Romney over Obama in New York Times poll

Why do you include “when a choice is available”..?

Because there are circumstances where deciding on a course of action from a moral standpoint involves outcomes that will be both good and bad. In human affairs, much of what we intend as good in a particular action brings with it undesired consequences.

This happens all the time in medical decision-making. For instance, people with diabetes sometimes develop gangrene in their legs from the disease requiring amputation of the leg. The good that comes is the saving of the life but their ability to walk is severely diminished. The administration of opiates relieves a patient of chronic pain associated with a terminal cancer but renders them less conscious than before. These situations in medicine are common and I am sure you could name many more.

In moral theology, there is a principle known as the principle of double effect. Basically, double effect governs situations in which one action is followed by two effects, one good (and intended), the other evil (foreseen but not intended). And there are four conditions that govern the principle.

A person may licitly perform an action that will produce both good and bad effects provided four conditions hold: (1) the action in itself, and considered in its object, is good or at least indifferent (neither good not bad); (2) the good effect and not the bad effect is intended; (3) the good effect is not produced by means of the bad effect; and (4) there is a proportionately grave reason for permitting the bad effect.

It is important to differentiate between the facts of a situation and its moral evaluation. In medicine, for example, there are various goods and evils that confront physicians, most notably the good of life and health and the evils of death and disease. These exist prior to medical decision-making. They are facts that cannot be changed and those charged with making the decisions (I am a physician) can only make the best possible choices with regard to them informed by the best clinical information obtainable.

Moral decision-making concerns the quality of our decisions in view of the given facts.

If you are looking at your decision on how to vote in the upcoming presidential election from a moral standpoint, you are looking at a typical application of the principle of double effect if you consider voting for Romney given his position on abortion and marriage.

The action (object) is good or at least indifferent. Voting is a good and we have a duty from both the standpoint of being citizens and of being faithful Christians to vote. If you vote for Romney you are not performing an abortion nor are you performing a marriage between homosexuals. There seems to be a great deal of confusion on FreeRepublic about this being an intrinsic evil, that is, something whose moral object is everywhere and always wrong. I don't know where this misconception comes from but it is there. Your action in an election is voting which is a good, therefore, to not vote is not a positive moral decision.

The good effect and not the bad effect is intended. The moral objections to Romney's previous record on life and marriage issues have been stated here ad nauseam and they are legitimate objections. No one that I know of would consider voting for him because they support his positions on these two matters.

The good effect is not produced by means of the bad effect, in other words, the end does not justify the means. In the political case, this would mean that any good from a Romney presidency could not be the result of his positions on abortion or same-sex marriage.

There is a proportionally grave reason for permitting the bad effect. Here this boils down to the question of whether there are potential goods resulting from a change in presidency important enough to permit a vote for someone who holds undesirable views on the two topics we have been discussing.

Remember, the facts in this decision precede your decision and will not change. The moral evaluation of your vote concerns the quality of your action in view of the given facts.

I agree with all your statements about abortion, contraception, and same sex marriage. And I know that you will vote your conscience. It is your responsibility to make sure that conscience is informed.

I hope this is of some help. If you would like some references on where to pursue this a little further, I can provide them.

“I agree with all your statements about abortion, contraception, and same sex marriage. And I know that you will vote your conscience. It is your responsibility to make sure that conscience is informed.”

~ ~ ~

Hi,
Thank you for taking the time to explain the principle of double effect. I must be closed, I don’t see how the principle applies to morality? Morality is black and white.
And being a doctor, a doctor’s intention is for God’s good, the good to eradicate pain and suffering, it’s not the doctor’s fault the nature of disease and the side effects.

If you can and have time, read why Jimmy Akin, a Catholic apologist will not be voting for Romney. I agree with Jimmy’s view on one point. Heaven in the messages has said recently and the same in 08, Mormons are not Christian. So obvious, we see by their beliefs. But Jimmy Akin doesn’t see another reason. Jimmy thinks Romney is pro-life? Somebody show me one action on Romney’s part to prove he is for life? No way is Romney a lessor of two evils. Both men are the same. We can pray for their conversion.

Jimmy Akin:
UNLIKE other polytheists (e.g., Hindus, Shintoists), Mormons claim to be Christian.

Casting a vote for a Mormon candidate thus means casting one’s vote for a polytheist who present himself to the world as a Christian.

stpio: I add, it’s a double lie: Casting a vote for a pro-abortion candidate thus means cooperating with evil who presents himself to the world as a person for life.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.