The requirement for an act of killing to be justified under the doctrine of double effect

Anscombe does not claim Truman was ignorant: To do so would be to intend the killing of the pot-holer rather than to merely permit it to occur in the process of performing another action.

Read A History of The Felony Murder Rule

Those who morally distinguish man-made from natural disaster reason that death by murder is a direct result of volitional human action. But if B the owner of the Park had shot at his own Deere, and without any ill intent had killed the boy by the glance of his arrow, this had been homicide by misadventure, 47 and no felony.

What we now know as the felony rule may have resulted from a mistaken interpretation of unlawful act killing by Lord Coke. An unlawful motive for initiating violence was inconsistent with provocation which could mitigate murder to manslaughter. In the case of the judge, she is not actually killing the five hostages the vigilantes will do the killingshe is letting them die.

But, in the utilitarian picture, a life is a life. Not unrelated to the distinction between manmade and natural catastrophe is the fact that most of the weapons in existence were exported by first world nations the leading exporter being the United States to less powerful and, more importantly, less stable nations.

In a given set of circumstances, a leader will be morally obliged either to wage war or to refrain from doing so. Understandably, then, Truman apologists invoke utilitarianism in their explanations of his action. The fact that the act with multiple effects must see those effects occur simultaneously to be justified might be explained in the following way: The crucial point is that, in considering whether to resort to the use of deadly force, a leader must, morally speaking, bear in mind the consequences of his actions for his fellow human beings.

The most important idealist rival to the just war tradition is utilitarianism. The bad effect may be foreseen, but not desired. Advocates of military intervention insist that recourse to deadly force is sometimes necessary.

More on this soon. The Importance of Intentions In civil society we sharply distinguish positive cases of killing from negative cases of omission, wherein an agent refrains from helping.

Virginia inKentucky from toMaryland inLouisiana from its admission from toTennessee inMichigan inArkansas inNew Hampshire inConnecticut inDelaware inMassachusetts inand West Virginia, entering the Union with such a statute in This is almost the description of a modern version of the felony murder as set out in Model Penal Code.

Under what circumstances is killing okay? This would have been the proposition first put forth by the earlier commentator Dalton in In its strictest form the rule holds felons liable for murder even if the death occurs during preparation before or flight after the felony.

Eric Rovie (Georgia State University)

In exploring these questions, the two dominant paradigms in writing about war are considered: Thus, superficial appearance to the contrary, the importance accorded intentions in moral matters need not diminish through affirming utilitarianism.

But the problem of interpretation is pervasive and hardly unique to just war theory. The widespread belief in the necessity of a "self-defense" rationale for killing explains why "humanitarian" military missions are often regarded with suspicion by both the populace and military personnel.

Accordingly, it is unclear that a utilitarian can coherently support destructive military intervention or the provision of deadly weapons to other groups while neglecting to provide other forms of positive aid, for what matters, at the end of the day, is whether or not utility has been maximized.

Burkhalter, Holly, et al. Anscombe addresses, and seems to endorse, the DDE directly in the second part of the paper in her discussion on killing the innocent and murder.

The circumstances of his confinement and the path and precariousness of the rock that must be moved to open the alternate egress must be taken into careful consideration before the action is performed.

The statute further provided that all murder in the state other than ones committed in the perpetration of one of the common law felonies specified in their degree statute was to be second degree murder.

My take is that these cases are both acts of killing. The simplest way of understanding the importance we ascribe to this distinction is that positive action is presumed to reflect a positive intention, while negative omission is presumed merely to evidence a lack of intention.Rachels’ argument: It is not the act of killing or letting die which determines the morality of the action.

Some other combination of criteria determine the morality of that action such as? Which of the following is not a condition that must be met in order for an act to be morally justified under the rule of double effect?

a. The act must be good, or at. Need writing the act of killing essay? Use our custom writing services or get access to database of free essays samples about the act of killing. Signup now and have "A+" grades!

Multiple Choice

Start studying Ethics Final. Learn vocabulary, terms, and more with flashcards, games, and other study tools. not morally required to stay connected to the violinist/ takes away the rights of your own body/ focuses on the person's rights rather than violinist The doctrine that the government is justified in curbing people's freedom in.

Some will use the doctrine of double effect to justify their intuitions about trolley cases. For instance, in the standard case, a driver of a train with no brakes can either continue down his track and kill five unsuspecting workers, or divert the train down a spur and kill one unsuspecting worker.

Doctrine of double effect: you cannot intend to kill non-combatants but you pursue military objectives that will foreseeably kill some non-combatants Utilitarian: there is no difference in consequence between intending to kill non-combatants and foreseeably killing non-combatants.

The requirement for an act of killing to be justified under the doctrine of double effect
Rated 3/5 based on 78 review