Directly and Indirectly Voluntary

The result of an act which is primarily intended is said to be directly voluntary.

The result of which follows or goes along with the primarily intended act is
indirectly voluntary. A student watches a movie is to entertain himself (direct
voluntary), but, in so doing, he misses school (indirectly voluntary). Or a couple
enjoys walking in the park (directly voluntary) which causes them to be
mugged ( indirectly voluntary).
A person is to be accountable for actions directly intended. Is he also
accountable for those who indirectly willed acts or consequences? A person is
accountable for indirectly voluntary acts when:
1. The doer is able to foresee the evil result or consequence in a general
way;
2. The doer is free to refrain from doing that action which would result in
the foreseen evil;
3. The doer has the moral obligation not to do that which would result in
something evil. (Paul Glenn: 18-19).

Acts with double effect: Alfredo Panizo cites this principles ( Ibid: 38-39):
1. Person is held morally responsible for any evil effect which flows from
the action directly willed and as a natural consequence of such
action, though such evil effect is not directly willed nor intended.
2. A human act with double effect, one good and another evil, is morally
permissible under four conditions. A violation of any of these
conditions can make an act of unjustifiable. These conditions are:
1) The action which produces double effects must be good in itself, or
at least morally development.
2) The good effect must not come from the evil effects. It is never
justified to do evil in order to attain something good.
3) The purpose of the doer is the attainment of the good effect, with
the evil effect of being tolerated as an incidental result.
4) The good effect must outweigh in importance the evil result.

These principles apply to “ therapeutic abortion” a medical process intended

directly to saving the life of the mother with the sad result of aborting the fetus.