ELIA MARIZ M.

AGUSTIN
2 - YA - 13

Using Double-Effect Principle, assess the

morality of killing others in SELF-DEFENSE.
Answer using the four tests of the Double-Effect
Principle.

The act of killing someone in self-defense begs for a careful delicacy of

meaning from the analyst. Is killing someone not particularly wrong? Perhaps
that is, but you are not killing an innocent person when you kill someone who,
in your opinion, is attempting to kill you. You may also contend that your
goal was to prevent the attacker from killing you rather than necessarily
killing him. The death of the attacker was, in that sense, an indirect and
unintended outcome. Furthermore, the attacker’s death was not necessary
to preserve your life; rather, it was simply necessary to stop him in his tracks
and prevent him from killing you. The balance of this analysis would be
different if you had planned to kill the assailant. So, by carefully constructing
the facts, it is possible to satisfy criteria 1, 2, and 3 of the double effect.
Finally, you might easily claim that criteria 4 is satisfied because most
people would say that although though the attacker's death was unintended
and regrettable, it was tolerable because it allowed us to preserve our own
lives equally.