Lesson 2 Norms of Morality, Principle of Double Effect and Proportionate Reason
Lesson 2 Norms of Morality, Principle of Double Effect and Proportionate Reason
It’s not always easy to choose to do what is right, but if you listen to your conscience and
consult the law, you will usually know what choice you should make. For each of the
following items, describe the choice you should make. Include two additional temptations
you might face and the choice you should make in the face of each.
The Norms of Morality are the criteria of judgment about the sorts of person we ought
to be and the sorts of action we ought to perform. It refers to the quality of things manifesting
their conformity or non-conformity with the norm or criteria. (that which conforms is good
or moral, that which do not conform is evil or immoral)
CONSCIENCE
According to Erich Fromm, conscience enables the person to know what ought to be
done in order to become his own self. Conscience becomes the reason why the human person
becomes aware of the goals of life, as well as the norms for the attainment of such goals.
Thomas Aquinas adds: “Man’s conscience is also responsible for making the human person
aware of the welfare and dignity of the other persons”.
Kinds of Conscience
DSSP 2020 | NOT FOR SALE/UNAUTHORIZED REPRODUCTION
Antecedent Conscience judgment is passed before an action is
performed.
Erroneous/ False Conscience judges what is really bad as good and vice
versa according to a false interpretation of
the moral principles.
1) By studying and searching for truths in the laws and in the sciences. Overcoming
ignorance and error in moral matters.
2) Cultivating good habits. Overcoming doubts.
3) By militating against evil, condemning and fighting against it.
DSSP 2020 | NOT FOR SALE/UNAUTHORIZED REPRODUCTION
4) One must learn how to use properly his/her freedom.
1. A mistake along the process of practical reasoning especially with regard to remote
conclusions of the moral principles.
2. Ignorance of law
3. Ignorance of the fact and other circumstances modifying human action.
4. Ignorance invoving future consequences, especially those dependent on the free will
of others.
LAW
Elements:
Kinds of Law
1) Eternal Law
• it is the Divine reason or the will of God commanding that the natural order of
things be preserved and forbidding that it be disturbed .
• it is the exemplar of Divine wisdom as directing all actions and movements.
•
Properties: Universal, Obligatory, Recognizable by Reason, Immutable
2) Natural Law
• it is man’s participation in the eternal law of God.
• it is an extension of the divine order of things as apprehended by human reason.
• are not written decrees; figuratively speaking, they are “written in the hearts of
men.” They are impressed in human nature by the author of nature.
• it refers to the nature of all created things which is the principle of movements
and action: chemical, biological, psychological, or rational.
• it is recognized by all men regardless of creed, race, culture, historical
circumstances.
• All agreed that there is an inner force that compels man towards good and away
from evil.”
Properties:
• A human law should be in accord with the divine law.
• A human law should be in accord with the natural law.
• A human law must promote the common good.
• A human law must have a universal character.
2) Mr. Smith has advanced metastatic liver cancer with neoplasms in his bones that
cause excruciating pain. He has built up tolerance for virtually all pain medications;
his doctors believe that one of the few remaining ways to alleviate his pain is to sedate
him. Mr. Smith has said that he no longer wants any curative treatments. The Catholic
hospital in which Mr. Smith is receiving care has a strong stance against euthanasia
and physician-assisted suicide. Members of Mr. Smith family approach his doctors and
unanimously request, "Please end his life so he can stop suffering."
What morally viable options are available for the patients and health care professionals?
To make such a determination, one must analyze an action on the basis of four
conditions; all of which must be met for the action to be morally justifiable. The conditions of
the principle of double effect are the following:
1) The act-in-itself cannot be morally wrong or intrinsically evil.
2) The bad effect cannot cause the good effect.
3) The agent cannot intend the bad effect.
4) The bad effect cannot outweigh the good effect; there is a proportionate reason to
tolerate the bad effect.
In analyzing acts within the framework of the four conditions, one considers that, if the
act satisfies the four conditions, then the act is indirect and, therefore, morally licit. If,
however, the act does not fulfill these four conditions (or, according to some interpretations,
just the first two conditions) the act is direct and, therefore, the act is not morally licit. Some
argue in fact that the first three conditions are three statements of the same moral
proposition: the act cannot be intrinsically evil.
Let’s go back to the case scenarios and try to see how the principle of double effect
works.
2) In Mr. Smith’s case, a traditional application of the principle of double effect indicates that
one can administer pain medicine even if the patient's death is a foreseen, unintended
consequence. How is this justifiable? Is this not euthanasia?
• Here, the administration of pain or sedative medicine is not, in and of itself, morally
wrong (fulfilling condition 1).
• The death of Mr. Smith, were it to happen, does not cause his relief of pain (fulfilling
condition 2)—the sedative medicine accomplishes this.
• The agent, the physician or Mr. Smith 's surrogate decision maker, does not intend on
the death of Mr. Smith (fulfilling condition 3).
Proportionate Reason
2) In Mr. Smith 's case, one may argue that terminal sedation fulfills the fourth condition
because the good effect (relief of pain) outweighs the bad effect (death of Mr. Smith). Here,
the means (palliative sedation) is proportionate to the end (relief from pain) insofar as it
is the last remaining option. The question of alternatives can help physicians and
surrogate decision makers discern what the true intentions behind certain requests are.
Thus, a physician might ask Mr. Smith 's decision maker, "If there were any other way to
relieve Mr. Smith of his pain, would you want to pursue that option?" If he or she answers
yes, then one can claim that his or her intent is not in the death of Mr. Smith, but relief of
Mr. Smith 's pain. The agent cannot intend both to cause the patient's death and relieve his
pain. In this hypothetical case, if there are no alternatives to relieving his pain except for
sedating him, there is a proportionate reason to do so, and such an act is not euthanasia
(direct killing of Mr. Smith).
The Norms of Morality are the criteria of judgment about the sorts of person
we ought to be and the sorts of action we ought to perform.
Conscience, the subjective norm of morality, functions to examine/investigate,
to judge, to pass punishment on our moral actions. It approves & commends;
reproaches & condemns; forbids & commands; accuses & absolves.
Law, the objective norm of morality, is an ordinance of reason directed towards
the common good and promulgated by the one who has the care of the
community or in authority.
The doctrine (or principle) of double effect is often invoked to explain the
permissibility of an action that causes a serious harm, such as the death of a
human being, as a side effect of promoting some good end. According to the
principle of double effect, sometimes it is permissible to cause a harm as a side
effect (or “double effect”) of bringing about a good result even though it would
not be permissible to cause such a harm as a means to bringing about the same
good end.