JosePet ove WHOIS ENTITLED TO DOUBLE EFFECT? Sr Sains Sas Satan soe eee Scare Se pee pe Son SS eee SS ees Sete eae nore =a ay Wide hl non alice ‘The doctrine of double eect Gerster DDE) emerged within ‘Roman Cahole moral theology aba procedure for guiding some SRetiowe wich area cae of meray embiguesseteone fimelythow in thick « saightfonward. application of an ‘ceptoness moral orm appeats to ecude an action fr which ‘here ae dod. and even morally compen, reasons: DDE rest ‘one ditinton between what a pesoninends in acing and what "perm trngy sour av sde eer of ential ct ‘According fo DDE this distinction has moral significance: i fomenmes permsbie to bring about as aside exe of ones Intentional action what it woul be wrong to Bring abou inter tional. ‘Witin the Catholic tradition DDE as teen formulated in various, more of les complicated ways, (Mangan, 1989; Boyle 190, pp. 28-550, Te common core ofthese formations the iden that there are conditions forthe permssblty of bringing Inge soe yer Pm Moa Ca Cae Ueno oT On MS Coe Sib cer net he dete, a Jove Be out certain Minds of harmo to peopl, The har in quation ce ‘ake by the ration tobe of various sot (Body Rar such 8 “um pticainn Qu orf i ron of DD west comming: Wiener ¢ penon han sober by his het ‘gen, he penen Gos what bod and’ peaps prams fae strong But hon spoon Rane athe wo cold vans on Soup Bip refuse to volunteer to be harmed but isnot asked to volunteer then the agent does a father wrong tothe one armed. For in Such eases one subordinates the ater persn to one's even goals, SBP tip te the poten Wher one inanienally ome ‘other, one uses him oF her his wa when one brings harm ctor i cases of intentionally hari a person, Sind wo a basis for discriminating gaint agency which voles ‘ich harming Tntestonaly harming a peron makes the person pay «role ‘niles sateg Wlshiog Het prsn’s Vlg son cco (nes purposs. Thus it something ore might atk the person fO ‘where harm is brought about a sie effec, volunteering would be eelevant any harm which might come toa person harmed 3s Side eit des not serve one's Purpose hey ake conbu- ton tothe agents plans (Quin, 1980 pp. 31549). ‘Quine’ dain ta there a uty nt to use people which goes bayond the duty nat to harm them i plaurble enoagh and the ‘contours of tis duty closely tack some intuition about DDE, at Teast for some cases in whch harms are inflicted on oes. Bu i Gitininaing agin "As Quinn note Is surely posable to wrong people by harm ing ther a. ide ete (p94). This would be lng to respect {hem though it would ot be tsing them. However, he das Dt ‘onder the pony that bringing abot harman efecto ina et wri yore wae a, binging bat Interests of tone harmed by hor her acon surely need show 10 lesser disrespect for those peopl than if he or she had ite Slonaly harmed ther in the sine way, and ose ther. Tha fren Uf inenonally harming always. ads a feature to an act which harms Others, by no meno Sea tha this ios generally icriminating again intentionally Rare falagency "AnOtNY, deeper dificalty in Quins acount aie from the ‘wat an agent intend ad se effects only in cases in Wich he Tetended arm snot voluntary accepted bythe victim and only in cue in whch the harm is Yo anther. Ths Laon has 2io emit vob eect? os troubling implication concerning the Beles of those who hold tate distinction beeen intentionally harming and baring ot 4 Side eet has the same moral significance in cases in which ‘QS GAN ne jostiod wk Abe in he ens a nd Fesed. On Quin’ acount such peopl re simply gully of ‘Misaka, Yr euch poopie sou be gully ont of hong fomative convictions sighlylifeent than Quinn's own = Convictions which ate qUlle natural Within common sense ‘moray and which do fot presuppose the absolutism of the Cele adion "orf one apes ats Pose to wrong ones by tare sng once then ise tha wheter one har ones inten: Snally oan ie fed should male a dlifeence irda fo he {lerence it maker when appliod to harme inficted on othar= Sinlary, oe supposes that here are harms one can ili on ‘thers hich wrong them even i they voluntary consent 0 ‘hen, then seems that whether one hares the person stentin ay or ab side effect shoal make a difeence sina tothe ‘kffernce “Quinn eee Between intentionally harm. atone ‘without the consent of the victim and acon which harm a 4 Side ee Taus those who belive that king ones i ong ‘Btetonally ending onw's Ie and ending # a2 side elect of Other actions. Sua, those who thnks verong to Ml anaes tren if the oer consents to beng