Subject: Bioethics
Topic: 6.02 Cooperation
Lecturer: Dr. Quinones
Date: February 9, 2015
OUTLINE
I. Introduction
II. Terms in cooperation
III. Cooperation
IV. Formal cooperation
V. Material cooperation
I. INTRODUCTION
 Moral mandate to cooperate?  justify certain types of
cooperation
o While we might have a moral mandate to cooperate, we have
to learn to justify our actions.
 Justification not to be confused with an obligation to cooperate in
evil acts
o So you should not say “I should be cooperating. It’s the moral
thing to do”. But if the act is evil, then we have no moral
mandate to cooperate.
 Justification and obligation represent two different moral
categories
II. TERMS IN COOPERATION
 Agent/wrongdoer – the person or organization directly
responsible for the evil act
o The one who is actually doing the act.
 Cooperator – the person or organization helping in the
commission of the sin
 Scandal – an attitude or behaviour which leads another to do evil
 Proportionality – proportionate reason or sufficient reason
III. COOPERATION
 The principle of cooperation presumes an objective moral order in
which someone may cooperate in the evil act of another even if
the principal agent does not know that the cooperator is doing it.
 An action would be an act of cooperation only if the cooperator
knows that it will specifically contribute to an act of the principal
agent
o Eg. Classmate A is the wrongdoer. Classmate B is the
cooperator. Classmate A need not know what classmate B is
doing – clueless. But classmate B definitely knows what he is
doing and he may or may not contribute to the actions of
classmate A.
 Three components morally define the wrongdoer’s act:
o The moral object, the precise good or evil which characterizes
that act (freely chosen by the principal agent)
 Eg. Cheating
o The intention (or purpose) for which the act is done
o The circumstances associated with that act.
 The cooperator can participate in any or all of these components.
o Cooperator may provide the material, could be the one giving
the list of questions or answers. He could also just know about
what’s happening but refuses to talk about it when
interrogated.
IV. FORMAL COOPERATION
 Formal – assistance provided to the immoral act of a principal
agent in which the cooperator intends the evil.
o Assistance need not be essential to the performance of the act
Trans Group: Raga, Rahayel, Ramores MH, Ramores MJ
in order for the cooperator to intend the evil of the principal
agent’s act.
o Whatever you are planning to do as a cooperator, whatever it
is that you are going to do is not necessarily important to the
commission of the act but your purpose is the same to that of
the agent.
o Eg. A girl wants to do an abortion. The OB-GYN decides to do
the abortion. The girl who wanted the abortion had an
immoral intention. The OB-GYN might have another intention,
such as gaining money, but the end is the same. The action
goes in the same way: the abortion.
 Explicit – the cooperator directly approves of (intends and concurs
with) the principal agent’s immoral act.
o Eg. A hospital CEO wrote and implemented a policy permitting
the direct sterilization of patients in the hospital would be
considered to be involved in explicit formal cooperation.
o Gives assistance to it through the policy and does intend the
act to occur on hospital premises and under their auspices.
 Implicit – the cooperator intends the evil of the principal agent, as
a means to some another end that, by itself, might be morally
good
o Cooperator seeks a good end – secures the conditions by
which the immoral act of takes place as a means of achieving
that good end
V. MATERIAL COOPERATION
 Material Cooperation
o Material: when cooperation with the evil act of another is
through a physical act, without wiling or consenting to it.
 Elements of Material Cooperation
1. The free and knowing assistance to the evil act of another
2. The absence of intending the principal agent’s evil acts
o Morally permissible? Some types of material cooperation are
immoral
o Can be either immediate or mediate
A. Immediate
o Cooperator does not share the intentions of the principal
agent but participates in circumstances that are essential to
the commission of an act, such that the act could not occur
without this participation
o In intrinsically evil actions is morally illicit
o Eg. A Catholic organization agrees to supply all the surgical
instruments to a non-Catholic women’s hospital as part of a
larger collaborative agreement, and these instruments are to
be used in direct sterilizations performed at the hospital
B. Mediate
o Mediate material cooperation occurs when the cooperator
participates in circumstances that are not essential to the
commission of an actor, such that the action could occur even
without this cooperation.
a. If some great good were to be gained (or prevented from
being lost) or if some great evil were to be avoided.
b. The reason for cooperation must be proportionate to the
Page 1 of 2
 causal proximity of the cooperator’s action and the
principal agent’s action
o Mediate material cooperation that has a direct causal
influence on the act of the principal agent (proximate) and
that which has an indirect causal influence (remote).
o Example: The anesthetist who provides the anesthesia
during an abortion due to circumstances out of his control,
and who does not intend the evil of the procedure,
engages in immediate material cooperation.
