Shanae Canales
February 17, 2016
Philosophy 1C
Dr. Cole
An Analysis on Reflective Equilibrium and the Doctrine of Double Effect The study of ethics in philosophy is the branch of philosophy that is concerned about studying the thoughts of what is considered morally good and what is morally evil, what is morally right and wrong, and what is our moral duty or obligation. For this paper I will begin by briefly explaining the method of reflective equilibrium as it is used in ethics. Then I will explain the Doctrine of Double Effect and how accepting the Doctrine of Double Effect along with a previous moral principle that we set into place in the cases of the Trolley and Spare Parts Surgeon can help provide reason for our moral intuitions. Then …show more content…
The Doctrine of Double Effect is a moral principle that gives us the ability to show the difference between the harmful effects of an action that is intended and the harmful effects of an action that is foreseen but unintended. The Doctrine of Double Effect says that it is sometimes permissible, when the end we are trying to achieve is good, to bring about as a foreseen consequence of an action what would be impermissible to bring about if it were directly intended. This means that it is morally wrong to go around intentionally killing people. Actions that we take with the intention of harming someone is wrong but at times, in certain circumstances, we can sometimes take actions that the end effect results in killing someone. For this to be considered morally acceptable it must agree with two things; first the end we trying to achieve must be good and second the harmful effect is foreseen but not intended. Only in this way can we accept the moral rightness of killing someone under the Doctrine of Double Effect. So what do we intend when we perform an action? Well we first and foremost intend the end result and we intend the means necessary to achieve that …show more content…
Our moral principle P states that when faced with a choice between acting in such a way that harm befalls few or many, act in such a way that harm befalls the fewest possible. This moral principle was good for all of our previous cases. It wasn’t until we studied the case of Spare Parts Surgeon that we fell out of reflective equilibrium. In Spare Parts Surgeon we have five very sick people who all need an organ transplant of some kind in order to survive. In comes a rather health person who also happens to have the same blood and tissue type as all of our five sick people. If we kill him and transplant his organs, we would save their lives. Yes, we would be harming the fewest as possible, but this action goes against our moral intuitions. We were therefore no longer in a state of equilibrium. We then realized that the difference between this case and the rest of our cases was that for Spare Parts Surgeon, we would have to kill someone to save the five which we found to be morally wrong. After coming to this conclusion we altered our moral principle P. Thus our principle P’ became, when faced with a choice between acting in such a way that harm befalls few or many, act in such a way that harm befalls the fewest possible, provided that doing
February 17, 2016
Philosophy 1C
Dr. Cole
An Analysis on Reflective Equilibrium and the Doctrine of Double Effect The study of ethics in philosophy is the branch of philosophy that is concerned about studying the thoughts of what is considered morally good and what is morally evil, what is morally right and wrong, and what is our moral duty or obligation. For this paper I will begin by briefly explaining the method of reflective equilibrium as it is used in ethics. Then I will explain the Doctrine of Double Effect and how accepting the Doctrine of Double Effect along with a previous moral principle that we set into place in the cases of the Trolley and Spare Parts Surgeon can help provide reason for our moral intuitions. Then …show more content…
The Doctrine of Double Effect is a moral principle that gives us the ability to show the difference between the harmful effects of an action that is intended and the harmful effects of an action that is foreseen but unintended. The Doctrine of Double Effect says that it is sometimes permissible, when the end we are trying to achieve is good, to bring about as a foreseen consequence of an action what would be impermissible to bring about if it were directly intended. This means that it is morally wrong to go around intentionally killing people. Actions that we take with the intention of harming someone is wrong but at times, in certain circumstances, we can sometimes take actions that the end effect results in killing someone. For this to be considered morally acceptable it must agree with two things; first the end we trying to achieve must be good and second the harmful effect is foreseen but not intended. Only in this way can we accept the moral rightness of killing someone under the Doctrine of Double Effect. So what do we intend when we perform an action? Well we first and foremost intend the end result and we intend the means necessary to achieve that …show more content…
Our moral principle P states that when faced with a choice between acting in such a way that harm befalls few or many, act in such a way that harm befalls the fewest possible. This moral principle was good for all of our previous cases. It wasn’t until we studied the case of Spare Parts Surgeon that we fell out of reflective equilibrium. In Spare Parts Surgeon we have five very sick people who all need an organ transplant of some kind in order to survive. In comes a rather health person who also happens to have the same blood and tissue type as all of our five sick people. If we kill him and transplant his organs, we would save their lives. Yes, we would be harming the fewest as possible, but this action goes against our moral intuitions. We were therefore no longer in a state of equilibrium. We then realized that the difference between this case and the rest of our cases was that for Spare Parts Surgeon, we would have to kill someone to save the five which we found to be morally wrong. After coming to this conclusion we altered our moral principle P. Thus our principle P’ became, when faced with a choice between acting in such a way that harm befalls few or many, act in such a way that harm befalls the fewest possible, provided that doing