killed are katy to think that the difrece between intentional kiling snd iiling ae 2 Hde other words, Guin sera to have construed a defense fora ch, whe they ave thet cwnintive power do not mesh rll withthe intons of many who have Bought DDE to be true. For both in Cathlle moral thinking and sommon sense ‘Soaly, there ae norte cnwicons which appear to big ‘BOE int play where Quinn’ acount implies fat has no 2piaton! Ts shor sem tht contemporary phloxophial dscusions of DDE do not provide an acount which fatifies the moral Sgnfiance which many think aaches to the distinction between intentionally haring and harming aa ae ef. Abert ouch 2 insicaton, caren cans that the DDE captures an important Pt of people's prephlonphial and nonconsequentalit moral 6 Teen Bole fanations ae nt competing and no grounds are provided for & ow-eonsoquentialist carusty. ‘As far a Lam aware. thee ic no systematic step within the ‘Gothic mora tendon to provide tastiest for DDE. Mach lke contemporary philosophers who accept sme version of DDE, Catholic moras since Aquinas ave aamed tht the tne” tion becwean intentionally harming and harming a a sdeeflet Seay somaderain moral weight no doubt for eimaritely ‘roundel reasons "There however justication of DDE which emerges within the famework ofthe ince absolut which charcenzs the (Cath waitin. This abla et, of course, specie tthe Sccodingto which there were exceptonles moral non prohst Ing inacing cern ands o¢ havin on people. Porermore 3 ‘ill become dear shorty, the justification of DDE within sucha ‘moral framework doce not establsh the trith of Hs sbeolte ‘rohbiions but asumes there are some "The usta sas flows: ft absolutly smpermssibe to Inet some kn of harms on people there's ¢ natural and, ‘eed, ensvoisble,quorion about the eension ofthe Rome prohbing such harms. This” question arses because of the Dossblty that there are stations in which, whatever one ‘hare ae cases ofthis kind, moral noms which abscutely exclude Inbeting sch hare crate wo genaral a to poh nfiting them in these cnc. Fora moral orm which eraly cannot be followed cannot periorm is funcion of guiing choice There a6 plainly cases of this hind ~ casos in which, whatever one does Fomecme wil be th victim of harm i is presumably wrong to Inf Tau, whatever dhe prece entre of he pratt "Bust be limited so a not to cover such cases. In other Wore, Sheolute prohibtione apunet inflicting arms on people cannot tenedly be fornlated te prohibions aga inflcting or even Towing ificing the hare in question, although, of couse aol profbions of some kinds of acons cou be sense they wets not bused on considerations about the hanna they ‘nike,ho sented vd ec? or ‘Te dlstinction between actions in which one intentionally harms someone and those ia which srasone shared a side tet proves the needed limit onthe exersion of rome ab shu profiting Inising sesin hinds of tome For ‘ivays posse Gthough sometimes extremely dificult and ‘Seu Ben moral agent to fallow a norm sohish shoal ‘rab inntonally harming smcne For th reason as of Intentionally harming someone appear to be paradigm cscs of ‘what norm whick abvately exclude infin harms would Drchibl. By way of contact would not be always poole [nee erecta imu) so fobow sn abs profietion ‘against icing harms i that were taken to app to Rar ‘rough about arse fect or there are many cease Ind to spely in any very general way in which, whatever one oes one wl ause harm aside elect "Ths, is nol incompatible withthe Hea of 2 moral norm to think that there are moral norms which direct that ations which Intentenally Farm someone shoud never be done, but its {Incompatible with thi iden to think thet these none shoud be ‘vended 0 ano profit absolutely hams caused ar side effect (Gunns era, 1987, p. 292. I incon between intentional harating someone oa Someone as ase elect eto mit the extension ofthe relevant Absolute prohibitions (982, p. 2D. But my justfiation of DDE sng thee ine as inplcstine which Anscombe ny ot went to ee the ference between intentional arming and harming ‘Stahl let eats sul Ue lly erate en ‘ray athe formar. Thus relening tO scons having death 38 3 [KE effect, she maintane Wat when the death i intenialy ‘eran o very lial in the nature ofthe cao, hen its wrong to Sd the actin which bags about (982.20. But inthe cases She discusses, deaths als aside lien and afi centan oe {hat ofthe decom to forgo the actions the wish prohibited ‘The inmedingy or cetity of a aide eifect's occurring surly