What is the doctrine of double effect and share an example of how is it used or could be used to resolve conflicting moral duties?
Sample solution
Dante Alighieri played a critical role in the literature world through his poem Divine Comedy that was written in the 14th century. The poem contains Inferno, Purgatorio, and Paradiso. The Inferno is a description of the nine circles of torment that are found on the earth. It depicts the realms of the people that have gone against the spiritual values and who, instead, have chosen bestial appetite, violence, or fraud and malice. The nine circles of hell are limbo, lust, gluttony, greed and wrath. Others are heresy, violence, fraud, and treachery. The purpose of this paper is to examine the Dante’s Inferno in the perspective of its portrayal of God’s image and the justification of hell.
In this epic poem, God is portrayed as a super being guilty of multiple weaknesses including being egotistic, unjust, and hypocritical. Dante, in this poem, depicts God as being more human than divine by challenging God’s omnipotence. Additionally, the manner in which Dante describes Hell is in full contradiction to the morals of God as written in the Bible. When god arranges Hell to flatter Himself, He commits egotism, a sin that is common among human beings (Cheney, 2016). The weakness is depicted in Limbo and on the Gate of Hell where, for instance, God sends those who do not worship Him to Hell. This implies that failure to worship Him is a sin.
God is also depicted as lacking justice in His actions thus removing the godly image. The injustice is portrayed by the manner in which the sodomites and opportunists are treated. The opportunists are subjected to banner chasing in their lives after death followed by being stung by insects and maggots. They are known to having done neither good nor bad during their lifetimes and, therefore, justice could have demanded that they be granted a neutral punishment having lived a neutral life. The sodomites are also punished unfairly by God when Brunetto Lattini is condemned to hell despite being a good leader (Babor, T. F., McGovern, T., & Robaina, K. (2017). While he commited sodomy, God chooses to ignore all the other good deeds that Brunetto did.
Finally, God is also portrayed as being hypocritical in His actions, a sin that further diminishes His godliness and makes Him more human. A case in point is when God condemns the sin of egotism and goes ahead to commit it repeatedly. Proverbs 29:23 states that “arrogance will bring your downfall, but if you are humble, you will be respected.” When Slattery condemns Dante’s human state as being weak, doubtful, and limited, he is proving God’s hypocrisy because He is also human (Verdicchio, 2015). The actions of God in Hell as portrayed by Dante are inconsistent with the Biblical literature. Both Dante and God are prone to making mistakes, something common among human beings thus making God more human.
To wrap it up, Dante portrays God is more human since He commits the same sins that humans commit: egotism, hypocrisy, and injustice. Hell is justified as being a destination for victims of the mistakes committed by God. The Hell is presented as being a totally different place as compared to what is written about it in the Bible. As a result, reading through the text gives an image of God who is prone to the very mistakes common to humans thus ripping Him off His lofty status of divine and, instead, making Him a mere human. Whether or not Dante did it intentionally is subject to debate but one thing is clear in the poem: the misconstrued notion of God is revealed to future generations.
References
Babor, T. F., McGovern, T., & Robaina, K. (2017). Dante’s inferno: Seven deadly sins in scientific publishing and how to avoid them. Addiction Science: A Guide for the Perplexed, 267.
Cheney, L. D. G. (2016). Illustrations for Dante’s Inferno: A Comparative Study of Sandro Botticelli, Giovanni Stradano, and Federico Zuccaro. Cultural and Religious Studies, 4(8), 487.
Verdicchio, M. (2015). Irony and Desire in Dante’s” Inferno” 27. Italica, 285-297.
Sample Solution
Sample Solution
The Doctrine of Double Effect: Resolving Conflicting Moral Duties
Introduction
In the realm of moral philosophy, the Doctrine of Double Effect (DDE) has been developed as a tool to navigate complex ethical dilemmas where conflicting moral duties arise. This doctrine provides a framework for evaluating the permissibility of actions that may have both good and bad consequences. By examining the intention behind the action and the foreseen consequences, the DDE helps individuals make morally informed choices. This essay will explore the principles of the Doctrine of Double Effect and provide an example of how it can be used to resolve conflicting moral duties.
Understanding the Doctrine of Double Effect
The Doctrine of Double Effect is rooted in the ethical theory of consequentialism, which asserts that the morality of an action is determined by its consequences. However, the DDE recognizes that certain actions may have both morally desirable and undesirable outcomes, leading to a tension between duties. To resolve this tension, the DDE establishes four key conditions that must be met:
- The action itself must be morally good or neutral.
- The agent must have the right intention, aiming for the morally good outcome.
- The morally good outcome must be directly intended, while the morally bad outcome is only foreseen but not directly intended.
- The morally good outcome must outweigh the morally bad outcome, and there should be no alternative course of action with a better balance of outcomes.
Applying the Doctrine of Double Effect: A Hypothetical Scenario
To illustrate the application of the Doctrine of Double Effect, let us consider the following hypothetical scenario:
Scenario: A doctor is treating a pregnant woman who has a life-threatening condition. If left untreated, both the mother and the unborn child will die. The doctor realizes that to save the mother’s life, she must perform a medical procedure that will result in the death of the fetus.
In this scenario, the doctor finds herself torn between two conflicting moral duties: saving the mother’s life and preserving the life of the unborn child. By employing the Doctrine of Double Effect, the doctor can evaluate the permissibility of her actions.
- Action: Performing the medical procedure to save the mother’s life is morally neutral or even morally good since it aims to preserve life.
- Intention: The doctor’s intention is to save the mother’s life, which is a morally good outcome.
- Foreseen Consequence: The death of the fetus is foreseen but not directly intended. The doctor’s focus is on saving the mother’s life rather than intentionally causing harm to the fetus.
- Balancing Outcomes: The morally good outcome of saving the mother’s life outweighs the morally bad outcome of the fetus’s death. Moreover, there may not be an alternative course of action that would allow both lives to be saved.
By applying the Doctrine of Double Effect, the doctor can conclude that it is morally permissible to perform the medical procedure to save the mother’s life, even if it results in the unintended consequence of the fetus’s death. The doctrine provides a framework for resolving the conflicting moral duties involved in this scenario.
Conclusion
The Doctrine of Double Effect offers a valuable approach for resolving complex ethical dilemmas characterized by conflicting moral duties. By examining the action, intention, foreseen consequences, and balancing outcomes, individuals can make well-informed moral decisions. While the Doctrine of Double Effect is not without its critics and limitations, it serves as a useful tool for navigating challenging moral situations. By understanding and applying this doctrine, individuals can strive to make morally justifiable choices when faced with conflicting duties.
