Talk:Principle of double effect/Archive 1

message: Coming from the discussion page Theology of Pope Benedict XVI  where  the Principle of Double Effect finally takes hyper-important issue , I will here place that which I find relevant to the above user's  notice . I ask readers and editors for their indulgence in allowing me to use this space to somehow construct a shared understanding of the relationship of this principle or doctrine  to one of the great issues of modern history , the morality of assistance to dictatorship , particularly that of Adolf Hitler . All can be archived in time , if there is time . I do not hve much time so the apparent disorder created may annoy those with greater education or more time . Famekeeper 17:51, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Concepts relating to a Future Discussion  of Double Effect re : [[Pope Pius XI]]

message: A set of accepted beliefs held by a group.  In religion, it is the set of true beliefs that define the parameters of that belief system. Hence, there is true doctrine and false doctrine relative to each belief set.  In Christianity, for example, a true biblical doctrine is that there is only one God in all existence (Isaiah 43:10; 44:6,8).  A false doctrine is that there is more than one God in all existence. From-
[] Famekeeper 16:38, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Doctrine]]

message: Some examples of what natural law ethical theory is, or is not, and why it could be considered useful in this debate, include the following:
*1.  It is a philosophical ethical theory, not a theological one - although it can be and is related to theology.  That is, natural law ethical theory aids us in understanding which human actions are morally right or wrong through the aid of human reason alone - without the use of Divine Revelation or the teachings of the Magisterium.  It has been studied and refined over the centuries as a means of addressing what is the morally right thing for us to do when faced with genuine moral dilemmas.
*2.  In counter-distinction to many other ethical theories, natural law ethical theory is proximately and objectively grounded in our objectively knowable human nature, i.e., on what is really good or bad for us as human beings - as individuals and as members of our human communities.
*3.  Because the basic precepts of natural law theory are proximately grounded on an objectively knowable human nature, they are applicable to all human beings, precisely because we all possess such human natures.  The possession of natures which are specifically human is precisely what we all have in common.  This is true regardless of time, culture, background, race, sex, religion or political affiliation.
*4.  Thus if properly understood and applied, natural law theory should be ideal for our "pluralistic" society - since all of our citizens are human beings, and hold at least that in common.  What is fundamentally good or bad for human beings in general will hold for us all.
**Finally, in natural law ethical theory, there are three determinants of a human action which determine its rightness or wrongness, and all three determinants must be good in order for an action to be considered good:  the above  are with acknowledgement , educational fair use, from _[]
 
Here I . Famekeeper ,will  myself , according as the law of Copyright extolls, attempt to evade censure for lifting thought(thought which any reasonable human being could understand), and  attempt to  paraphrase the three factors . He (she) who continues to argue my good faith  should  confer with their conscience, as do the bosses who consider ever more the issue of copyright of importance in this digital revolution. 
Moved from main:
In part, it depends on the meaning of "all other things being equal" and "exactly the same consequences". If this definition somehow excludes the mental framework for the decision, there is a difference in the potential for recidivism for a 'bad act' motivated by 'bad intention' from a 'bad act' that was unintentional. The two situations would therefore differ in their probable future impact and be morally distinguishable to utilitarians.
I think this paragraph is confused, or if it isn't, needs an example to make it clear. Because I don't understand it. We're talking about what utilitarians would consider good acts, ie acts where the good consequences outweight the bad, so talk of "bad acts" and "recidivism" needs explaining. Evercat 17:18, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Natural Law Ethical Theory

message: I,FK, am still pondering the relevance of double effect, which may or may not be a 'doctrine' or a 'principle' to Pope Pius XI .
I note in this regard the previously denied ( by user Str1977 ) explosive contradiction   within the Reichskonkordat of the Treaty of Versailles . This  may be most pertinent  in the question of whether or not the DDE covered or did not cover the actions of this pontiff vis a vis  his approbation /collaboration with the murderous government of Adolf Hitler . Famekeeper 12:56, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: DDE and the Reichskonkordat