In attempt to answer the question PTJ sort of threw around during class on whether it is possible to have bad motives but good effects, I would like to reference, along somewhat the same line of thought, the principle of the double effect.
The principle of the Double Effect basically relies on carrying out an action based on good intentions and being “okay” with it having negative side effects, even if you saw those coming, because you can attribute them to the positive intentions you had originally. An example that came to mind as I was thinking of a way to propose this was precisely Halle’s anecdote, voluntourism, and the detrimental effects engaging in this activity could present to the host community. Voluntourism (volunteer tourism) is defined as the synonym for international volunteering, basically meaning volunteering outside your living comfort zone and broadening your horizons along international aid programs. This could be considered an example of the principle because of the effects you oversee when preparing to engage in the activity, such as creating a relationship with the people you are helping and then having to leave them, wanting to lend a hand but not knowing what it is that they need exactly and end up lending more help than what the target area might need, causing it to be detrimental, which goes back to the example Wyatt brought when talking about the potable water resources at the beginning of the semester. However, the professor’s question is framed around a counteracting doctrine to that of the Double Effect, a case in which you would have bad intentions with socially beneficial outcomes, in which case, I would like to point out long-term positive effects rather than just “good effects.” I thought about taking this into a global scale, referencing a global crisis like 9/11 and point out that even though such terrible situation had highly detrimental effects on society, economy, and individual well being, it did have a long term positive effect in the sense of the United States strengthening their national security (even though the negative effects outweigh the positive ones). Nonetheless, I decided on shifting it into a more local and historic case as with the conspiracy situation in Puerto Rico circa 1868. The conspiracy situation surged while Puerto Rico was still a Spanish colony. The Spanish monarchy had established rules consisting on immediate dismantling and possible prosecution on anyone who participated in these gatherings. The gatherings were usually led by leftist figures who sought to rebel against the Spanish government established in the island and obtain independence. However, the government insisted so heavily to enforce these laws that the citizens unified and rebelled, eventually leading to El Grito de Lares. El Grito de Lares, otherwise known as the Lares uprising, was a Puerto-Rican-led revolt to obtain its independence from Spain’s colonialist oppressive government. Unfortunately, Puerto Rico was able to claim independence for twenty-four hours but regardless, the event evidences the opposite of the Double Effect doctrine. The Spanish government imposed the laws in order to further oppress civilians, yet their actions encouraged rebellious behavior in the people of Puerto Rico, causing them to unite and fight for the cause of independence, the perfect example of negatively targeted governmental decisions that turned into socially beneficial outcomes. References: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy- The Double Effect
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Author's QuoteWell, if droids could think, there’d be none of us here, would there? Archives
December 2018
Categories |