S

Follow Me
Issue 11 01 FEB 2013

Ordinary Expressions on Warrior Honor

WHERE THE BUCK STOPS
You are standing post at a VCP and a car approaches at a rapid rate of speed. You follow all the procedures for escalation of force to get the vehicle to stop. By the time you level your weapon and take aim, you notice a family inside the car. In that moment you must make a decision; is taking out the car, including the family, necessary to protect you and those inside the wire you have taken an oath to protect? What are your options? What would you do? You are the leader of a Marine charged with a DUI and it is your responsibility to decide punishment at NJP or a Court Martial. You have a variety of powers at your disposal to prevent this from happening from brig time to removal of driving privileges. Anything you do will seriously affect that Marine in a negative way and may cause unintended consequences to your unit, but that punishment may save the lives of people you know in the future. Do you apply the maximum punishment to prevent a future disaster or do you go easy to save the Marine? As leaders, we encounter Doctrine of Double Effect situations. For this reason, we must make sure we know what it is and how it plays out in our context. We also need to ensure that Marines we lead understand this concept so that if they are in a short fused situation, they dont hesitate in completing a task that may involve life and death. Chaplain Ferguson 1st BATTALION, 9th MARINES
I knew what I was doing when I stopped the war ... I have no regrets and, under the same circumstances, I would do it again."
President Harry S. Truman

A Semi-Monthly Post Written and Reviewed by the Chaplains of 2D MARINE DIVISION

The Doctrine of Double Effect

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

INTENTIONS VERSUS CONSEQUENCES

So what exactly is Double Effect? It first appeared in the writings of Thomas Aquinas (the same thinker credited with the Theory of Just War) in the 13th Century. He was a Catholic priest trying to make sense of the uncomfortable side of war when one has to sacrifice someone or something for a greater good. Aquinas originally sought to determine the merits of homicidal self-defense, but his reasoning has since been applied to a multitude of disciplines, most notably our own profession of arms.

Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologia, II-II, Q. 64, Article 7.

Can you say the same of your actions?

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.