CHAPTER 9: DOUBLE EFFECT, INDIRECT VOLUNTARY ACT, AND

PROPORTIONALITY
Nature and Meaning
The Principle of Double Effect
In accordance with human nature, man tends to avoid what is evil. Evil
is never willed or desired for its owns sake. If man commits evil, it is not
because evil becomes desirable in and for itself, but because it assumes the
aspect of what is good- as something that brings or leads to certain
satisfaction.
Thus, evil, in and for itself, is undesirable for which man is held morally
accountable. Just as the evil act is avoided, so also, its evil effect. Now, what
about an act having two effects, one-good, the other- bad?
An act that produces both good and bad effects may be morally
excusable when the principle of double effect applies whose conditions are
satisfactorily met.

The Four Conditions

1. The act must be good in itself, or at least, morally indifferent.
Being the primary moral determinant, the act by its very nature must be
good. Its goodness proceeds from within itself. If it is not possible to be
good, the act must not be evil in itself. At the very least, it must be
morally in different.
2. The good effect must directly proceed from the act itself and not
from the evil effect. At the very least, both effects must occur
simultaneously. It indicates that the good effect is the one that is being
directly willed and not the evil effect in the performance of an act. The
good effect is the very purpose, for which the act is done, and as such, it
is produced not by the evil effect but by the act itself, it comes ahead of
the evil effect.
The evil effect must not be directly intended or willed. It can be should
never be employed either as an end or a means. That is why, evil effect does
not precede the good effect. It just occurs after the good effect takes place
as an inevitable side-effect. If is not possible for the good effect to happen
first, at least, both effects must occur concomitantly.

3. There must be sufficient reason for the performance of an act in

its attainment of the good effect. When toes sufficiencies of reason
exist? As determined by the nature of the act and its circumstances,
sufficiency of reason exists when there is no other means by which the
desired good effect can be achieved while the situation is urgently pressing
and calling for the performance of the act to attain the good effect. It also
exists when the desire for good effect is as important as permitting the
occurrence of the evil effect.
4. The motive of the agent must be holy and honest. How can the
agent be honest in his intention? By directly willing to obtain the good effect
and not the evil effect of the act. This can be proven when the evil effect
follows only after the good effect is achieved.

Conditions when the Principle is double effect cannot be invoked

1. When the act by its nature is evil. It is blatantly contrary to the
dictates of right reason to perform an evil act, no matter what the
circumstance are.
2. When the good effect directly proceeds from the evil effect and
not from the act itself. It means that the evil effect is the one that
directly proceeds from the act itself and, as such, is directly willed.
Consequently, the good effect occurs just after the evil effect takes place.
In which case, the evil effect is employed as a means of producing the
good effect which just turns out to be a side- effect.
3. When there is no sufficient reason for the performance of an act
with both good and evil effects. It means that there are other
alternatives by which the good effect can also be obtained and that the
desired good effect is not as equally important as to permit the evil effect.
Furthermore, the distribution the evil effect can create may be greater
that the good effect.
4. When the motive of the agent is not honest. This means that the
main motive behind the performance of an act is the occurrence of the
evil effect prior to the good effect.

Implications to education

Teaching must be good in itself as it contains nothing but the transfer of

the knowledge of truth which is good.

The effect of teaching must be learning experience of learners, containing

the knowledge of truth for human and social development.

However noble and good they may be, no educational goal should be
achieved by means of imparting ideas, opinions and views contrary to the
truth and public morals, for the "end does not justify the means."

Teaching is anchored on nothing but the truth from which its integrity
emanates, making it what it truly is.

The good of the learners, of the profession, of teachers, and of society

must, at all times, be observed in the administration of education.

Activities perceived to have negative or harmful effects should never be

included unless the following situations are evident:

the said effect serves only as an undesirable and unavoidable

consequence;

it just comes out after the right effect is attained, which is the main
motive for which such undertakings are sought.

no other means are available by which the desired good effect can be
obtained; and,

a necessity to achieve the good effect is conspicuously existing which is

chored on nothing but the undertaking of an activity which also has a
wrongful effect as its mere side effect.

Honesty and sincerity should be primary motivating factors of teachers in

effecting genuine transfer of learning.

