THREE

THEOLOGICAL
PRINCIPLES
1. The Principle of Double Effect
2. The Choice of Lesser Evil
3. The Principle of Cooperation
- Formal Cooperation
- Material Cooperation
MORAL AGENT
the one making a choice and a way to decide, is a being who
can act with reference to right and wrong.

As such a moral agent is one who can be held responsible for

his/her behavior or decision. We can say that it is only a moral agent
who has rights and responsibilities, since it is the moral agent who can
have choices and the power to choose.

Most ethics philosophers believe that only rational beings,

who can reason and form self-interested judgements, are capable of
being moral agents.
 1. THE PRINCIPLE OF DOUBLE EFFECT
Double effect means that our actions sometimes have two effects (or
outcomes): one that was intended and one that was predictable but not intended. The
principle of double effect explains when we are allowed to accept a morally bad effect
as a consequence of trying to bring about a morally good outcome.

INTENDED GOOD EFFECT & UNINTENDED BAD EFFECT

Example: Euthanasia “mercy killing”

Good effect: The patient will no longer suffer

Bad effect: The patient will die
The Definition of Death
Death is a completion of life. Death provides man an
understanding as well as an appreciation of life. It also gives a man
meaning for his own life.

Because the life of man is considered to be important and

sacred, death becomes a painful event in man's existence. Since man
knows that he will die one day, life for him, becomes so important that he
will try his best to cherish each moment of his existence.

The impending death of man keeps him in anxiety and

Martin Heidegger anguish because of his incapacity to determine the time and the manner
of his death no matter how certain he already is that he will die anyway.
The afflictions of sickness and old age cause man to experience more
deeply the agonizing problem of suffering and death. Although Christians
may consider death as the moment of being with the creator and a kind of
reunion with God, it is still somehow gives them anguish and pain this is
because nobody can be certain about whether there is really life after
death or what life will be after death.
DEATH
simply defined as the cessation of life. It is the total arrest of both the
intellectual and physiological functions in an individual; a total ceasing of the
functions of the organs. It is the complete and permanent absence of any brain
related vital bodily functions. When all the vital organs have stopped
functioning, a person will then be considered dead already.

In this sense, to treat a human being, who was irreversibly lost all
brain functions, as if he still alive, seems to be an offense to that person.
Maintenance of a dead person on life support system may, therefore, be
considered an irresponsible squandering of economic and social resources. This
is not only an unnecessary financial burden on society. It is also an additional
emotional burden on the part of the family of the person.
 Euthanasia

Etymologically, Euthanasia comes from the two Greek words Eu,

which means “easy” and thanatos which means “death”. Hence, euthanasia
means “easy death”.

Euthanasia is the direct killing of an incurably sick, be it at the

sick person’s own request or at the request of the legal representative in the
case of incurables who are incapable of making decisions for themselves.
Inasmuch as the reason for the imposition of death is due to the pitiful
situation of the person who is sick, euthanasia became understood as a
mercy killing.
 According to T. Garry Williams, there are three arguments as to why euthanasia can be considered
morally wrong (Timbreza, 87):

1. Argument from Nature – The nature of the human person is to live

and to preserve himself. In this regard, euthanasia is to be considered
morally wrong because it is an intentional killing, and it opposes the
natural moral law.
2. Argument from Self-interest – The danger of performing euthanasia
for sick patient is that it may be administered not really for the purpose
of ending the pain of the person but because of the vested self-interests
or other consequences.
3. Argument from Practical effects – if euthanasia will become a legal
practice, doctors and other healthcare professionals may be tempted not
to do their best in order to save the patient.
James Rachels (follow a classical utilitarian concept)

He considered euthanasia to be a charitable act if this is for the purpose of ending

the sufferings of a sick person. The inclination of man will always be to seek for pleasure; hence,
any experience of pain and suffering will be considered unnatural for him. For this reason,
bringing the person to death will mean doing a great favor on the part of the suffering person.
(Timbreza, 88)

Ex: the case of Sigmund Freud (1856-1939)

Following the utilitarian view, Rachels believe that it would bring more harm than
good if Sigmund Freud will continue to live. Therefore, it would be more charitable if Sigmund
Freud would be allowed to die painlessly. For this reason, euthanasia can be considered morally
acceptable.
 2. THE CHOICE OF LESSER EVIL
The lesser of two evils principle, also referred to as the
lesser evil principle and lesser-evilism, is the principle that when
faced with selecting from two immoral options, the least immoral
one should be chosen.

Example:
If you find yourself inside a burning building,
you have two options: either jump off or stay.
 3. The Principle of Cooperation
Primary Agent & Cooperation Agent

FORMAL COOPERATION
- There is willing participation on the part of the cooperation agent.
- advising, counselling, promoting, condoning

MATERIAL COOPERATION
- Indirect participation by providing materials for the act.
DIFFERENT KINDS
OF CONSCIENCE
 CONSCIENCE
an inner feeling or voice viewed as
acting as a guide to the rightness or
wrongness of one's behavior.
CONSCIENCE
as an internal moral compass or guide that helps individuals distinguish between
right and wrong actions or decisions. It is a deeply ingrained sense of morality that shapes our
thoughts, feelings, and behaviors.

Conscience is a product of our upbringing, personal values, beliefs, and the

influence of society and culture. It is developed through a combination of innate moral instincts
and external factors, such as teachings from parents, teachers, and religious or ethical
principles.

When faced with a moral dilemma or decision, our conscience speaks to us through
feelings of guilt, remorse, or satisfaction. It nudges us to do what we perceive as right and
warns us when we're considering something morally questionable.
 Right Conscience
◈ Judge what is good as good and evil as evil.
◈ Tells us when something is a good choice or a bad choice, and
that this decision is in agreement with what that thing actually is
according to the objective law.

Example: It is correct conscience which tells that getting the

property of another without consent is stealing.
 Erroneous Conscience
◈ judges what is bad as good and vice versa.
◈ judges something incorrectly, when something is bad
you think it is good and when it is good you think it is
bad.
 Pharisaical Conscience
 This means that a person is “hypocrite” – saying good
things, but doing the opposite.
 Certain Conscience
 Subjective assurance of the lawfulness or
unlawfulness of certain actions to be done or to be
admitted.

Doubtful Conscience
 Suspends judgment on the lawfulness of an action
and therefore the action should be omitted.
 Scrupulous Conscience
 Constantly afraid of committing evil.
 means a conscience that judges that there is sin where
there really is no sin.

Lax Conscience
 Knows excuses. Conscience that tends to follow the
easy way and to find excuses for mistakes.
 Guilty Conscience
 Disturbed conscience trying to restore good relations
with God by means of sorrow and repentance.

Callous Conscience
 Insensitive, heartless, cruel disregard for others