tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29137904.post6651367377449557721..comments2024-03-29T18:16:16.530+11:00Comments on The Social Pathologist: The right callThe Social Pathologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12927698533626086780noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29137904.post-34317601078096676372007-08-12T07:51:00.000+10:002007-08-12T07:51:00.000+10:00Annonymous of 5.58 am, thank you. Wow.I've just ch...Annonymous of 5.58 am, thank you. <BR/><BR/>Wow.<BR/><BR/>I've just checked up on Father Hardon's CV. Very impressive and enough of an authority.<BR/><BR/>My authorities "higher up" have not responded as yet to my original queries but I think Father Hardon's thoughts justify the defence.<BR/><BR/>Thank you very much for your help. God Bless.The Social Pathologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12927698533626086780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29137904.post-39637584720138897902007-08-12T07:23:00.000+10:002007-08-12T07:23:00.000+10:00I agree, when an action causes a double effect wha...I agree, when an action causes a double effect what determines the morality of the action--all other things being licit--is the moral object, what the will is intending to grasp through the actuation of the act.<BR/>This was all bread and butter stuff in all the major branches of Christianity until recently. I think Luther would have backed me up on this one.The Social Pathologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12927698533626086780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29137904.post-41899285620547790732007-08-12T06:28:00.000+10:002007-08-12T06:28:00.000+10:00Sir,I don't know if a Jesuit qualifies as "higher ...Sir,<BR/>I don't know if a Jesuit qualifies as "higher authority" but he's probably more likely to be right than a bunch of guys yakking on the web. One of the instances Father Hardon gives below is almost exactly analagous to the discussion at WWWtW...<BR/><BR/>"To quote Father Hardon, S.J., in his highly recommended, "Pocket Catholic Dictionary", double effect is the "principle that says it is morally allowable to perform an act that has at least two effects, one good and one bad."<BR/><BR/>Father Hardon goes on to detail the exact conditions necessary for "double effect" to apply:<BR/><BR/>the act to be done must be good in itself or at least morally indifferent; by the act to be done is meant the deed itself taken independently of its consequences;<BR/><BR/>the good effect must not be obtained by means of the evil effect; the evil must be only an incidental by-product and not an actual factor in the accomplishment of the good;<BR/><BR/>the evil effect must not be intended for itself but only permitted; all bad will must be excluded from the act;<BR/><BR/>there must be a proportionately grave reason for permitting the evil effect. At least the good and the evil effects should be nearly equivalent.<BR/>All four conditions must be fulfilled. If any one of them is not satisfied, the act is morally wrong.<BR/><BR/>Father Hardon gives this example:<BR/><BR/>...the commander of a submarine in wartime who torpedoes an armed merchant vessel of the enemy., although he foresees that several innocent children on board will be killed. All four conditions are fulfilled:<BR/><BR/>he intends to merely lessen the power of the enemy by destroying an armed merchant ship. He does not wish to kill the innocent children;<BR/><BR/>his action of torpedoing the ship is not evil in itself;<BR/><BR/>the evil effect (the death of the children) is not the cause of the good effect (the lessening of the enemy's strength);<BR/><BR/>there is sufficient reason for permitting the evil effect to follow, and this reason is administering a damaging blow to those who are unjustly attacking his country.<BR/>Another example of double effect is when an intruder comes into your house and threatens to kill you. You defend yourself and kill and intruder but you didn't intend to do that, you only wanted to stop him from hurting you and your family.<BR/><BR/>All four conditions are fulfilled:<BR/><BR/><BR/>your intention is to lessen the danger and harm to yourself and your family. You do not wish to kill the intruder, but merely to stop him from harming your family;<BR/><BR/>stopping an intruder from harming yourself and your family is not an evil in itself, in fact it can be a duty according to Church teaching;<BR/><BR/>the evil effect (the death of the intruder) is not the cause of the good effect (the lessening the danger from harm to your family);<BR/><BR/>there is sufficient reason for permitting the evil effect to follow when there is no other choice and the killing is not intended. This reason is to safeguard the life and wellbeing of your family."<BR/><BR/>You were right, at least according to Father Hardon, S.J...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29137904.post-24571110721151860222007-08-12T03:56:00.000+10:002007-08-12T03:56:00.000+10:00As near as I can tell, the whole basis of the prin...As near as I can tell, the whole basis of the principle of double effect is the moral difference between foreseeing an evil, and intending it. If one says that to foresee an evil stemming from one's actions is to intend it, then I really do not see how anything resembling double effect could exist. Certainly there have been some philosophers who maintained this, but I do not believe that it has been the standard interpretation, inside Catholicism, or out of it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29137904.post-79829794532458018732007-08-11T18:42:00.000+10:002007-08-11T18:42:00.000+10:00Thanks for your comments. They really do mean a lo...Thanks for your comments. They really do mean a lot to me. I sometimes got the impression that I was out there alone. I hope to get some sort of semi official "determination" on the matter. I plan to post it when it becomes available.<BR/>I agree with you. I feel that they have gone off the deep end. That's why I said their their thinking is pathological; they took it as a personal insult, not a statement of faulty reasoning. Many of the evils of the Left are as a result of good intent coupled with bad thinking.<BR/>Best wishes.The Social Pathologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12927698533626086780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29137904.post-67361638697310706122007-08-11T13:35:00.000+10:002007-08-11T13:35:00.000+10:00Sir, I recently read this debate, and I can only s...Sir, <BR/>I recently read this debate, and I can only say that I believe that the "prosecution" is guilty of a radical misreading of Christian doctrine, one that would go against almost 2,000 years of Church teaching. A reading of the "Catholic Encyclopedia" written in 1914, on the topic of "homicide", indicates that, traditionally, yours is the correctposition.The "prosecution's" position, on the other hand, seemed nearly insane to me. I think that they are trying so hard to be "non-Consequentialist" that they have gone off the deep end.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com