Case Example:
A college professor is trapped in the 8th floor of a burning university
building. There are no other means by which he can be saved from being
burned to death except to jump over the window. However, if he does, he will
also get killed upon hitting the ground. as he gets severely suffocated and
struggles to get away from his tragic situation, the professor jumps and
eventually dies upon falling to the ground.

Analysis:
1. The act of jumping to get away from the burning university building in an
effort to save the self is good, fulfilling the first condition.
2. The good effect which is professor's release from getting burned to death
is brought about by his act of jumping and not by the evil effect of getting
killed upon reaching the ground.
3. Obviously, there is sufficient reason for the performance of the act of
jumping.
4. Because the direct intention is to get away from the building on fire and to
be saved from getting burned to death and that the evil effect only
follows, the honest movie behind is established, meeting the fourth
condition.
The Principle of Indirect Voluntary Act
Aside from an act with two effects; directly intended good and the
unintended evil, there is also directly intended thought, it is foreseen or
foreseeable. Sometimes, in the performance of a directly willed act, an evil
effect sprouts which is not directly willed. That is why, oftentimes, remarks
like: "Sorry, I did not truly mean it" and "Sorry, it was not really intended" are
at once addressed by the one who performs the act to the affected person.
This is what indirect voluntariness of an act is all about.
Now, is there a moral culpability in an act that is directly willed but
whose evil effect is not directly willed by the agent? When those the evil
effect that is not directly meant become imputable to the agent?
A directly willed act whose evil effect is not directly willed holds the
agent responsible, provided that principle of indirect voluntary act is
employed whose conditions are fulfilled.

The Three Conditions

1. The evil effect must be foreseen or foreseeable in the
performances of the act, at least in a general way. Common sense

gives anyone the capacity to foresee that an evil effect, albeit indirectly
willed, by happen as it proceeds from a human act to be performed.
2. There must be freedom to choose not to do the act which is the
cause of the evil effect. As previously learned, a free act is elicited by
the will having the power to choose to do or not to do it. However,
freedom cannot be exercised if there is no light of knowledge in the
intellect. To foresee an evil effect means the light of knowledge is at play
such that the agent can exercise his freedom to withhold the performance
of an act from which the said effect stems.
3. Refraining from doing the act which is the cause of the evil effect
becomes the moral obligation of the agent. Reason dictates that
when the evil effect is foreseen or foreseeable and the agent is free, he is
morally obliged not to pursue the performance of an act which serve act
which serves as the cause of the evil effect.

Implications to Education

Good intention to teaching is not enough. It has to be coupled with

carefulness to take the means to ensure that the attainment of intention
for which they said means is used is what exactly takes place.

Prudence is also a virtue that an educator should live out which will help
him establish his foresight in insuring that no undesirable effects to
whatever sort will proceed from whatever acts he decides to perform.

Educators are morally accountable for the outcome of education they

impart to their learners.

Learning experiences consisting of both rational and empirical bodies of

knowledge which take place during schooling and training also facilitate
development of foresight.

The more knowledge is acquired, the greater that freedom can be

exercised. Educators should possess exemplary knowledge and wisdom
that will widen the horizons of their freedom in the education of learners.

Case Example:

Mr. Santos, an English instructor, discusses lessons with a loud voice in class
to ensure that his students listen and learn. Nevertheless, his loud discussion
happens to disturb a neighboring classroom only separeted to them by a wall
made of painted plywood.

Analysis:
1. The barrier between the classroom of Mr. Santos and that of the
neighboring class is just a wall made of painted plywood. It gives him the
common sense to foresee the indirectly willed evil effect, that is, the
disturbance of a neighboring class, caused by his directly willed act of
discussing lessons with a loud voice, thereby fulfilling the first condition;
2. As he foresees the evil effect of his act, Mr. Santos is, of course, free to
choose not to discuss loudly which is the evil effect to classroom
disturbance fulfilling the second condition;
3. Foreseeing the evil effect and being free to choose not to do the act of
loud discussion, Mr. Santos is ethically responsible to refrain from doing
the act. Thus, the third condition is fulfilled.
In this case, the directly willed act which bring about an indirectly willed evil
effect is ethically imputable to Mr. Santos.

