(See initial post here)(See First Situation here)
(See Second Situation here)
Seven sailors were proclaimed heroes of the Thetis submarine disaster because they had volunteered to let their bodies serve as buoys to guide rescuers to the sunken British submarine. Captain O'Hara was the first to volunteer to try to get through the escape chamber, though, because of the submarine's position, it was beleived a man would be drowned before he could get clear of the hull. If he got to the outer hatch before drowning, his body, floating to the surface with the notation of the Thetis' exact position tied to his wrist, would guide the rescue ships. Captain O'Hara got through; the next three were drowned before reaching the outside hatch.
9 comments:
1. The good effect (saving the crew) is desired, and not the suicide.
2. The action itself, going out of the ship is.... indifferent? I don't know. It seems like the act itslef really is suicide.
(In case you are wondering, there was no chance of survival. This was essentially no different than a kamikaze mission, except that it was meant to save lives)
If I am wrong, and the act itself is evil (suicide), then the double effect does not permit the action.
3. The good effect (saving the lives of the crew) does seem to be produced by the death of the captain.
Strange. This seems to be a perfect example of laudable bravery, but the double-effect rule has me stymied. Either this act is completely impermissible, or I am applying the principle incorrectly.
4. The reason is certainly proportionate.
And here's my favorite quote: :-)
Remember that a greedy eye is a vice. What has been created worse than the eye? Therefore it sheds tears on every face. (Sirach).
Very confusing! You seem to be correct in saying that a good can only be reached by way of an evil. Before seeing your examples, I had thought the Trolley Problem was hard!
Leslie,
I think I am misapplying the principle. Probably the act should simply be reduced to "going outside the ship". I have seen other examples in which jumping off a building (to escape a fire)is considered indifferent, because you are just considering the act and completely stripping away any conqequences, no matter how obvious.
Therefore, for #2 the act is indifferent.
This still leaves us wondering about #3.
Hmmm.
Third Situation
Hmmm... speaking about which, wanna hear some Orthodox humour? :D
As You well know, Orthodox can marry up to three times:
-- the first marriage is when You find "The One" ;-)
-- the second marriage is a second chance. :p
-- the third marriage is for those for whom third time's the charm. :D
-- and since there're no funny wise-ass remarks for the number four, a fourth wedding is by all means canonically forbidden. (`cause a mariage without humour is a very sad waste of time). :->
:-) No wonder we've got so many converts comin` in! (Suckers!) >;)
polygamists!
:-)
Actually, the politically-correct term is "serial monogamist". :-)
Post a Comment