Talk:Principle of double effect/Archive 1

Concepts relating to a Future Discussion of Double Effect re : Pope Pius XI
Coming from the discussion page Theology of Pope Benedict XVI where  the Principle of Double Effect finally takes hyper-important issue, I will here place that which I find relevant to the above user's  notice. I ask readers and editors for their indulgence in allowing me to use this space to somehow construct a shared understanding of the relationship of this principle or doctrine to one of the great issues of modern history, the morality of assistance to dictatorship , particularly that of Adolf Hitler. All can be archived in time, if there is time. I do not hve much time so the apparent disorder created may annoy those with greater education or more time. Famekeeper 17:51, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Social Justice
All of the difficulty with attempting to affect the common good indirectly changed with Pius XI’s development of a completed theory of social virtue. Pius XI started by accepting the fact and all the implications of man being social by nature. He followed this with the idea that society was intrinsically social. Society was not just a collection of individuals, but of individuals coming together and associating in groups. Groups are specifically social creations. This means that the common good, while broadly, if precisely, defined as the capacity to acquire and develop all virtue (that which all men have in common), also takes on concrete form as the aggregation of groups -- institutions. These embody the ways, means, and formal “social transactions” developed within a society to assist the individual members of society in their task of acquiring and developing virtue. The common good becomes directly accessible by every human being, not just philosopher kings.

Pius XI introduced the idea of a class of virtue that was not directed at the good of the individual, but at the good of society as a whole. Social virtue is directed at the good of the common good, or, perhaps, more clearly, toward the health of those institutions of the common good which are designed to assist us in our task of acquiring and developing individual virtue. To repeat, this new class of virtue, let us call it “social virtue” (for that’s what it is), is not directed toward assisting any individual in his acquisition and development of individual good or goods. Social virtue is, on the contrary, directed toward assisting the institutions of society in maintaining or reforming themselves so as to enable them to assist individuals in acquiring and developing individual good or goods.

To put it yet another way, social virtue is not directed at assisting individual members of society to acquire and develop virtue, but at helping institutions acquire and develop the structures that assist individual members of society in acquiring and developing virtue. Social virtue is, therefore, by definition, directed toward the common good, not the individual good of any member or members of society, regardless how numerous they might be.

That is a difficult concept to understand. People have been misunderstanding it since Pius XI first began teaching it. The result has been that, just as they have for thousands of years, people still attempt to reform the social order through the application, more or less intensive, of the individual. From virtues.http://socialjusticereview.org/articles/without_piusXI.php

Argumentum ad judicium
argumentum ad judicium : An argument where appeal is made to common sense and the judgment of people as validating a point.

Causality
Causality : The relationship between cause and effect. The principle that all events have sufficient causes. From - []

Condemnation
Declaring an evildoer to be guilty; the punishment inflicted. Without Jesus we stand condemned before God not only because of the sin of Adam (Rom. 5:16-18) but also because of our own sin (Matt. 12:37). However, "There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death" (Rom. 8:1-2). Christians have passed out of condemnation because they are forgiven in Christ. ''ibid.

Doctrine
A set of accepted beliefs held by a group. In religion, it is the set of true beliefs that define the parameters of that belief system. Hence, there is true doctrine and false doctrine relative to each belief set. In Christianity, for example, a true biblical doctrine is that there is only one God in all existence (Isaiah 43:10; 44:6,8). A false doctrine is that there is more than one God in all existence. From- [] Famekeeper 16:38, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Canon
Canon :  This is another word for scripture. The Canon consists of the 39 books of the Old Testament and the 27 books of the New. The Canon is closed which means there is no more revelation to become Scripture. see ibid.

Sin
Sin :Sin is anything that is contrary to the law or will of God. For example: if you lie, you have sinned. Why? Because God has said not to lie (Exodus 20:16). If you do what God has forbidden, then you have sinned. In addition, if you do not do what God has commanded, you sin (James 4:17). Either way, the result is eternal separation from God (Isaiah 59:2). Sin is lawlessness (1 John 1:3) and unrighteousness (1 John 5:17). Sin leads to bondage (Rom. 6:14-20) and death (Rom. 6:23).

Paul, in the book of Romans, discusses sin. He shows that everyone, both Jew and Greek, is under sin (Rom. 3:9). He shows that sin is not simply something that is done, but a condition of the heart (Rom. 3:10-12). In Ephesians Paul says that we are "by nature children of wrath" (Eph. 2:3). Yet, "while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly" (Rom. 5:6). From - ibid.

Sola Scriptura
Sola Scriptura :The teaching that the Scriptures contain all that is necessary for salvation and proper living before God.

Righteousness
Righteousness is an attribute of moral purity belonging to God alone (John 17:25 ). It is He alone who is truly righteous. No one in the world is righteous in the eyes of the Lord, that is, except the Christian. We are counted righteous in the eyes of God when we receive Jesus by faith (Phil. 3:9). Our righteousness is based on what Jesus did on the cross. The righteousness that was Christ's is counted to us. We, then, are seen as righteous in the eyes of God. Though we are actually worthy of damnation, we are made righteous (Isaiah 61:10) by Jesus' sacrifice on the cross. As a result, we will spend eternity in the presence of the holy, pure, loving, kind, gentle, and righteous God who is our righteousness.