elvan to he oral evaluation of the act which binge aoa but anything approaching an absolute prohibition of cons Raving harmful ie fet appears to run afl ofthe litatione whch my argument Sts for absolute prohbions apart ie c= 8 Jose Be ‘The character of this usifcation of DDE can be made more precise ands force put ito perspective by consigering is bnaring on Doragan’s trgument that DDE is ouperfuous. Cane ‘Guy t what Bonagan supposes O02 pp 10,160), DOE dows ‘ot mise becnuse ther i eatablsed a determinate prot ton agnintcorsin inde af harming a ouch and harcore neod to lint responblty to harms intentionally inflicted in order to {void the iposiltes to which sucha potion woul lead. Te arises instead because there a prekbition aginst Gt least ‘sialic cain Had of hms, tod ere ‘quesoon wheter ths pronbition can be ecended cover Init ara se effec. DDE piven «negative answer hs ‘Tu it seems car tht DDE isnot replacement for the ‘Pauline Principle, ane i inno confit with but rather proves 2 "prund for dufcation of the prec exient of some of te Perfect duties to which it gives peony, Donagan is comet, of Eoure in thinking that Oe sort Bf preion stout the cent of lies would be coe lf the duis henelves were ot ‘Shsoluta. But Doraga’sdisagoeement with the Cao wadion Sout this matter isa narmatve disagreement about tbe character Soe is re daca se foe Intenconaly inflicting harms ~ a conviction WRchsrust be FSi independent of cosine abot DDE ~ then is (Objection DDE snot substanated? Testu any jean oC DDE conta de eo a DDDE is superune is sound when dined gaint non absoatist versions, but When arected at ateoest versions, alengss hot DDE itelf bt the absolut framework i atures. Both Irplctions re important. Forth fst means that many Who ‘would ike t9 make ure of DOE, for example, contemporary Uploglans Who rect the Cathe wadion's moral abslues land anticonsaquentalist plosophers, are not ented to help Themosves tots ue, And te second means that hese who objec to the impleation ofthe application of DDE within the tad tional Cathe context have ne specific objection to DDE and 50 ‘extension DDE provides a controlWo enti to double eect? o IR might be objected that my jnifcation of DDE i tent a far aay fom oral is plausble uses sis Quins: For ‘Ry jstibeation apps only when thre ls 2 stuaton af what ‘ght be called “cra impowsbty, that a stuaton in which ne lack the capacity fo prevent the harmful side ee from Securing. And this sitton may yer to obtain in only a few of ‘hesitation to wich DDE plausibly epics, “concider fre the cases i which thee leary mora impos: sity deflection eases fn which the station deine in sack way that tis ot whim one's power fo provnt 3 harm fom fang on seme who are caught up in the situation, but in which ‘one does havea choke about which ofthese people are tobe he sim: Here one aes he are ofall em sme to save anole toting upon some pron rather than other cube to maral ‘ration, but thio evaluation psialy cannot be Dad nan ‘Shoat prokbisan gas icing he harm ‘Many clascal cages used to iustrate DDE are strcturally simalr~ the invest abortion cases for example. n there cen ‘ed in the crnictomy case i my azljais of t © comet the ‘Stanizned stusbon determines that at leet one ot the pam ‘will die The choice to do or refnin frm doing the medical ‘Procedure determines which wilde asa sde effet the indie borin causes the deathof he fetus as aside the refusal of ‘he procedure eslsin the mothers death a side ef. “Kime analy aplas o decor oslo searee media ‘eanureos Thee devine provide acaree rues tm Who ‘heed theny and deny tem to lhe who as a resul will eo live on miserably. These sre not structurally ential o deletion ‘es Fr, unlike deletion case, hey involve saving some a the Dace of fating har fall on others The fact thatthe har 5 “towed ofall on sme rer than being infty the agen» Initosve rises familiar dificalesabost agency, uray snd fmisions. But these complcaens do not ater the atuation of ‘moral impossibly, and donot show that he hare perated is ‘ota se ef For the harm would not have fallen on specie ‘om except fr the agent's decson, and the hari the eases ‘eerie i not intends in dln case, he harm to hose Jet untreated to save sere recurces for others aze hot what 0 Sox ape sete ype of hone dco sae herve, Dt these har to cota individual re win the agen ‘Preven S, thy aside effets and not resol evaatd Oy ‘one's choles things which ne ows ot aculy sae, ‘Sense of oddity inreaes when one considers the revere