A Critical Analysis of an Ethical Proposition Based

Ethical situations on the subject of killing and the sacrifice of benevolent lives are al sorts subject to critical analysis and intensive argumentation. The questionable sacrifice of the few for the unsloped of the many another(prenominal) is usually founded upon Aquinas essential Law and Doctrine of Double Effect, both of which were logically formulated by the philosopher yet both also lend themselves to criticisms.Aquinas defines the Natural Law base on the Eternal Law. He formulated the Eternal Law in his Summa Theologiae and defines it as the melodic theme in Gods intellect by which He governs the world (Magee, 1999). The Natural Law according to Aquinas is public participation in the Eternal Law through reason and depart (Magee, 1999).The Doctrine of Double Effect, on the other hand, is defined as a set of ethical criteria for evaluating whether angiotensin converting enzyme should do an act that would, in the plow of producing a positive offspring, also produce a n egative do (McIntyre, 2009). Our ethical proposition It is ever wrong to kill exculpated passel, thus far if you could however many other lives by doing so is a kinda weak proposition after it is analyzed with summ iodinnce to Aquinas cardinal aforementi matchlessd doctrines.Critical AnalysisWith honorable mention to the Natural Law. There are various variant levels of precepts that the Natural Law entails. The first of which is Good is to be done and pursued and evil avoided (Magee, 1999).However, Aquinas has specified that a respectable thing is something that we sock immediately, by inclinationthat would count as good and thus to be pursued (Murphy, 2008). Aquinas specifies these things as life, knowledge, procreation, society, and reasonable conduct.First Precept. Applying the above precept to the accustomed ethical situation, It is always wrong to kill innocent plenty, flush if you could save many other lives by doing so, one can see that the full-page proposi tion logically satisfies the first part of the precept Good is to be done and pursued. Both the act of non killing innocent spate and saving many other lives are believed to be inherently good, that is, good in itself. However, the proposition might not in a way satisfy the twinkling part of the precept that evil should be avoided.This is because the proposition implies a prohibition of killing innocent people, which, if done, would will in a assertable non-fulfillment of the stake part of the proposition You could save many other lives by doing so. If many other lives are not saved, then this means one has allowed the evil of shoemakers last to take lives away, thus evil is not avoided, which is the second part of the precept. In short, our proposition fails the first precept of the Natural Law.Second Precept. some other precept of the Natural Law is that it commands that we preserve ourselves in being and one thing that can be deduced from this is that one is required to t ake feel for of his life and transmit that life to the next generation (Magee, 1999).This may obviously refer to the goodness of procreation barely it may not be of necessity the case because such a statement may translate to the conservation of the self for the benefit of the next generation. This precept on preservation may agree with the first part of the given ethical proposition it is always wrong to kill innocent people, for the killing of people, whether innocent or not, belies the idea of self-preservation. However, the second part of the proposition, you could save many other lives by doing so, or by killing innocent people, does not agree with the precept on preservation.The reason is that if you decide to preserve the lives of the innocent, then your action may result in the non-preservation of the lives of many others. This now serves as another proof of the failing of the given proposition vis--vis the precept of the Natural Law on preservation.With Reference to the Doctrine of Double Effect. The proposition, It is always wrong to kill innocent people, even if you could save many other lives by doing so, lends itself to more criticisms on the impuissance of its argument when criticized with reference to the Doctrine of Double Effect.The doctrine consists of 4 conditions that must(prenominal) be met before one can declare an act virtuously permissible (McIntyre, 2009). And for this the proposition should be constructed into a conditional sentence If one kills innocent people, it is wrong and hence presumed to be not morally permissible. consequently the moral permissibility of the killing of innocent people will be evaluated vis--vis the four conditions of the Doctrine of Double Effect. Furthermore, the claim of the proposition that killing innocent people is morally wrong under all circumstances will be logically investigated.First Condition. The first condition is the nature-of-the-act condition, which states that the action must be b oth morally good or indifferent (McIntyre, 2009). This may somehow oppose what we are intending to prove. It is indeed true that the killing of innocent people is not morally good nor is it morally indifferent.Second Condition. The second condition is the means-end condition, which states that the bad personnel must not be the means by which one achieves the good effect (McIntyre, 2009).This is also a proof in favor of the proposition. If the finale is to avoid the death of many other lives, then it follows, according to the second condition, that death should not be meted out on innocent people just for the sake of the many others. Based on the second condition, death must not be utilized to avoid death. With the second condition, he proposition remains solid.Third Condition. The third condition is the right-intention condition, which states that the intention must be the achieving of only the good effect, with the bad effect being only an unintentional side effect (McIntyre, 20 09). It is now here that the proposition weakens.Based on the mount of the proposition, the killing of innocent people, without any regard to the inherent morality or immorality of the act, has the intention of achieving only the good effect of saving many other peoples lives, thus making the killing of the innocent a morally permissible act. The bad effect, which is the death of the innocent, is anyway entirely a side effect.Fourth Condition. The last condition is the proportionality condition, which states that the good effect must be at least equivalent in richness to the bad effect (McIntyre, 2009).Although there will always be a question about the exactness of such an equivalence of importance, the majority may agree that, in the proposition, the saving of the lives of many far outweighs the killing of the lives of but a few innocent people. This therefore dismisses the killing of the innocent as a morally permissible act and such an argument counters the proposition.