The English philosopher, Phillipa Foot, once told a story which is well known to moral philosophers. A number of explorers were trapped in a cave. Water was rising in the cave and there was only one small exit. Unfortumately, a fat members of the party had become stuck in the exit and could not be removed. The only way the others could clear the exit was to blow the man up with dynamite which they had in their possession. If they did not do this they would all die. Let us suppose that the explorers were all students of ehtics. They discuss their predicament. Should they blow up their fat friend?

The Lesser Evil

Grey: The simplest and quickest way to solve this problem is to choose the lesser of two evils.

Green: "The lesser of two evils" can mean many things. A person who thinks that no matter what he does will commit a sin may choose what he considers to be the lesser of two evils or the least of many evils. Subjectively, he will not be guilty of doing wrong. Of couse, a person who is ethically well-informed will never have to face such a dilemma.

Grey: That is not the case I have in mind. I mean that of two evils a person may choose the lesser one.

Green: If he is absolutely committed to doing evil, for example, to stealing a large sum of money from a bank, a friend may counsel him to take a smaller sum than he planned, for example, $500,000 instead of one million dollars. The friend does no wrong in advising him to take less, provided he does not really want him to take any. The thief is, of course, guilty of stealing the sum he takes.

Grey: No, I am not thinking of that case either. I am thinking of our present somewhat precarious situation. To put the matter bluntly, if indelicately, we should blow up our fat friend and get out of this place as quickly as possible. In this situation it is not wrong to blow him up. He knows his Scripture and will be glad to make the sacrifice and give his life for his friends.

Green: You know your Scripture too, no doubt. You will realise that you are following one of the few ethical principles that gets its name from the New Testament, "The Caiphas Principle". In recent years it has been popularised under other names, Proportionalism, for example, though Proportionalists would never admit it.

Grey: I am glad to find myself in such good company.

Green: Congratulations! But I am afriad you will not find many good arguments for their ethical views. As a matter of fact, they have never been able to refute the criticisms that have been levelled against their method of making moral decisions. They have never been able to show how they can know the good and evil of actions and all their effects to decide which action will be the lesser evil; much less have they been to show how one can add and compare values that are incommensurable.

Grey: But surely this method has a respected place in traditional Catholic ethics. For example, in the fourth condition of the Principle of Double Effect?

Green: It has nothing of the sort. According to traditional Catholic ethics there are certain kinds of actions, perjury, murder, adultery, and others, that are always and in all cir cumstances morally wrong. This is a basic principle of Catholic ethics and of the Principle of Double Effects which was developed to deal with difficulties arising from the fact that there are moral absolutes. Proportionalists deny the existence of most moral absolutes, especially those in the "inner worldly" sphere. Moreover, in evaluating the proportion between good and bad effects, those who use the Principle of Double Effect, evaluate them according to moral principles such as the Golden Rule. Proportionalsim eliminates the need for the Principle of Double Effect and rejects the moral principles on which it is based.

White: The problems of Proportionalism have been discussed for over thirty years and those of its close relative, Utilitarianism, for over one hundred. We have not so much time to discuss our problem. I think one can agree that our purposes should always be good. We should not use evil means to achieve them. Surely it would be wrong for us to blow up an innocent man to save our lives? To allow the intentional killing of any innocent human being is, in principle, to undermine all justice. The lesser of two evils, my foot!