The Principle of Proportionality

The principle of proportionality is that which provides a moral
justification to defend and/ or protect oneself from an apparent aggression,
threat, or violence by the use of force proportionate to the evil of said ordeal
in an effort to put a stop to the same, thereby attaining order and tranquility.
Originally, this doctrine has been applied in the declaration of just war
in which "a stare is legally allowed to unilaterally defend itself and right a
wrong provided the response is proportional to the injury suffered."
"The doctrine originated with the 1907 Hague Conventions, which
govern the laws of war, and was later codified in Article 49 of the
International Law Commission's 1980 draft articles on Stare Responsibility.

The doctrine is also referred to indirectly in the 1977 additional protocols of

the Geneva Conventions. Regardless of whether states are party tot he
treaties above, experts say that the principle is part of what is known as
customary international law. There response must also be immediate and
necessary, refrain from targeting civilians, and require only enough force to
reinstate the status quo ante."
The rationale of the said principle is grounded on the principle of the
preservation of life which necessarily upholds human dignity, esteems
human freedom and respects human life from the moment of its beginning
until its natural ends. And if threats exist and could not be terminated expect
through the use of force, and then the principle of proportionality must be
invoked with the conditions, to wit:

The Four Conditions

1. There must be a just cause along with the right intention. The
reason for the use of force needs to be just and cannot be for the mere
purpose of punishing, retaliating, and avenging the evil done. Under the
circumstance, the innocent life is in imminent or apparent danger, and
intervention to safeguard and preserve it is of paramount concern. What
is intended per se is not the harm brought about by the use of force but
the attainment of a good/noble intention for which it is employed.
2. It should be the last resort. This presupposes that all the necessary
available means possible have been exhausted to put a stop to the evil of
aggression, violence, or danger but have been found futile. This means
that no other means exists by which the said evil can be terminated.
3. A great prospect of success is evident. It must be reasonably
perceived that an immense probability of success of terminating the evil
of threat/danger can be achieved. It is corroborated by a clear vision of
the nobility and applicability of the cause for which the act (use of force)
is performed, non-performance of which may be unreasonable.

4. The good effect must, at least, be proportionate to the foreseen

evil effect. It means that the harm foreseen through the use of force has
to be commensurate with the desired good effect if it is impossible to
lessen the harmful effect. The desired good effect also outweighs the
damage the use of force brings about in terminating the evil of the
threat/danger. However, the harmful effect should not be graver than the
evil to be terminated.
Implication to Education
1. Protecting one self, preserving one's life and upholding human dignity are
primary moral obligations educators should seriously consider above any
other considerations.
2. Educators can be morally justified to use a reasonable amount of force
when their lives, freedom, and dignity are at stake, provided that the four
conditions of the foregoing principle are adequately mer.
3. They are also morally obliged to protect and defend their learners from
undue harm in any form: psychological, social intellectual, moral, and
spiritual; and form threats against human life in light of the principle of
proportionality. It flows from the principle of non-maleficence.
4. As formators of the human personhood of learners, educators should take
a firm stance on everyone's rights to education, to quality life and to integral
human development, and be willing to exert even the most radical efforts,
whenever necessary, for such a noble cause.
Self defense that results to the death of the aggressor meets similar
conditions to the legitimate defense of a state against invasion, to wit;
1. The damage inflicted by the aggressor must be lasting, grave, and
certain. It mainly consists of the destruction of the victim's life.
2. All other means of putting an end to it must be proven impractical
or ineffective. All the necessary means and ways are employed but are
shown worthless. If all means exhaustively done, indicating certain means
were left untouched by which aggressions can be terminated, aggressor's
death is not morally justified. The act resulting in the death of the aggressor
must be the only and ultimate resort.
3. There must be serious prospects of success. The use of force that
consequently redounds to the aggressors death is reasonably perceived

effective in the termination of attack and release of the victim from such
ordeal. Otherwise, the victim's innocent life is definitely taken.
4. The use of arms (force) must not produce evils and disorders
graver than the evil to be eliminated. Overkill is prohibited and that the
amount of force to be used is amply enough to put an end to the attack. An
intention of retaliation is not morally valid and is inadmissible.

EXPLAIN:
1. Criminology students are required to take a physical education (P.E)
subject whose basic description is boxing. Each of them is also obligated to
engage in a one-on-one boxing competition at the designated arena to be
able to pass the subject. Otherwise, they fail." Boxing is a sport which,
however, entails an act of punching, inevitably inflicting or being subjected
to pain. In the case of criminology students, boxing has two effects: good
(their passing the P.E subject), and evil (their getting injured). Now, is boxing
morally justifiable?