Module 3: Group Quiz February 1, 2022

Members:
1) Dela Cruz, Robie Angelo M. (Merluza)
2) Garcia, Marionne Gerald O. (Oblan)
3) Palpal-latoc, Adriel Kyle M. (Mostajo)
4) Relano, Angela Joyce B. (Becera)
5) Reyes, Dein
6) Tuibeo, Bennett Mikhail P. (Patio)

Case 1: Greg’s Dilemma

1. Greg’s dilemma is to decide if he should act or not. The lives of two groups of men are in
the hands of Greg. If he chooses to do nothing, the first group with forty men will collide
with the train causing more injury or death, or he can change the direction in which the
train is approaching and collide with the second group with only five men—reducing the
casualties of the accident. Both actions, to do or not to do, cause two effects. Doing nothing
will save the second group (good result) but injure the first group (bad result), which applies
the other way around. The only difference is the degree of casualties of the accident.
As an advocate of natural law theory, it is not morally right to crash with the second group
of men even if it causes less injury, for it fails to meet the condition of the Double Effect
principle. The principle of Double Effect states that “it is morally permissible to perform
an action that has two effects, one good and the other bad if certain conditions are met. If
Greg chose to pull the lever and redirect the train to the group of five men, although it
produces fewer fatalities, it is not the right thing to do. Assessing this action using the
Double Effect principle condition, only meets two conditions, the second and fourth.
The first condition of the Double Effect principle is that the act itself must be good. The
act of crashing a train to fewer people is murder, even if it intends to save more lives. The
second condition, the intention behind our actions, must be good. In this case, the intention
to lessen men’s injury or death and save more is unquestionably good. The third condition
is that the action must not violate the Pauline principle. The Pauline principle stated that
“it is not morally permissible to do evil so that good may follow,” which the act of pulling
the lever fails to meet. Choosing to sacrifice people to save more is not morally acceptable.
The end does not justify the means. Lastly, the fourth condition must be a serious situation
which in the case of Greg, it is. In the case of Greg’s dilemma, the right thing to do is
nothing. In scenarios like so, Thomas Aquinas proposed that we practice the theological
virtues of faith. Let God be the one in charge of this affair.
 2. The principles of Double Effect and Utilitarian theory shares similarities and differences
in terms of their principles and applications. Both ethical theories are universalist ethical
theories. Double effect is under natural law theory which argues that God gives moral law
and all humans are blessed with this moral law. Thus, all must follow the moral law.
Utilitarianism argues that happiness is our final end, so all must strive to achieve it.
However, the utilitarian theory focuses on the greatest amount of happiness of the greatest
number. Utilitarianism is a consequentialist and hedonistic ethical theory where intentions
are not considered as long as it produces the greatest pleasure and avoid pain. In contrast,
the principle of Double Effect consists of conditions that contradict the principle of
utilitarianism. Such as the second and the third conditions. The second condition states that
our intentions must be good, and utilitarianism argues that intentions are irrelevant. The
third condition is that actions must not violate the Pauline Principle, where the end doesn’t
justify the means. Act-utilitarianism will perform an action that will produce the greatest
pleasure in any way possible. These include morally wrong actions.
Case 2: COVID-19
1. Life
As an advocate of natural law theory, I must perform those actions that promote the value
specified by the natural inclinations of human beings. These fundamental goods or values
are life, procreation, knowledge, and sociability. I ought to perform these actions to
promote my self-preservation and avoid actions that will hinder or destroy my life. In the
case of medical personnel attending to a COVID-positive patient, it is permissible to refuse
to perform resuscitation to avoid being infected by the virus, promoting own self-
preservation. However, as medical professionals, they ought never to intentionally harm a
patient (Catherine Sheehan, 2001). Applying the golden rule, I ought to perform measures
that will promote others’ self-preservation and prevent activities that will impair their self-
preservation. Thus, it is morally wrong to refuse to resuscitate a patient who is in cardiac
arrest.
2. Procreation
The same principles apply to the rest of the values. In the matter of procreation, one ought
to perform actions that promote procreation. If a patient dies from cardiac arrest, that person
cannot commit acts of reproduction. The same goes with medical professionals; they have
an obligation to promote procreation for themselves and others. Therefore, they must act
with the utmost capability to save a patient.
3. Knowledge
We ought to perform actions that promote knowledge and learning. Humans are rational
beings, and we ask questions and seek knowledge. In the case of the medical professional,
they can not learn more about the effects of the virus if they let all of their patients die.
This hinders their ability to collect information about the virus and how it affects survivor
patients. They can produce antibiotics from the surviving patients’ antibodies and make a
 cure from it. Similarly, if the patient dies, they are eliminating the patient’s ability to learn
more. Thus, it is right to resuscitate a patient to save its life.
4. Sociability
Lastly is our natural inclination towards sociability; we strive in a society with other people.
We crave social interaction with our friends and family, and we value this inclination.
Hence, we ought to act that promotes sociability for ourselves and others. Allowing a
patient to die would eliminate their ability to socialize. So, medical professionals must
perform resuscitation for patients undergoing cardiac arrest.

References
Catherine Sheehan, D. W. (2001, December 22). Medical oaths and declarations. Retrieved Febuary 1,
2022, from ncbi.nlm.nih: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1121898/#