moral objectivism, moral absolutivism and theory of double effect,

Moral objectivism:

There are objective universal moral principles, valid for all people and all social environments.

Moral absolutism. The absolutist believes that there are non overrideable moral principles that one ought never violate. Moral principles are exceptionless. For example, some absolutists hold that one ought never break a promise, no matter what. The objectivist shares with the absolutist the notion that moral principles have universal, objective validity. However, objectivists deny that moral norms are necessarily exceptionless. The objectivist could believe that no moral duty has absolute weight or strict priority; each moral principle must be weighed against other moral principles in special situations, one moral duty might be overridden by a different and more compelling duty. For example, the duty to tell the truth might be overridden in a situation where speaking the truth would lead to serious harm. In this case, the duty to avoid harm would override the duty to tell the truth.

Natural law theory is the view that there exists an eternal moral law that can be discovered through reason by looking at the nature of humanity and society. The whole universe is governed by laws that exhibit rationality. Nature in general and animals in particular obey these laws by necessity, but humans have a choice. Humans obey these laws because they can perceive the laws’ inner reasonableness.

Aquinas combied Humanity’s essence or proper function is to live the life of reason.

As Aristotle put it: Reason is the true self of every man, since it is the supreme and better part. It will be strange, then, if he should choose not his own life, but some other’s. What is naturally proper to every creature is the highest and pleasantest for him. And so, to man, this will be the life of Reason,

since Reason is, in the highest sense, a man’s self. 2

Humanity’s function is to exhibit rationality in all its forms: contemplation, deliberation, and action. For Aquinas, reason’s deliberative processes discover the natural laws. They are universal rules, or “ordinances of reason for the common good, spread by him who has the care of the community” Therefore, the order of the precepts of the natural law is according to the order of natural inclinations.

The key ideas of the natural law tradition are the following:

1. Human beings have an essential rational nature established by God, who designed us to live and flourish in prescribed ways (from Aristotle and the Stoics).

2. Even without knowledge of God, reason, as the essence of our nature, can discover the laws necessary for human flourishing (from Aristotle; developed by Aquinas).

3. The natural laws are universal and unchangeable, and one should use them to judge individual societies and their positive laws. Positive (or actual) laws of societies that are not in line with the natural law are not truly laws but counterfeits (from the Stoics).

The Doctrine of Double Effect

Aquinas’s position is not only objectivist but also absolutist. But, sometimes we encounter moral conflicts, “dilemmas” in which we cannot do good without also bringing about evil consequences. To this end, Aquinas devised the doctrine of double effect (DDE), which provides a tidy method for solving all moral disputes in which an act will have two effects, one good and the other bad.

The doctrine says, roughly, that it is always wrong to do a bad act intentionally in order to bring about good consequences, but that it is sometimes permissible to do a good act despite knowing that it will bring about bad consequences. This doctrine consists in four conditions that must be satisfied before an act is morally permissible:

1. The nature-of-the-act condition. The action must be either morally good or indifferent. Lying or intentionally killing an innocent person is never permissible. E.g. Abortion, Terrorist bombing (not strategic bombing except one like Hiroshima and Nagasaki)

2. The means–end condition. The bad effect must not be the means by which one achieves the good effect.

3. The right-intention condition. The intention must be the achieving of only the good effect, with the bad effect being only an unintended side effect. If the bad effect is a means of obtaining the good effect, then the act is immoral. The bad effect may be foreseen but must not be intended.

4. The proportionality condition. . The good effect must be at least equivalent in importance to the bad effect.

The Roman Catholic Church uses this doctrine to prohibit not only most abortions but also the use of contraceptives. Because the procreation of life is good and the frustration of life is bad and because the natural purpose of sexual intercourse is to produce new life, it is wrong to use devices that prevent intercourse from producing its natural result.

Consider another example. Suppose that Sally’s father has planted a nuclear bomb that will detonate in a half hour. Sally is the only person who knows where he hid it, and she has promised him that’s he will not reveal the location to anyone. Although she regrets his act, as a devoted daughter she refuses to break her promise and give away the secret. However, if we do not discover where the bomb is and dismantle it within the next half hour, it will blow up a city and kill a million people. Suppose we can torture Sally to get this information from her. According to the DDE, is this permissible? No, for the end does not justify the means. Condition 2 is violated. We are using a bad act to bring about a good effect.