Whether the double effect is unbiblical Flashcards
What is a strength of the principle of double effect in Christian ethics?
A strength of the double effect
The principle of double effect helps to resolve seemingly disparate biblical themes by emphasizing the importance of moral intention and virtue alongside following certain rules. This clarity provides important insight into Christian ethics by showing the relationship between intention and following the moral law.
How does the principle of double effect relate to Jesus’ teachings?
A strength of the double effect
Jesus’ commands were not solely about following rules but also about having the right moral intention and virtue, as seen in teachings such as the sermon on the mount. The principle of double effect aligns with this aspect of Jesus’ teachings by highlighting the significance of good intention in ethical decision-making.
Why is good intention important according to the principle of double effect?
A strength of the double effect
Good intention is crucial in Christian ethics, as it can justify permitting a bad side effect when involved in an action that has a good effect. While it does not justify pure violations of the law, good intention plays a significant role in ethical decision-making, as emphasized by the principle of double effect.
What is a critique of the principle of double effect in Christian ethics?
Weakness: the double effect is unbiblical
Some theologians reject the double effect as unbiblical because they view God’s commandments as absolute and not dependent on someone’s intention. They argue that the distinction between intended effects and merely foreseen effects “beside” the intention lacks morally relevant significance in traditional Christian ethics.
How do theologians who reject the double effect view the relevance of intention in ethical decision-making?
Weakness: the double effect is unbiblical
While intention is considered relevant in traditional Christian ethics, theologians who reject the double effect argue that foreseeing a bad consequence does not justify it, even if it is a secondary effect beside the intended effect. They maintain that God’s commandments are absolute and not contingent on one’s intention.
Provide an example illustrating the critique of the double effect.
Weakness: the double effect is unbiblical
For theologians who reject the double effect, foreseeing a bad consequence, even if it is a secondary effect beside the intended effect, does not justify it. For example, if one could foresee the bad consequence of running over a drunk person with a car, the fact that it was a secondary effect beside the intended effect does not absolve them of responsibility according to this view.
How can one defend Natural law against the criticism that it is unbiblical?
Evaluation defending Natural law:
Natural law is distinct from the inflexibility of the Bible’s divine law. While the Bible’s commands are absolute, the natural law within human nature is more flexible, consisting of general precepts that require application. Additionally, the telos of the natural law is to glorify God, which necessitates that intention plays a significant role in ethical decision-making, thus demonstrating its relevance.
What distinguishes Natural law from the inflexibility of the Bible’s divine law?
Evaluation defending Natural law:
Unlike the absolute commands found in the Bible, Natural law consists of general precepts inherent in human nature, allowing for greater flexibility in ethical decision-making. This distinction highlights the difference in rigidity between divine law and natural law.
How does the telos of Natural law demonstrate the relevance of intention?
Evaluation defending Natural law:
The telos of Natural law is to glorify God, requiring that individuals have the intention to fulfill this purpose. This underscores the significance of intention in ethical decision-making within the framework of Natural law.
How can one critique Natural law in response to attempts to add flexibility to biblical law?
Evaluation criticising Natural law:
Natural law’s attempt to introduce flexibility to inflexible biblical laws, such as “thou shalt not kill,” creates conflicts between the two. While Natural law may justify actions like self-defense, passive euthanasia, or even abortion through the principle of double effect, this clashes with the absolute commands of the Bible. As a result, Christians may face a dilemma in prioritizing between adherence to the Bible and the principles of Natural law.
What conflict arises between Natural law and biblical law?
Evaluation criticising Natural law:
Natural law’s introduction of flexibility to biblical commands creates conflicts when justifying certain actions that may be deemed morally acceptable under Natural law but are in direct violation of absolute biblical commands. This conflict challenges Christians to prioritize between the teachings of the Bible and the principles of Natural law.
Why might Christians face a dilemma in prioritizing between the Bible and Natural law?
Evaluation criticising Natural law:
The introduction of flexibility in Natural law’s principles, such as through the principle of double effect, may lead to conflicts with the absolute commands of the Bible. As a result, Christians may struggle to reconcile the teachings of the Bible with the principles of Natural law, especially when justifying morally contentious actions.
