The Problem of Abortion and the Doctrine of the Double Effect Analysis

Dr. Ted Woldeyohannes

Phil 205

Yizhao Wang

February 20, 2014

The Problem of Abortion and the Doctrine of the Double Effect analysis

        When people face an extreme situation, they often have to make a choice out of many alternatives. One of these situations is the controversial social topic “Abortion”. People have different opinions toward this topic. Some people believe that having an abortion action can be forgiven, but others believe that it is unacceptable no matter in which situations someone is in. The author Philippa Foot shows many extreme situations in people’s daily lives and gives her own arguments toward these situations. Also, Foot shows the opinions from the Doctrine of the Double Effect toward this situation. In this article, the Doctrine of the Double Effect has its own majority view toward extremes. According to the doctrine, some harm can be predicted, but you cannot intend to cause the harm. The abortion example is given in the article The Problem of Abortion and the Doctrine of the Double Effect, in which the Doctrine of the Double Effect insists on the principle in which killing innocent human beings intentionally is always unacceptable. Abortion is unacceptable and immoral because pregnant women can foresee the result of the abortion operation, but when the operation, which is an oblique intension, kills a child to save the pregnant woman, it is acceptable. This kind of abortion causes harms to child and it is an intended action, so Doctrine of the Double Effect regards this immoral operation is acceptable action because of its purpose. Only when the pregnant woman accepts the hysterectomy operation, this action can be accepted in Doctrine of the Double Effect’s opinion. On the other hand, author Foot has a different opinion toward this topic. She believes that the argument from Doctrine of the Double Effect has its own value, but the argument from DDE is incorrect. She has unique theory and opinion. Her majority theory concerns about when peoples’ own interests have conflicts with others’, whether or not they are allowed to do or not do in the extreme situation. Her theory says that a situation is judged by the idea of the conflict between negative and positive duties and rights. By clarifying such conflicts’ negative and positive duties, it will be easier to analyze people’s moralities and intuitions. In the abortion situation, which has been described in the article, Foot believes that if the abortion operation is unacceptable, there are some situations in which the fetus and the pregnant woman will both die. However, if someone has been killed indirectly, another can be saved it will be acceptable. In terms of Foot’s majority theory, this situation is the conflict of positive duties. The baby is dead for saving his or her mother, which is the positive duty. In other examples in Foot’s article, like the fat man who is stuck in the mouth of cave, she also uses her unique ethical tool to persuade her readers. Foot has different standard than the Doctrine of the Double Effect to analyze other situations, and come to a total different conclusion. In the fat man stuck in the cave case, DDE argues that blasting the fat man to save the rest of the trapped drowning people is immoral. While, Foot believes that it is a negative duty but it is accessible. In the pilot cash the people case, DDE believe that the pilot is not permitted to save the five people in other pathway by crashing into the pathway that has only one person because in DDE’s theory, these kinds of actions are account as harming others intentionally. However, Foot believes that when making a decision in these cases, People should be able to make the choice. The pilot is allowed to change the direction and the fat man is allowed to be ready to sacrifice himself to save others. Foot regards these actions as positive aids and duties.