It is morally permissible...

"A proof that your internal ethics contains contradictions is not a proof that reality contains a contradiction. It's just a proof you need to think harder. For one thing, if he doesn't value his life, who are you to do so? It's his life." My argument is that it's not a contradiction. My point is that the resolution, as written is possible. Also, your argument that I ought to kill him is flawed. Even if it is his life, I have no right to play God and take his life. He can kill himself, but I sure as hell can't. Unless of course, I don't intend to. "The principle of double effect has never been proven, it was created by random assertion and declared dogma by people who believe women can have babies without the intervention of sperm. It is the kind of thing they would believe, that the only relevant factor is your intentions, all touchy-feely. Guess what. If I shoot you in the head, intending to relieve you of the fly on it, you are still dead, and unlike the patient, without your consent. Being robbed of life is a problem- a wrong. A huge wrong, compared to which the fly is insignificant. It is therefore an unmitigated wrong." Immanuel Kant proves that morality must come from the intentions. He said "the moral worth of an action does not lie in the effect expected from it, nor in any principle of action which requires to borrow its motive from this expected effect. For all these effects- agreeableness of one's condition and even the promotion of the happiness of others- could have been also brought about by other causes, so that for this there would have been no need of the will of a rational being; whereas it is in this alone that the supreme and unconditional good can be found." The intention is all important. The fly example just shows that the guy is retarded. The principle of double effect requires you to try to avoid the bad consequence, but if it is unavoidable, that's where double effect comes in. "Since morality is the pursuit of value (the ultimate value of course being one's own life), and destroying something one values (my status as a nonkiller of innocents, i.e., someone who innocents would be wise to respect the rights of in order to convince me to continue that status) in favor of something one values less (a bit of quick-vanishing gratitutude over ridding you of a fly), such a situation is immoral- not in accordance with the pursuit of life. Since such a situation results from double effect, double effect is immoral. Reality, against the ravings of the Church- take your pick." I pretty much addressed this. The person shooting you is either violating double effect, or is retarded, and cannot be held responsible. Either way, double effect still stands. "This is a lie. You stated above that a thing was true, when it was also untrue. You therefore violate the law of non-contradiction, by definition. That's what the law of non-contradiction means- that a thing cannot be true and untrue." The law of non-contradiction is "...contradictory statements cannot both at the same time be true, e.g. the two propositions A is B and A is not B are mutually exclusive. A may be B at one time, and not at another; A may be partly B and partly not B at the same time; but it is impossible to predicate of the same thing, at the same time, and in the same sense, the absence and the presence of the same quality." -Wikipedia I am saying that A is B, and C is D. To define these variables: A-intentionally killing the patient B-wrong C- Injecting the patient with a lethal amount of morphine in order to relieve his pain. D- right No contradiction, and A and C are both killing an innocent. I win.