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

In the midst of her criticism of Truman, we see Anscombe clearly argue for two of the primary requirements of double effect, indifference of the act killing, and war, are not intrinsically evil acts and proportionality of the bad effect to the good results.

By deploying military means, nations also frustrate progress toward the establishment of an effective international war crimes tribunal for the prosecution of criminal leaders. Pursuant to this early thinking it was not implausible to deny an excuse to someone who had acted wrongfully in creating the situation for which the excuse must be asserted.

While there are risks that these activities will cause death, it is by no means certain that anyone will, in fact, be killed. This is rather tortuous reasoning but very important in the historic formulation of the modern felony murder rule: It would certainly be nice of him, but it would generally be regarded that this would be an act of a Super Samaritan, and that it would go above and beyond the normal obligations of morality.

Can such military missions be reconciled with the widely held belief in the moral distinction between killing and letting die? In actual practice, it is nearly always presumed to be the time of the act of destruction or mass murder immediately preceding the violent retaliation currently being defended.

The law on the books in England concerning felony murder were not widely followed by the courts through the end of the eighteenth century and into the nineteenth century.

The PSE, however, does not offer to us any assessment of the permissibility of moving the rock "except perhaps that it is not excluded on the score of being intentional killing. But self-proclaimed "just war theorists" hold open the possibility of a just war, for they do not typically think that the requirement of non-combatant immunity implies the impossibility of a just war.

On War and Morality. When an individual attempts to thwart the crime and individually kill another individual, felony murder does not apply because the killing was not committed in furtherance of the crime. But situations like the above make it clear that the world is seldom so kind to those of us who would plumb the depths of ethical reality.

Again, the necessity must be proportionately greater when the evil permitted is greater in itself, when the cause is closer in nature to the evil, when it is more certain that the evil will result, and when there are fewer ways of preventing the evil after the cause is once actuated.

Read A History of The Felony Murder Rule

However, in another sense, just war theory is less demanding, for it permits radically divergent interpretations of the same sets of historical circumstances. The Pennsylvania statute was enormously influential, shaping homicide reform statutes in two thirds of the then existing states during the nineteenth century.

Whoever, being of sound memory and discretion, kills another purposely, either of deliberate and premeditated malice…or without to do so kills another in perpetrating or in attempting to perpetrate any arson, first degree sexual abuse, first degree child sexual abuse, first degree cruelty to children, mayhem, robbery, or kidnapping, housebreaking while armed with or using a dangerous weapon, or perpetrating or attempting to perpetrate a felony involving a controlled substance is guilty of murder in the first degree.

Many of our modern felony murder statutes are written just this way. It does seem to be important to note that all of the acceptable cases mentioned involve a clearly unjust attacker, but it is not clear to me that simply being attacked means that the attacker is an unjust aggressor.

The question is whether or not unhooking yourself from the violinist is murder. Modern day legislators writing or re-writing their felony murder should be mindful of the distinction between killing and murder. Murder might be another, although the difference between justified killing and murder may be hard to clarify in many cases.

Elshtain, Jean Bethke, ed.

Multiple Choice

Leaders galvanize support for their wars by appealing to short-term consequences, usually in conjunction with claims about the injustices committed by their adversaries. These include Joseph M. For Anscombe, and for Aquinas, what is more important is whether the act is pre-conceived or accidental.

But if killing the murderer is something that has to happen in order for you to save your family, then so be it. Understandably, then, Truman apologists invoke utilitarianism in their explanations of his action.

Saving your family, ceteris paribusis arguably at least as morally important in the positive as killing the murderer is in the negative.

Improper, as where one has thrown a stone toward a place where men are accustomed to pass, or while one is chasing a horse or ox someone is trampled by the horse or ox and the like here.

If Jean Valjean stole bread because he was poor and his family was starving our modern society might excuse him for the petty theft by placing him on probation or placing him in a diversion program.

November 26, by Alec Julien The so-called trolley problems form a set of ethical thought experiments meant to delve into our intuitions about killing, letting die, rights, and obligations.The American Medical Association stated "The intentional termination of the life of one human being by another - mercy killing - is contrary to that for which the medical profession stands and is contrary to the policy of the AMA".

The common law felony murder rule provides that if a person kills another in doing or attempting to do an act amounting to a felony, the killing is murder.1 it does not matter whether the death was intended or the product of a reckless disregard. the felony murder doctrine cannot be applied under.

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!

Eric Rovie (Georgia State University)

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. Splitting Hairs Over the Definition of Murder: Thomas Aquinas and the Doctrine of Double Effect  Papanikitas, Andrew () A recent article in the March edition of Clinical Ethics stated that,?In the Summa Theologica, Thomas Aquinas discusses how murder may be justified in self defence', provided that killing is not intended.

Some will use the doctrine of double effect to justify their intuitions about trolley cases.

the act of killing Essay Examples

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.

The requirement for an act of killing to be justified under the doctrine of double effect
Rated 5/5 based on 28 review