推 julians:but how can you ask Aquinas to set aside God? 11/06 23:52
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- <
作者: realove (realove) 看板: W-Philosophy
標題: Re: [閒聊] rape versus suicide
時間: Tue Nov 7 06:25:46 2006
: 推 julians:but how can you ask Aquinas to set aside God? 11/06 23:52
Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. I'm not asking Aquinas to
set aside God. I'm only saying that whether God exists or not
is a questionable assumption. But just for the sake of what
I was going to say, I would set that question aside for a moment.
Of course, Aquinas bases his philosophy on the teachings of God.
btw, I think I have something to add to what I said about dde.
It just occured to me that in saying condition (2) must be satisfied,
I was actually saying that evil means cannot be used to achieve
the good effect of the action.
And my earlier formulation of condition (4) might be a bit contentious.
Some would argue that the requirement was one concerning proportionality,
namely the good effect must be in proportion to the bad effect.
okay, this should help to make the dde clearer. An interesting question
to ask is whether it is too strict and rule out some actions we normally
regard as morally permissible.
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc)
◆ From: 150.203.124.52
I read a couple of days ago that
Aquinas argues that you ought not committ suicide to prevent yourself
from being raped. For in commiting suicide, you commit a sin, whereas being
raped you commit no sin at all.
I'm not really convinced of Aquinas's argument. Setting aside the question of
whether there is a God, it still seems to me grotesquely odd that even in
that sort of circumstances, suicide is not morally permitted.
It seems that Aquinas regards suicide as evil in nature and it is thus
absolutely forbidden. No matter how much good might come out of it in the
end, it is never morally permissible. For the end can never justify the means.
This of course relates to the doctrine of double effects (dde) as is often
discussed in the ethical literature. Roughly, dde concerns itself with the
moral permissibility of an act that has two effects, one good the other bad.
And roughly dde says that an action can be permissible only if it satisfies
the following four conditions.
1. Can't be evil in nature.
2. Can't be an evil means
3. The bad effect of the action is not intended by the agent (although might
be forseeable)
4. minimise the forseeable harm
of course, dde is quite popular among the church people. but i doubt that
it is a reasonable criterion.
anyway, it's just something that came across my mind..
what do people think about dde?
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc)
◆ From: 150.203.124.52