- direct causal influence. Even the anesthetist do not
want to commit the act, against his principle, you
actually need to do the procedure to save the
woman’s life. He does not intend the evil of the
procedure, but one he does it he engages in the
immediate material cooperation.
o The nurse who provides preoperative care to a patient
about to undergo an abortion such as placing an IV that will
be used by someone else to administer anesthesia engages
in proximate mediate material cooperation.
- direct causal relationship.
o The hospital employee who prepares surgical kits, some of
which may be used in immoral procedures engages in
remote mediate material cooperation
- indirect causal relationship because when he
sterilized the instrument (it is part of his job), he has
no intention that the instrument will be used in
something immoral, unfortunately, one or two of the
instruments landed on the OR where the abortion is
being done. He has no intention but it is used in
immoral acts.
c. The danger of scandal (i.e., leading others into doing evil,
leading others into error, or spreading confusion) must be
avoided
o One encounters many situations in daily life in relation to
cooperation with evil. One must take into account the
principle governing acts with side effects (double effect)
 Criteria for Judging the Morality of Cooperation
o one encounters many situations in daily life in relation to
cooperation with evil. One must take into account the
principle governing acts with side effects (Double effect)
 an act has both good and evil effects; we do not
intend the evil effect—this act is permissible granted
that what you had in mind was not the evil effect;
unfortunately, in order to get the good effect, some
evil might happen
o one may encounter cases wherein presumed material
cooperation may be permitted
 the obstetrician may decide to perform tubal ligation
during routine CS without previously informing the
nurse or patient’s husband
 the anesthesiologist may assist in the OR
 in these cases, she has to avoid scandal as well as
doctrinal confusion by explaining to the OB her moral
stand
 the OB’s actions were morally wrong
 even the anesthesiologist has the right to “bail
out” on the operation because it was morally
wrong, it would lead to a greater evil—the patient
might wake up still open
 so , the anesthesiologist decides to continue with
the operation
 but if they get sued in court, she can justify— if
she left the OR, they will be in bigger trouble, the
patient could have died
 and she (the anes) can tell the OB-GYN that she
proceeded with the operation to avoid
scandalizing the OB-GYN
1. every cooperation which directly influences the evil
intention of the person with whom one cooperates is
always illicit
 ex. Student has a copy of the exam, and her friend
is failing, she gives a copy of the exam to her.
Even if her intention is good, it is still illicit
because the act is still cheating
2. Formal cooperation is always illicit. Cooperation not only
affects the evil act; it also affects the evil intention by
approving the mode of action of the person
 When cooperation is given simultaneously by
different persons, all are culpable
 ex. Student has a copy of the exam, and shares it to
the whole class. Since no one talked about it and
approached the prof and said “ma’am look we
have a copy of the exam”, ALL committed Formal
cooperation and did something illicit
 hindi pwedeng “ma’am siya lang kumuha” because
everyone got a copy of the exam and used it
o Principal cooperators more culpable
 The first one who distributed it is more
culpable (more guilty) but still everyone is
culpable
3. In general, simple material cooperation is also illicit. In
certain specific circumstances, it may be licit to cooperate
materially in order to obtain the necessary good or the
avoid a more serious harm
Summary:
 In Formal cooperation, whether explicit or implicit, ALWAYS
morally wrong
 In Material cooperation, immediate is virtually morally
wrong but it depends on the circumstances and how you’ll
justify what happened
 In mediate material cooperation, it is morally allowable
with proportionate reason and not cause of scandal
Page 2 of 2