How can natural law be applied in situations in which

there are conflict between two or among several

BASIC GOODS/PRECEPTS OF NATURAL LAW?
To answer these kinds of situations, St. Thomas
Aquinas have developed two principles that are
crucial in making moral judgments:

1) The principle of forfeiture

2) The principle of double effect
PRINCIPLE OF FORFEITURE

a person who threatens the life of innocent person

forfeits his or her own good or right to life.
PRINCIPLE OF FORFEITURE

For example, you have been taken hostage by a

criminal and threatened to kill you if a million pesos
will not be given to him at a particular time. You do
not have that large amount of money. Is it morally
permissible to kill a criminal in order to save your life?
PRINCIPLE OF FORFEITURE

Yes. In the light of reason using Natural Law Theory, it

is moral/ethical to kill the hostage taker since he
already forfeited his innocence by unjustifiably
threatening your life. Meaning, he has forfeited his
claim to have his natural inclination to self-
preservation respected.
PRINCIPLE OF DOUBLE EFFECT

Thomas Aquinas is credited with introducing the

principle of double effect in his discussion of the
permissibility of self-defense in the Summa
Theologica.

Killing one’s assailant is justified, he argues, provided

one does not intend to kill him.
PRINCIPLE OF DOUBLE EFFECT

It is always wrong to do a bad act intentionally in

order to bring about good consequences, but it is
sometime permissible to do a good act despite
knowing that it will bring about bad consequences.
PRINCIPLE OF DOUBLE EFFECT

Below are four conditions that must be satisfied for such act
to be considered morally permissible:
1) The Nature-of-the-Act Condition. The action itself (apart
from its consequence) is good or atleast indifferent.
2) The Means-End Condition. The bad effect must not be
the means by which one achieves the good effect. (The
good outcome must be caused by the action not the
harm.)
PRINCIPLE OF DOUBLE EFFECT

Below are four conditions that must be satisfied for such act
to be considered morally permissible:
3) The right-intention condition. One must intend only the
good effect, not the bad effect or with bad effect being only
an unintended side effect. (The person doing the action
does not will/intend the harm.)
4) The Proportionality Condition.The good effect must be
atleast as great as the bad effect.
Moral Situation:

A pregnant mother, a pro-life advocate, discovers that she

has a cancer and needs to have a hysteroctomy immediately
before the cancer spreads. If done, her fetus will not survive
the procedure. What do you think about this situation?
Should the mother proceed to procedure? Is the act morally
permitted? Use Natural Law theory.
Moral Situation:

A pregnant mother, a pro-life advocate, discovers that she

has a cancer and needs to have a hysteroctomy immediately
before the cancer spreads. If done, her fetus will not survive
the procedure. What do you think about this situation?
Should the doctor or mother proceed to the procedure? Is
the act morally permitted? Use Natural Law theory.
PRINCIPLE OF DOUBLE EFFECT

Below are four conditions that must be satisfied for such act
to be considered morally permissible:
1) The Nature-of-the-Act Condition. The action itself (apart
from its consequence) is good or atleast indifferent.
2) The Means-End Condition. The bad effect must not be
the means by which one achieves the good effect. (The
good outcome must be caused by the action not the
harm.)
PRINCIPLE OF DOUBLE EFFECT

Below are four conditions that must be satisfied for such act
to be considered morally permissible:
3) The right-intention condition. One must intend only the
good effect, not the bad effect or with bad effect being only
an unintended side effect. (The person doing the action
does not will/intend the harm.)
4) The Proportionality Condition.The good effect must be
atleast as great as the bad effect.
Condition 1

The action itself (apart from its consequence) is good or

atleast indifferent.

The act of removing a diseased uterus does not violate

any moral principle. It is not bad in itself. (indifferent)

The condition 1 is met. Proceed to conditon 2.

Condition 2

The bad effect must not be the means by which one achieves the
good effect.

The bad effect which is the death of fetus is not the means used
to achieve the good effect which is the mother survives. Meaning,
the death of fetus does not save the life of the mother. Her life is
saved by the removal of the fetus, which has the death of the
fetus as side (bad) effect.

The condition 2 is met. Proceed to condition 3.

Condition 3

One must intend the good effect, not the bad effecr The
person doing the action does not will/intend the harm.

The mother’s/doctor’s only intention is to save the her/mother’s

life, not to kill or abort the fetus.

The condition 3 is met. Proceed to condition 4.

Condition 4

The good effect must be at least as great as the bad effect.

The saving of mother’s life (good effect) is atleast great as the cost
of fetus life (bad effect).

The condition 4 is met.

SINCE THE FOUR CONDITIONS ARE MET, THE MORAL DECISION IS

MORAL OR ETHICAL.