I’ve used the detective story as a model for talking about and modeling epidemiological questions in earlier posts but I was recently inspired to explore a different kind of philosophical exploration using the murder mystery – the question of double effect.
The principle of double effect, introduced by Thomas Aquinas, defines under what conditions it is permissible to perform an action that does good for some but which results in harmful side effects for others. Hence the term ‘double’ in the name.
Philosophy surrounding double effect is very much an Aristotelian concept in that there is a kind of virtue to this principle. Aristotle’s point-of-view is that a virtue is achieved when a being performs just the right amount of activity characteristic to that being’s existence. A soldier has the virtue of soldiering when he is neither too timid nor too foolhardy. Justice then flows from virtue in that all pieces in the system are working harmoniously by being just in right place that they need to be and by just performing exactly the way they should perform.
Double effect dove tails with the notion of virtue since it seeks to balance the good an action may perform with the bad that may also result. A popular example of the double effect framework is the classic ethical conundrum about the passengers on a railcar. While there are many variations that differ in minor details, they all agree on the central notions. A runaway railcar is heading to certain doom spelling an inevitable death to the five passengers who are sadly aboard. An innocent bystander finds himself in the position to save the unhappy 5 by switching the train to a safer track but doing so will result in the death of a single passenger who is stuck on the other track. What does our bystander do?
According to the principle of double effect, our bystander can legitimately pull the switch and kill the single guy to save the 5 if the following conditions are met:
- The action (pulling the switch) has to be good or at least morally neutral
- The agent (the bystander) must intend to do good (i.e. not just taking advantage of the situation)
- The end (saving the 5) must be an immediate consequence and not result from the means (killing of the 1)
- The good (saving the 5) must outweigh the bad (killing the 1)
Of course, the application of these rules to various situations can be quite tricky and their application is hotly debated by philosophers, usually by the construction of hypothetical situations where the agent is placed in different and complicated situations.
And here we come to one of the many uses of the detective story – the construction of realistic and compelling narratives that allow us to explore the possibilities in a way that mere academic constructions lack. Some of the most interesting questions about justice and double effect come to light in these ‘enjoyable hypotheticals’. Should the detective bring the criminal to justice when the crime has a moral underpinning (e.g. Jean Valjean in Victor Hugo’s Les Misérables). Or perhaps the moral quandary is whether the detective should shoot a criminal he knows to be guilty of a heinous crime to prevent ‘some lawyer from getting him off on a technicality (Captain Dudley Smith to Officer Edmund Exley in James Ellroy’s LA Confidential).
Well there is plenty of material in the genre to play with, and from time-to-time, this column will explore some of the philosophical questions raised.