Introduction
Human society has been based on mere moral factors that are the basis of governing the behavioral aspect of any particular society. However, it is quite intriguing to look into the doctrine of doing and allowing and this basically narrows down to the moral threshold that has been set forth in any particular society. Therefore, this brings to light the concept of whether, there is a fatual difference between actually being the perpetrator and carrying out the particular act or being a mere observer and letting the particular harm escalate among the people. Moreover, based on the doctrine of doing and allowing, it basically makes provision that doing is morally worse than simply being a passive observer and letting the particular action continue. It is, however, worth noting that doing harm is quite difficult to justify as compared to merely allowing the particular harm to occur. Therefore, this academic paper will seek to analyze what exactly is the doctrine of doing and allowing and in addition, it will carry out an assessment of the arguments taking into consideration the main critics that has been put forth by different philosophers with regards to the matter.
What Is the Doctrine of Doing and Allowing?
The doctrine of doing and allowing basically states that, there is quite a significant moral difference between actually doing the particular harm and allowing the actual harm to occur. It is, however, worth noting that the moral constraints are merely understood based on the asymmetric constraints that basically indicates that, there is actual need to achieve a higher greater moral good for the harm principle to be effective. Therefore, for the deontologists who can be referred to as absolutists, tend to agree with the concept set forth by the doctrine of doing and allowing. Considering the other hand, the consequalists have over a long period of time rejected the theory that has been put forth.
First and foremost, it is important to note that it is quite hard to determine whether an individual actually intended to cause harm against another person. However, there are particular factors that play an eminent role in curtailing the distinction between the concept of doctrine of doing and doctrine of allowing. The two factors are; assumption that the two factors can be used interchangeably and, the assumption that the behavior of the agent of the particular action, is the ultimate determining factor on whether it would be determined as doing or allowing harm to actually occurs.
In addition, the mere concept that philosophers claim that there is an existence of the distinctions between the concept of doing and allowing harm to happen is one of the deontological factors that affect the basic judgement with regards to moral aspects put forth. Therefore, in a situation where one argues that doing harm is worse that actually being a passive contributor, it would effectively indicate that watching innocent civilians being bombed and killed in Syria, the malnutrition cases in different African countries would be justified by the International organizations and developed countries as they are merely observers and not the perpetrators of the particular action that is causing harm on humanity generally.
In addition, in attempts to define the doctrine of doing and allowing, the trolley case that is one of the conversant theories that has been put in philosophy will seek to define this concept. According to this theory, there is a runaway trolley that is moving down the railway tracks and there are 5 people who have been tied on the railway line. However, as an individual you have the option to divert the train and let it kill one person and save 5 or the vice versa. This case highlights the doctrine of doing and allowing as it depicts that either way the consequences will be massive.
An assessment of the arguments using the main criticism
Different philosophers have brought forth various arguments with regard to the distinction of the concept of doing and allowing harm to actually happen. James Racheal, for instance, illustrates two cases and in one, Smith makes a decision to drown his cousin and on the other hand, in the second case, Jones decides that he wants to drown his cousin but finds the cousin already drowning but refrains from saving him. In making a conclusion, James Racheal makes a claim that both doing harm and allowing harm to happen is actually morally wrong and one cannot justify either of the two actions whether it is active or active participation. According to James Racheal theory, she virtually claims that the doctrine of doing and allowing can be equated to the concept of active and passive euthanasia. In that, for the doctrine of doing, the analogy of an active euthanasia is equated to it and in this process the doctor actually takes action to ensure the patient die. On the other hand, for the passive euthanasia, it is an analogy of the doctrine of allowing as the doctors let the patient die by restraining from carrying out a particular action. Therefore, according to her, both doing and allowing harm to happen have the same moral consequences. The guilt that should be felt by a person who does harm should be similar to that of the person who knowingly allowed harm to happen to another.
However, other philosophers such as Warren Quinn are of the school of thought that doing harm is actually worse than letting the particular action prevail. For an active participator towards a particular action, it refers to the positive right and on the other hand, inactive performance illustrates the negative acts committed. In addition, both Warren Quinn and Jonathan Bennet believe that the particular distinction that has been put with regards to doing harm and allowing harm to actually occur is merely based on the positive and negative facts of rights. In making this distinction, Jonathan Bennet gives an example using two assassins and they include; Sassan who is actually planning to assassinate victor by shooting him and on the other hand, there is Berxter who is waiting across the streets to ensure Sassan pulls the trigger. Therefore, it is worth noting that, Bexter played a negative role as compared to Sassan who played a positive role in the facilitation of the assassination of an individual and this is basically attributed to the flow of energy on a positive and negative front. In addition, this basically indicates the fact that the mere fact that an individual willingly lets harm occur towards an individual, then the person is equally as guilty as the perpetrator of the particular crimes.
