidly heading towards a group who has no escape route. Someone pushes a bystander into its path in order to stop it and keep it from hitting five people on the track ahead.
Case (b): A driver diverts a runaway trolley onto a track on which one man is standing, from its normal track on which five men are standing. His intention was to save the five on the main track. What is the moral difference between the two cases?
[Hint: (a) The driver foresees the death of the one as a side effect of saving the five but does not intend it. Therefore, the theory of actions with double effects justifies it.
(b) But pushing a guy under a trolley is murder.]
9. Suicide is courting death and is condemned by all religions. Imagine two actions. (i) X is fed up with life and commits suicide. (ii) A soldier throws himself on a live grenade to shield his brothers-in arms from its blast knowing full well that he will perish. How will you differentiate the situations?
[Hint: The soldier merely foresees his own death; by contrast, X who commits suicide intends to bring his own life to an end. This is the position from the angle of the theory of action with double effects. We can think of the example of the soldier also as a moral dilemma in which a higher military duty overrides the prohibition against taking one’s life.]
REFERENCES
John S. Mackenzie, M.A. A Manual of Ethics
William Frankena, Ethics
Terry l. Cooper Handbook of Administrative Ethics (A collection of 34 essays by eminent public administration theorists).
Doug Erlandson Ethics Basics A Jargon-Free Guide for Beginners (e book).
