Essay for "The Problem of Abortion and the Doctrine of the Double Effect" According to Foot, the Doppler effects is define as the algorithm of solving all moral problems which will have a good and bad effects. It is also says even there is effects is good when do bad things intentionally it will always be wrong. However sometimes it is allowed to good action despite it has a bad outcome and also it must follow four conditions in order the act is allowable: First, it must be the Nature of the act which is defining as the act itself is good, second Means of End Condition is means that one must not intend even but the tolerate it is the foreseen, third Right-Intention Condition it means that the good deed must not come as a result of the evil effect, lastly The Proportionality Condition it means the foreseen good must be equal in the physical evil and not the moral evil. And the purpose of this doctrine is to know the distinction between doing what is right and wrong when it is used for abortion basically it is a her guide to chose what is morally acceptable. The first conceptual distinctions that she makes use in the service of her analysis, is the story of the fat man stuck in the cave and there are bunch of people inside of the cave and there are sticks of dynamite ,so either they drown or blow the fat man. Either ways the fat guy will die anyways. It will be just seen as the foreseen consequence of blowing him up < either the want to blow him up to smaller pieces or blast him out of the cave > the point is doesnt mean that it does not matter what you bring about as long as you merely foresee and do not strictly intend the evil that follows. One good example: The story of the merchant selling the poison cooking oil even they knew they will kill innocent lives same thing with the unemployed grave diggers who happen to got a hold of this oil either sold it or gave it way, In order to have income, so the difference the cave story and oil story. The oil story did evil intentionally to do well. The Second conceptual distinctions that she makes use in the service of her analysis is the story of the judge going to frame an innocent man for the unknown suspect of the mass killing , if he didnt frame an person there will be a full scale riot and more mass killing will happen and more innocent lives will perish if the judge to persecute someone. If the victim proves hard to hang he must see to it that he dies another way. To choose to execute him is to choose that this evil shall come about, and this must therefore count as a certainty in weighing up the good and evil involved. The distinction between direct and oblique intention is crucial here, and is of great importance in an uncertain world. Nevertheless this is no way to defend the doctrine of double effect a. example is the doctor has a limited amount of medicine and there one patient needs a lot of meds in order to live then are other five patients who just in a small amount of meds just to survive. It a battle of five verses one. It said it is the best thing to save more lives rather than just one. The conclusion of the essay abortion is only morally acceptable if ,first of all there is the situation in which nothing that can be done will save the life of child and mother, but where the life of the mother can be saved by killing the child, which similar to the story of the fat man in the cave. However killing it intentionally is not acceptable but It is better to save one rather than none, it will just apply as it is a unforeseen action in the hysterectomy they childs life to gone is not intend. Another case that abortion is morally acceptable in which it is possible to perform an operation which will save the mother and kill the child or kill the mother and save the child which is parallel to the shipwreck story. It is better to rescue one rather none but the person who is going to be save the mother or the child they will pick the mother. And lastly killing a child in order to save the mothers life by crushing a skull of the child, which is morally wrong because it is directly killing the child. So it is not morally acceptable.