S
Sniffles
Guest
For situations like this I find Aquinas's principle of double effect helpful. It seeks to assess the morality of performing an act in pursuit of a good when full knowledge is present that the act will result in an evil consequence.
There are four conditions that must be met:
1 the action contemplated is in itself ethically good or ethically indifferent
I think the analysis can stop right here. The action is the purposeful taking of innocent human life. It is murder. You can't do it.
But, we'll continue anyway...
2 the evil consequence is not directly intended.
The way the question is framed by YWIR seems that the evil would be directly intended. Under other circumstances the baby may be accidentally suffocated while keeping it quiet without the intent of murder.
3 the good result must not be a direct causal result of the evil result.
In this case the saving of other lives would be a direct result of the murder.
4 the good result must be “proportionate to†the evil result.
In this instance the good would outweigh the bad.
Notice that Aquinas is willing to balance consequences, but only after hard principles have been considered.
Good post.
You're not, that's the irony. SS Reichsführer Himmler famously stated he did not care if 10,000 Russian women died from exhaustion while digging an anti-tank ditch, so long as it was completed. Why? Because it would save plenty of German lives.If I don't have principles and things that I'm not willing to do under any circumstances then what makes me better than the nazis?