Follow Me (Issue 11) 2013 02 01
Follow Me (Issue 11) 2013 02 01
Follow Me (Issue 11) 2013 02 01
Follow Me
Issue 11 01 FEB 2013
HARD CHOICES
In the summer of 1945, President Truman faced a difficult and gut-wrenching decision: employ the most lethal weapon ever developed potentially killing a staggering number of people to end the war or commit US forces to an amphibious landing of Japan leading to an estimated 1 million dead service members. We learned of his decision on August 6th, 1945. What gut wrenching decisions do you face as a leader of Marines and Sailors? I write this article not to debate the merits of Trumans decision, but to introduce and discuss the Doctrine of Double Effect. Double Effect is difficult to swallow because it usually involves a lose-lose situation making us choose between two horrific outcomes. In Trumans case, it was hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties due to unknown effects of a new technology or the death of a million of his citizens he sent to war. When faced with situations involving double effects, we want to pass the buck up the chain of command as it is above my pay grade. Unfortunately, combat requires rapid decision making so hard choices are often unavoidable.
Aquinas reasoned that one could kill another human to save themselves based on the following conditions: 1. The act is in self-defense because saving a life is a good action. 2. The use of force is only that necessary to save your own life. 3. Your use of force is driven by selfpreservation, not by animosity towards the individual you encounter.1 Over time this idea developed to cover what we do as warriors in combat situations. In order for an action to satisfy Double Effect it needs to: 1. lead to an ultimate good, 2. be intended for good purposes from the start and the bad effect cannot be the reason for the action and 3. the good effect outweighs the bad action. Most of our military training implicitly teaches us to work within this framework, but it is still difficult to process and reconcile Double Effect in the heat of battle. Can good intentions overcome bad consequences? When have you acted with right intention to bring about a greater good in the face of hard choices? Loyal readers of Follow Me may notice a similarity between Double Effect and Utilitarian Ethics. There is a difference in the two concepts. Utilitarian Ethics begins with an assumption that all good comes from questionable intentions because each of us normally allows personal bias to enter our decision making equation. This prevents us from truly evaluating the good of both the intended and unintended consequences of such actions. Double Effect assumes we can make a moral choice based on intentional harm versus a side effect (e.g. the death of an individual in self-defense). Can we truly make unbiased moral choices? Is it possible?
1
Concepts presented in this post may not express the views of all 2D MAR DIV Chaplains. To speak about issues in greater depth, please contact your unit Chaplain.