An aviator agreed to load his plane with high explosives and run it straight into an enemy battleship. He would be blown into bits, but the battleship would be destroyed.
Rather vague, isn't it? Which side (if either) is waging a just war? Assuming the would-be kamikaze is on the right side-have all other options for sinking the ship been expended?
That's what we're supposed to examine. There's no pretention that each situation presentyed is ultimately good. The point is to use the principle of double effect (or two-fold effect) to detrmine if a certain resolution is morally acceptable. It either is, or isn't.
In this case, it doesn't matter if it is a "just war". The soldier agreed to do something for his cause. Whether his cause is corerct is immaterial here. The question is: should he have agreed to this act?
to determine if a certain resolution is morally acceptable. It either is, or isn't.
In this case, it doesn't matter if it is a "just war". The soldier agreed to do something for his cause. Whether his cause is corerct is immaterial here.
9/11 was morally acceptable: I *knew* it! >:) Way a go, Talibans! Allah is great and His Sword is sharpened! Allah Akbar! >:) And so was Pearl Harbor: Kamikaze style!
1. The good effect (destroying the battle ship) is intended and not his own death.
2. The action is....? Is the action killing himself? No. Is it ramming his plane into the enemy ship?
I think it is and it might not be possible to classify this mere action as suicide, since German pilots used ramming technqiues against American B-17s over Europe (Not very successfully, and not without casualties, but some pilots did survive the encounters).
If I am correct, the action is indifferent.
3. Is the good effect (destroying the battleship) produced by the evil effect (his death)?
It is certainly produced by an action that is concurrent with his death, the ramming of the ship. Hmmmm.
4. There is proportionate reason.
Stranger and stranger. My gut feeling tells me that this is outright unacceptable, but I have been unable to apply the principle in such a way to be certain.
8 comments:
Rather vague, isn't it? Which side (if either) is waging a just war? Assuming the would-be kamikaze is on the right side-have all other options for sinking the ship been expended?
also, isn't the supposed good effect (sinking the ship) produced by means of an evil effect (death of pilot)?
That's what we're supposed to examine. There's no pretention that each situation presentyed is ultimately good. The point is to use the principle of double effect (or two-fold effect) to detrmine if a certain resolution is morally acceptable. It either is, or isn't.
In this case, it doesn't matter if it is a "just war". The soldier agreed to do something for his cause. Whether his cause is corerct is immaterial here. The question is: should he have agreed to this act?
Presumably, he is Catholic.
I've got to vote immoral on this one.
to determine if a certain resolution is morally acceptable. It either is, or isn't.
In this case, it doesn't matter if it is a "just war". The soldier agreed to do something for his cause. Whether his cause is corerct is immaterial here.
9/11 was morally acceptable: I *knew* it! >:) Way a go, Talibans! Allah is great and His Sword is sharpened! Allah Akbar! >:) And so was Pearl Harbor: Kamikaze style!
Lucian,
-There's no pretention that each situation presented is ultimately good.-
And here's one of *my* favorite quotes: "True nihilism is found in Cioran" -- The Ochlophobist. >:)
1. The good effect (destroying the battle ship) is intended and not his own death.
2. The action is....? Is the action killing himself? No. Is it ramming his plane into the enemy ship?
I think it is and it might not be possible to classify this mere action as suicide, since German pilots used ramming technqiues against American B-17s over Europe (Not very successfully, and not without casualties, but some pilots did survive the encounters).
If I am correct, the action is indifferent.
3. Is the good effect (destroying the battleship) produced by the evil effect (his death)?
It is certainly produced by an action that is concurrent with his death, the ramming of the ship. Hmmmm.
4. There is proportionate reason.
Stranger and stranger. My gut feeling tells me that this is outright unacceptable, but I have been unable to apply the principle in such a way to be certain.
Post a Comment