In addition, Jeff McMahan put across the notion of the safety net cases that basically states that at certain periods, it could qualify as actually committing the particular crime. A good example is evidenced when a firefighter is in a desperate effort to save the people who are trapped at the top most building in a burning house. The fire fighters, by default, owe a duty of care towards the victims to save their lives, however; in certain scenarios, the firefighters may face a dilemma as they put forth a safety net in effort to save the trapped victims. Moreover, in certain circumstances one of the victims may die as the safety net may fail to get a grip of them therefore, in this situation, the fire fighters fail to get hold and as a result leads to the death of the particular individual. In a case where it was based on pure malice, one could effectively claim that the firefighter perpetrated the action to actually be done but, in a situation where the firefighter may have seen the victim trying to jump off the building and absolutely fails to make any effort, though having not directly contributed to the death of the particular individual, they watched the person die. Therefore, it is important to note that, ones an individual begins to help another, they are virtually bound to continue doing so. In addition, this scenario illustrates the difference between foreseeable and intended harm.
In support of the doctrine of doing and allowing, it is important to analyze the theory that has been set by one of the philosophers; Phillip Foot who makes an effort to distinguish between doing and allowing from a moral point of view and he further distinguishes between the negative rights which are rights to non-interference and the positive rights. Therefore, according to theory that has been set by Phillip Foot, the violation of the negative rights is worse than positive rights due to the fact that negative rights are more important. He further, alleges that, the distinction between doing and allowing ought to be considered in relation to actions and inactions.Finally, according to Sarah McGrath, she argues that certain behaviors involves both doing and allowing harm to actually occur and as a result, such would not count as allowing for the purposes of a moral distinction.
Reason As To Why the Theory is Quite Convincing
Firstly, the fact that man lives in a society that is virtually governed by the moral aspects set, this could act as a determining factor to uphold the concept of doing and allowing. The courts have overtime dealt harshly with individuals who have actually committed a particular crime in comparison with an individual. However, according to psychologists, claim the doctrine of doing or allowing is basically determined by the thoughts of a particular individual. It is the inner intention of a person that will actually lead to a case being considered as an act of allowing. If an individual in a position to avert harm, but opts to allow it to happen with no intervention, then he is morally guilty. On the other hand, if the person does not intentionally allow harm to happen, then there is no moral guilt. A good example occurs when a race driver clearly sees that the tyres of the rivals have deflated however, fails to warn the individual due to their competitive nature and in turn, this causes an accident that may lead to death. Nevertheless, the individual cannot be charged with having committed murder but his action of deciding to abstain from warning the competitor is equally wrong.
In addition, the fact that the society places a huge emphasis on actually carrying out the crime as compared to allowing the particular crime to take place, this is a clearly indication that the doctrine of doing and allowing could be quite convincing. However, psychologists have argued that the doctrine is merely affected by humanity personality thoughts with regards to a particular issue.
Conclusion
Therefore, the doctrine of doing and allowing is quite effective as it helps humanity appreciate the adamant ethical concepts that may create in a society. However, the importance of this doctrine is however, the fact that it enables courts distinguish between morality and the law in making a determination on their cases. Finally, the doctrine of doing and allowing is not rigid and therefore, it is subject of criticism as indicated by different philosophers and this is highly attributed to the fact that there is no universal standard measure of moral concepts.
Bibliography
Bennett, Jonathan. 1966. Whatever the consequences 26 (3): 83-102.
Borg, Jana Schaich, Catherine Hynes, John Van Horn, Scott Grafton, and Walter Sinnott- Armstrong. "Consequences, action, and intention as factors in moral judgments: An fMRI investigation." Journal of cognitive neuroscience 18, no. 5 (2006): 803-817.
Fischer, John Martin, and Mark Ravizza. Responsibility and control: A theory of moral responsibility. Cambridge university press, 2000.
Foot, Phillipa. 2002. "In her virtue and vices." The problem of abortion and the doctrine of double effect (Oxford University press) 19-32.
James, Racheal . 1975. "The New England journal of medicine." Edited by Peter Singer (1986). Active and passive euthanasia (Oxford University press) 292 (2): 29-36.
Liu , Xiaofei. 2012. A robust defense of the doctrine of doing and allowing . Missouri: Cambridge University press.
Orenstein, David. 2011. "The neuroscience of ethical behaviours." Are doing harm and allowing harm equivalent.
Thompson, Judith Jarvis. 1985. "The trolley problem." 94 yale law journal 1395-1415.
Woolard, Fiona. 2016. "The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy." Doing vs allowing harm.
Woollard, Fiona. 2012. In The doctrine of doing and allowing: Analysis of doing/ allowing distictions, 448-458. Wiley online library.
F
