Ethics Test 3 - DDE/DDA

Why do absolutists often rely on DDE and/or DDA

DDE helps absolutists avoid a catch-22 when whatever they do will break a rule (i.e. when you have a rule against killing but someone will die whatever you do --> it restricts the prohibition to intentional killing) DDA helps absolutists because: We are always forbidden to act in certain ways, though we are not always required to prevent such acts from occurring

The Doctrine of Double Effect (DDE) - Define

DDE is an anti-consequentialist principle that says the agents intention matters as well as the result. For a morally acceptable goal, you can sometimes do an action that you FORESEE will cause some harm, but can never INTEND these harms

DDE - wartime cases

If you are in a war and people will die no matter what DDE would permit acting where you foresee that someone will die Edmond's Churchill case --> redirecting the bomb to a less populated area

The Doctrine of Doing and Allowing (DDA) - define

Some acts are absolutely forbidden to do, but we are not absolutely required to prevent them from happening DDA says there is a morally relevant difference between doing C and allowing C --> it is always morally worse to DO harm than to ALLOW harm to happen

James Rachels' methodology in evaluating DDA

The Smith and Jones examples (kid drowning in bathtub cause inheritance) If we regard these cases as morally equivalent, this is evidence that there is no moral difference between killing and letting die This means that there is no difference between withholding life support and euthanasia --> If it is right to left someone die, then it is right to kill them (thus DDA falls through) Hard to make distinction between doing and allowing in many cases --> matter of description rather than a factual difference.

Anscombe's Interpretation

Thinks it is absolutely wrong to kill innocent persons If you intend X, and know that Y is inseparable from X, then you intend Y. (Bridge)

Argument from Disaster Prevention ( GO AND READ RSL 222)

This says NO to moral absolutism. Any rule can be permissibly broken, to prevent a catastrophe 1. If there are any absolute moral rules, then we are never permitted to break them 2. Every moral rule may be permissibly broken, since doing so may be necessary to prevent a catastrophe 3. Therefore, there are no absolute moral rules

DDE - end of life cases

Use DDE to justify giving a high-dose of pain-relieving drug to a terminally ill patent, even if you foresee that it will shorten her life (The intention is to minimize suffering) BUT DDE would forbid giving drugs to intentionally kill the patient (Euthanasia, Patient assisted suicide PAS)

DDE - Trolley cases

Why people say yes to Switch but no to Bridge could be us implicitly following DDE In Switch: you foresee that 1 will die as a side effect, but you intent to save 5 In Bridge: while your ultimate aim is to save 5, the mans death is intended as a means ASK ALEC ABOUT HYBRID SWITCH-BRIDGE

Main Problem with DDE

critics say there is no clear distinction between intention and mere foresight Glovers Hiroshima --> end war with mass civilian casualties foreseen Glovers ferry --> sink ship to stop bomb, foresee people will die

DDA - end of life cases

used to morally distinguish killing and "letting die" Forbidding euthanasia/PAS --> the drug causes the death Justify withdrawing/withholding life support --> the disease causes death

To test DDA

we must compare cases that differ ONLY in that one involves DOING something and the other involves ALLOWING the same thing if there is a moral difference or not confirms or refutes DDA