Natural Law Ethical Theory
Some examples of what natural law ethical theory is, or is not, and why it could be considered useful in this debate, include the following:


 * 1. It is a philosophical ethical theory, not a theological one - although it can be and is related to theology.  That is, natural law ethical theory aids us in understanding which human actions are morally right or wrong through the aid of human reason alone - without the use of Divine Revelation or the teachings of the Magisterium.  It has been studied and refined over the centuries as a means of addressing what is the morally right thing for us to do when faced with genuine moral dilemmas.


 * 2. In counter-distinction to many other ethical theories, natural law ethical theory is proximately and objectively grounded in our objectively knowable human nature, i.e., on what is really good or bad for us as human beings - as individuals and as members of our human communities.


 * 3. Because the basic precepts of natural law theory are proximately grounded on an objectively knowable human nature, they are applicable to all human beings, precisely because we all possess such human natures.  The possession of natures which are specifically human is precisely what we all have in common.  This is true regardless of time, culture, background, race, sex, religion or political affiliation.


 * 4. Thus if properly understood and applied, natural law theory should be ideal for our "pluralistic" society - since all of our citizens are human beings, and hold at least that in common.  What is fundamentally good or bad for human beings in general will hold for us all.

'''Here I. Famekeeper ,will myself, according as the law of Copyright extolls, attempt to evade censure for lifting thought(thought which any reasonable human being could understand), and  attempt to  paraphrase the three factors. He (she) who continues to argue my good faith should  confer with their conscience, as do the 'bosses who consider ever more the issue of copyright of importance in this digital revolution.
 * Finally, in natural law ethical theory, there are three determinants of a human action which determine its rightness or wrongness, and all three determinants must be good in order for an action to be considered good: the above  are with acknowledgement, educational fair use, from _[]

Moved from main:

''In part, it depends on the meaning of "all other things being equal" and "exactly the same consequences". If this definition somehow excludes the mental framework for the decision, there is a difference in the potential for recidivism for a 'bad act' motivated by 'bad intention' from a 'bad act' that was unintentional. The two situations would therefore differ in their probable future impact and be morally distinguishable to utilitarians.''

I think this paragraph is confused, or if it isn't, needs an example to make it clear. Because I don't understand it. We're talking about what utilitarians would consider good acts, ie acts where the good consequences outweight the bad, so talk of "bad acts" and "recidivism" needs explaining. Evercat 17:18, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Determinants of Natural Law Ethical Theory
It is taught by this writer here that there are three determinants governing whether an action is good and that there is no allowance for a false qualifiction that says there are no absolutes of good or un-good (which can only  be a-morally claimed)


 * 1)The willed action itself - abortion, bad; as opposed to chemotherapy , good.


 * 2)The willed intention or achieveable result ( cure of cancer, spacing of children or etc).


 * 3)The un-will of circumstance (rape as opposed to the marital consequence of intercourse).

here the proposition is that there is distinction between  action that is evil  per se and action  that is good  per se yet  dominated by bad intention. Here again there is recourse to the PPrinciple (it says principle, aside to confirm the first post on this page ) of double effect.

Proceeding Analysis of the Principle of Double Effect and Pope Pius XI
This I, FK, attempt to abbreviate from Austin Fogethey who, apart from the length, could rightly be represented in full.

We return to the four necessary conditions based on the principle ( I, FK ,analyse as deriving  from the Question of the Law of romans 3,8 in my WP travels ) which is that an evil must never be willed  even as by-product of a virtuous effect. Fogethey is reported as stating that evil  can be reduced to this by-product  if it is an incidental and un-avoidable by-product of the good sought  licitly ( IE, in Catholic terms ,not in contravention of  Pius XI's  social justice).

So whilst I am not bound to prevent evil out there already, I could tolerate it if that toleration prevented great harm to myself, society etc.

Fogethy's analysis seeks the  legally inherent  differentiation between my refusal to countenance and bolster evil, against  my finding that it allows itself of its own accord  to result from my action. However as presented his re-definitions do not pertain morally to the political or social justice  case of Weimar Germany but are confined, as it sems most dealings with double-effect are , to the narrower, though harrowing , issue of abortion. The four conditions are exactly as in the article, and the import of this source resides more in  the following  and its relationship to social justice. above.

Whilst directed at the  saving of the un-born,  yet teaching which should , in consistency , have   been held as applicable to the child Jews , the adolescents, and , indeed the apparently entire law-abiding  Jewish community , imperilled by the mental reduction of moral awareness of double effect to the particular if  perennial question of abortion.

Pope Pius XI drafted his concerns and his teaching in 1930, Encyclical Letter on Christian Marriage and this teaching says :  Those who hold the reins of government should not forget that it is the duty of public authority by appropriate laws and sanctions to defend the lives of the innocent, and this all the more so since those whose lives are endangered and assailed cannot defend themselves . `

DDE and the Reichskonkordat
I,FK, am still pondering the relevance of double effect, which may or may not be a 'doctrine' or a 'principle' to Pope Pius XI.

I note in this regard the previously denied ( by user Str1977 ) explosive contradiction  within the Reichskonkordat of the Treaty of Versailles. This may be most pertinent  in the question of whether or not the DDE covered or did not cover the actions of this pontiff vis a vis  his approbation /collaboration with the murderous government of Adolf Hitler. Famekeeper 12:56, 30 August 2005 (UTC)