Today’s Assignment Applying the Doctrine of Double Effect

1. Today’s AssignmentApplying the Doctrine of Double Effect • EMP • Natural Law and the Principle of Double Effect: Six Hypothetical Cases (Lucas), pp. 211-217. • CSME • Incident at Shkin (Schoultz), pp. 7-11; Terror and Retaliation-Who is Right?” (Rubel), p. 57. Objectives from reading: Natural Law Know & apply the Principle of Forfeiture and the Principe of Double Effect

2. Principle of Forfeiture: If I threaten your life… (i.e., violate the principle concerning the protection of life), …I forfeit my right to life. Thus, killing in self-defense is morally permissible. “If you take another life, you forfeit your own right to life”

3. Doctrine of Double Effect • It is permissible to perform an act that will have bad effects only if: • The act is good in itself • The bad effect is unavoidable • The intention of the actor is good • The evil effects are not part of the purpose • The good effect is sufficiently good to compensate for the bad effect Key point are: “intentions” and “avoidability”

4. Not Intended Is it Permissible? Is the Bad Effect Avoidable? Is the Bad Effect the Means of Producing a Good Effect? Act is Permissible Yes No Is the Bad Effect Disproportionate? Act No (Side Effect Only) No Yes, It is avoidable Yes Yes, Bad Effect is Intended Not Permissible… …Forbidden Doctrine of Double Effect

5. Case 1 A pregnant women is diagnosed with uterine cancer. If her uterus is removed, she will be saved, but the fetus will die. So the hysterectomy will have evil effects. May a surgeon perform the operation? Similar case : Conjoined twins

6. Case 2 Terror Bombing vs Strategic Bombing Sometime in 1940, British policy regarding bombing changed to mandate the targeting of built-up areas as opposed to military and industrial targets. It’s estimated that 300,000 German civilians were killed and 780,000 injured as a direct result of this terror bombing. In Dresden alone, 100,000 civilians were killed.

7. Case 2 (con’t) • In the context of war, bombing the enemy is a morally legitimate action. • The direct effect of the bombing was the deaths of civilians and the promotion of terror. This is not morally acceptable. • The intent of the British policy was to incur terror. Killing civilians was indeed an essential part of the plan.

8. Case Studies • “Terror and Retaliation” • Six Hypothetical Cases • “Incident at Shkin”

9. Case Study Terror and Retaliation Case I: The young Palestinian man straps an explosive to his body, & begins to walk down the street to the city center. He has grown up in a refugee camp and has been taught that if he dies while killing a large number of Jews, he will have eternal happiness in many ways. The importance to him is to ensure that his death results in the killing of his “enemy”. Since he does not own any rifles or handguns, his weapon must be a bomb strapped to his body. He goes into a crowded café, says a short prayer to Allah, and detonates the bomb, killing himself and 14 men, 6 women, 4 children who were dining in the cafe. Case II: In retaliation, the Israeli Army orders a helicopter gunship to immediately fly to a Hammas training building. This is a well-known target, which ground intelligence confirms contains a terrorist bomb-maker inside. The helo fires a rocket into the building, killing one terrorist inside the building. The rocket also kills 14 men, 6 women, 4 children who were sitting at picnic tables behind the building having lunch. The helo pilot did not see the civilians behind the building. 1. Is there a moral difference between the two acts? 2. What is the moral difference between the two acts? 3. How would a terrorist answer question #2? 4. Does the fact that the exact same number of people were killed in both cases affect your evaluation?

10. Six Hypothetical Cases

11. Six Hypothetical Cases

12. Six Hypothetical Cases

13. “Incident at Shkin” http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/i_video/main500251.shtml?id=3421351n&channel=/sections/60minutes/videoplayer3415.shtml • Did Capt Hansen have a moral/legal obligation to contact CENTCOM? • Should he have been held accountable had he not made the effort? • Did CENTCOM assume too much risk in choosing to put ground forces against this target instead of bombs? Why did they choose to assume this risk? • If the compound had been bombed, would this be a war crime? • What if Osama bin Laden had been in the vehicles & been at the compound…would you still agree to cancel the strike? • The SF soldiers had many opportunities to “shoot to kill…Why were they reluctant to do so? Did they assume too much risk? • What were the advantages of conducting the operation this way? Disadvantages? Risks?

14. Principle of Double Effect • A wrong or evil result brought about as a consequence of some morally right action (undertaken with intention to do good) is not itself blameworthy • Most common in medicine & military • Sometimes it is permissible to perform an action that has, besides its desired (good) effects, a second effect that it would be impermissible to bring about, eitheras an end or as a means. Secondary evil must be a consequence…not a catalyst!

15. Questions on Natural Law?

16. Mid-Term on Thursday Exam Review • Why Study Ethics? • Ethical Decisions & Decision Making • Constitutional Ethics • Conflicts of Principles and Loyalties • Relativism • Religion and the Military • Utilitarianism • Kant and Moral Duties • Aristotle – Character, Virtue, Courage & Friendship • Natural Law: Principle of Forfeiture & DDE • Themes of the Course: What is Right & How do You Decide? And WHY???

17. Themes of the Course Themes of the Course • As a military officer, what is the (distinct) source • your moral obligation? • Your Oath? Honor and service to your country? • Your legal commitment? • Your obedience to orders? Loyalty? • What is our obligation to speak the truth? • What to do with an immoral or illegal order? • What is the (moral) signal you are sending your troops? • How do you deal with your moral conscience • if ordered to do something that may go • against your morals? • You need to use some sound moral reasoning • Is following orders enough of a justification? • Loyalty to your shipmates, service? • Who do we target? • Who has forfeited their right to life? • When is it justified to go to war? • How do you ethically conduct yourself in War? • What is the “fair” way to treat people? • WHY??? • What is the right thing to do? • How do we decide? • What moral theories do we use? • What are the moral considerations? • Why do we do the right thing? • Consequences? Punishment? Rewards? Peer pressure? Because it is our duty? • Just because it’s right? Character? Moral courage? • Why is it (usually) harder to do the right thing? • What are our Rights in the Military? • From where do we get our rights? • Do we give up or suspend rights to be in the military? • How does loyalty effect your moral decisions? • Peer loyalty, loyalty to superiors and your mem and women • o Loyalty above all, except for honor • . As a person, what is the source of your • moral obligation? •   o Your faith? Your beliefs (natural law)? •   o Your sense of (moral) duty? Rick Rubel

18. Reading for Next Week: Just War Theory (JWT) & the Ethics of War • Objectives from reading: • Know the origin and conditions required of the state via Just War Theory • To go to war • To conduct the war • To end the war • Know the foundation of the Legalist Paradigm and the Theory of Aggression. • Identify similarities and differences among classic JWT and the Legalist Paradigm • Know the tenets of the Weinberger Doctrine • Comprehend the challenges modern day terror & humanitarian threats pose for these theories. • EMP (16 pages) • The Moral Role of the Military Professional in International Relations (Lucas), pp. 221-223; The Justification of Going to War (Lucas), pp. 225-229; Is It Always Sinful to Wage War? (St. Thomas Aquinas), p. 231; Law and Order in International Society (Walzer), pp. 233-239. • Handouts (16 pages) • Osama Bin Laden’s Letter to America; President Bush Speech (1991)