se of {his dea, namly that an agent can lnenionaly harm someone teihout causing the army merely by ovantng the htm to oc tnd choowing not to preven Baruch Drosy thinks tht ths PPossbuy unnecesarly compucaes me nics of decsion faking about the Tenniation of Ile saving treatment. or the posslty Epics that “tte peat deal o Kling to mally permissible or hat we aro reqused to eta very lage number of feemunaly i patents so aso avold king when” Cody, 198, 25) He prefer a tc causal cory of ling, wich avons bese coms 5 By cin caplet Deedes of DDE will ee eee ee oe Zed he ela ent ee el lego hen ao Loran bing wpa lakag sea ek es on ec canes permclicatit eeceeiatee Seeman Setarersrtlg peca mcton aie ear tay ee ee eine Senna ers iy eon icy pga lng ng fa somes renes cen anes sev cungiyloarn apa ReN tac aa ane she inate int cetera cane meer et ts) Ex thatthe cael sppoach areas pee ne mnguoeon het tiene Esecr niet in eee ee tie meee te Fee eho arial et eit Tat tell ee ba py a naire SoWs coiled fect? 1 tive. For ag he admits, one who intentionally ils by omision ‘dos contbite to the death It follows thatthe agent eats responsiblity forthe death of Kind similar to the responsi (ould hve for esing Chen hi ia mga my he Felevant norma, however they are precuely formulate, should Prohibit only the easing of death in Brody mnse of cnn") ‘Ent not aso the cotton to denth which comes about In Eager pieeecoetanetarion aa arty apni ohare cera tas mores eens age arama ia maircnmanicsuan Sareea Etoeaiga ina nese sce Sousa ee eee snowed aries peer yer end Sepang Loa Es siden cae Sa ee Sane Ses Exsas cristata Pee enemas arr nah eer coe cos ma ae Sate ees Seaman oe eee Exh caaicaedeant nema areca nee memoria ‘ema here a situation n which, whatever one does has Sis aoe ” Jp Rage ‘only and pal of norms each of which excluded absolutly bringing about the side eles of each allemative Would be impose follow. Thahory the ebjecion ha my putin of DDE as detein ing the limits of the edension of solute prohibitions against Ma poops doe nt cer he seg of oppimiton of DOE "Rot sound. Any action which has a a side effet the sot of arse [ig af someone which t's plausble thine absolutely prohied ifbrought about inetionaly is covered by DDE, and this das of fein & very extensive indeed, ceainly tensive enough 1 ‘Sorerihe esc which BOD ought Pp soma igi at ional umn ne ‘oe orcas arses) sping sett See Dope {28 fr encuentro op ia enn tan it fnonie BOE tr Oly speimaraye ESR se OR, 27-28, 2628 3-0 fr ee py atten many xtc S ao oe nd Boe Kan Cera espe sour a ee ong to ch rae 3 cay fs pron woth ing Hs el at end icy aan ot ODE oe wt ate ey Ses st te ena cnn 0 DOE. Yer b nt ei ‘ata DOE ha er a pan wh Sneath te trons eee gem fr eng rain oneal sss api {7 asda ign tone wc wey ret ‘nei senet ef DOE, Poms Agen rvs on or sere a ‘iettea cpp mths no cio barca cer SASSI Res P3 ee tm ee ar ‘an ns pb te Secin eh gn tg Ta at thee dw mt stury tga tee otsaten a xe a inde eos OOS ne a st mace in Ta ‘Sunnis oy pp. S'S) at gee ata ‘porantor be hah of ODE, sane at cancro r ‘eno at veins dep eno pe re dato PatWin item t dae fit? on Songhua ony cope anne She se poles agua inesnaly ring pene wh ‘larch Ca ua tio hae bor dnd Sd ey on ‘Bea af die command try (ay 8p 8-280 The ‘ice of thor gurl aber By Catal doc 0 pepper ‘oncpls very Sitret tun fe’ Donn eno oma 177 Es feo mt cn tn ne ct Sap toepet sect bheptc tt sty be md ‘Tapes anton oye an ve aed eg ea {Rios pong surg pipes we ppc pp 0 nj oh tay na eer wh adam in ‘1 pers ch ces mnt sn ed ne SS iccotaneccctoeey So ‘Ancoot, E19 “con enon an “ute et Preis of he “ane alte Papi Asan 12-28 Aguen £-180, Sm Thar, Sind Pa of he Sand Pat Vola ‘Ate Band Out 98, Hath Co Be A Tegal a, 2a iT Cate Hath Care aston of be Uni te Ss yi) Dale et nd 9 crn peo emtetny, To Ik "ial ety 0318 SE ae tty pee tke te hah apt Rta, ST fir of natin rine A “oun Pimpil Si 59° wy en nd De Dn My Onbed alesly Pa, New “er out. coy he tof tn, fr of Py ‘ap A 7 Th Ty Ma ive oC Pr, ren auf Bp na a C0 Naar Bao, yn atom, ‘seed Unt Pro ned New er es fs 97 he prem tot ne Soc fob eee Tine ad Vex, Unive of Caran Pro, Bey, Fo. 92 ray pte in Ono Res a BR wry, cos i: Hani), Min Sect 8 sine Rn PF oy Soo Bae (Gin and ep: Lift i Lt and eto A ie ‘api actnd tern phan ne Rape ‘ah yo lw Od Cry Pe, Now a Po ‘The Let Con 19 ae nd Cal Pree: Td pls od “aera: tof 4 Nin ry, Te Ln un Laon Manin}: An halo sala fe pane done “hit! Se A ge he Vi fm Ondo Pro Neo (Gita Web acta nao ad cnc Pe de of oie ‘ct hepa ae Ars