7. Quinn on DDE by https://padlet.com/janice_ngwingyee/bpf0sztugrvk 1. What is the Doctrine of Double Effects? What does it say? 2. Why does Quinn think that it is morally IMPERMISSIBLE to intend to harm someone even when the action can cause a greater good in society? 3. Does the DDE provide a good explanation about the Trolley Problem? (The Trolley Problem: it is permissible to proceed in Trolley, but not in Transplant, though the costs and benefits are the same in both cases.) en-us 2016-10-27 15:47:09 UTC 2017-05-17 04:59:26 UTC hello@padlet.com Forum Chair's answer janice_ngwingyee https://padlet.com/janice_ngwingyee/bpf0sztugrvk/wish/133668836 1. As we all know that more than one effect will be caused when we perform an action. Sometimes, one of the effect is harmful. The Doctrine of Double Effects refers to under certain conditions, harmful action is morally accepted and to be performed. 

2. Quinn has argued that double effect does not rest on the distinction between intended and merely foreseen harm, but instead is best formulated using a distinction between direct and indirect agency. 
- in harmful direct agency, “harm comes to some victims, at least in part, from the agent’s deliberately involving them in something in order to further his purpose precisely by way of their being so involved”; whereas
- in harmful indirect agency, “either nothing is in that way intended for the victims or what is so intended does not contribute to their harm.” 
 
He claimed that harmful direct agency involves a stronger form of disrespect for its victims than harmful indirect agency.  
Quinn is not saying that all harmful direct agency is wrong, and all harmful indirect agency is permissible.
He said that the distinction between harmful direct agency and harmful indirect agency is morally significant.

3. We think that DDE does provide a good explanation about the Trolley problem. In Trolley, it is permissible to kill the one because one’s primary intention is to save the five. The death of the one on the side track is a double-effect.Trolley Problem provides three distinct arguments in favor of the Doctrine of Double Effect: summarizing, the Doctrine of Double Effect offers a solution to the Trolley Problem; the two scenarios which constitute the Trolley Problem illustrate the distinction between ‘means’ and ‘side-effects’ .
]]> 2016-10-27 15:48:10 UTC https://padlet.com/janice_ngwingyee/bpf0sztugrvk/wish/133668836 janice_ngwingyee https://padlet.com/janice_ngwingyee/bpf0sztugrvk/wish/133677430 I don't think the forum chair's answer for question 2 was clearly mentioned as the stance is slightly unclear, but I do agree that it is morally impermissible to intend to harm someone even if it causes a greater good to the society, because innocent people will be harmed. If achieving greater goods for the society means deliberately damaging people's rights of protecting themselves, it is not worth it because the general aim of being fair to the society will not be achieved. 

-Janice (28/10)]]> 2016-10-27 16:10:00 UTC https://padlet.com/janice_ngwingyee/bpf0sztugrvk/wish/133677430 janice_ngwingyee https://padlet.com/janice_ngwingyee/bpf0sztugrvk/wish/133684037 I also agree that harmful direct agency is more wrongful than harmful indirect agency because the direct agency does not respect or consider the victim's benefits and completely ignores it, while for the indirect agency the indirect induced harm will usually not be as serious and may be fixable easily.

-Janice (28/10)]]> 2016-10-27 16:26:55 UTC https://padlet.com/janice_ngwingyee/bpf0sztugrvk/wish/133684037 janice_ngwingyee https://padlet.com/janice_ngwingyee/bpf0sztugrvk/wish/133685724 I think the trolley problem shows the amazing side of the Doctrine of Double Effects. Although the double effect in the trolley problems involves having a person killed, the outcome is greatly positive, with 5 people saved. It is permissible for the trolley problem because the 5 people getting killed was not avoidable, it was meant to happen, so having 1 person killed would sound more reasonable.

-Janice (28/10)]]> 2016-10-27 16:31:26 UTC https://padlet.com/janice_ngwingyee/bpf0sztugrvk/wish/133685724 janice_ngwingyee https://padlet.com/janice_ngwingyee/bpf0sztugrvk/wish/133688029 However, for the transplant problem, it would affect innocent people that was not involved in the case originally. That would be harmful direct agency and should be impermissible. Dear forum chair, if the case of the transplant problem was slightly changed, with only people with health problems being forced to transplant if they get picked, do you think this would be impermissible still?

-Janice (28/10)]]> 2016-10-27 16:37:58 UTC https://padlet.com/janice_ngwingyee/bpf0sztugrvk/wish/133688029 janice_ngwingyee https://padlet.com/janice_ngwingyee/bpf0sztugrvk/wish/135532976 I do agree that using DDE to explain the Trolley problem is suitable. Since the one person was dead for the intention of saving the other five person, even though it is a harmful action, it is permissible according to DDE, because the motive is good. And that five person did survive so the outcome is positive. That is why I think this case is suitable for using DDE to explain the situation. 

-Cherry (2/11)

]]> 2016-11-05 09:02:41 UTC https://padlet.com/janice_ngwingyee/bpf0sztugrvk/wish/135532976