Principle of double effect

The principle of double effect (PDE) or doctrine of double effect (DDE), sometimes simply called double effect for short, is a thesis in ethics, usually attributed to Aquinas. The doctrine of double effect seeks to explain under what circumstances one may act in a way that has both good and bad consequences (a "double effect").

Intentional harm versus side-effects

Although different writers state the doctrine in different ways, it always claims that there is a moral difference between courses of action such as the following:

1. An agent deliberately causes harm in order to promote some good.
2. An agent promotes some good in such a way that harm is caused as a foreseen side-effect.

The doctrine of double effect stems from an application of the Socratic moral norm, "First, do no harm." and the Acquinas' First Precept (Principle) of Natural Law "Good is to be Done and Promoted and Evil is to be Avoided" [Summa Theo I-II Q94 Art 2].

Double Effect depends on the following principles:

1. Moral Goodness is of a Transcendent Order - Even if you add up all of the physical goods in existence, you cannot equal a single moral good.
2. Moral good or evil dwells in the individual acts of the free will.
3. Free will means that the actions of others can be influenced by you, but not controlled. Therefore, permitting or failing to prevent an unavoidable evil is not the same as participating in it.

Catholic view

The moral teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, based on the writings of Aquinas, in particular states that an action having a double effect is permitted only under the following circumstances:

• The act may not be inherently wrong. It must in itself be either good or at least morally neutral.

• The person making the act must not actually intend to accomplish the bad effect, but must simply not be able to avoid it while accomplishing the good effect. If there is any way to accomplish the good while avoiding the bad, then that should be done.

• The good effect must be at least as directly an effect of the action as the bad effect is. In particular, the good effect must not be caused by the bad effect, which would be prohibited.

• The benefit of the good effect must be weighed against the harm of the bad effect, and the good must outweigh the bad. This comparison must be done with prudence and reflection.

Applications

The doctrine has practical applications, for example in just wartheory, where the deliberate targeting of civilians to demoralise the enemy may be ruled out, but the bombing of munitions plants may be allowed, even if both actions cause the same number of deaths and end the war in the same length of time.

The doctrine is relevant to certain medical cases. The administration of a high dosage of painkillersis sometimes allowed for the relief of pain in cases of terminal illness, even when this will cause death as a side effect. Some (including most Catholic ethicists) hold that this is morally different from deliberate euthanasiafor the relief of pain.

In some circumstances it is possible to argue that the doctrine of double effect is a redundant doctrine; for example within palliative or terminal care. It is possible to argue that since the use of analgesia is better understood (in terms of both pharmacology and delivery of medication) and titration of analgesic dose to the pain experienced by the patient is possible, then the desired effect (analgesia) can be achieved without the undesired effect (respiratory supression). It may be more difficult under these circumstances to invoke the doctrine of double effect.

Controversy

Despite some apparent plausibility, the doctrine of double effect is controversial. Utilitarians, in particular, reject the notion that two acts can differ in their permissibility, if both have exactly the same consequences.

A major argument against the DDE is the hypothetical case where some evil must be done to bring about an enormous good. For example, suppose a nuclear bomb has been planted in a major city, and a terrorist involved in its construction (being held in custody) knows where it is. Although he is reluctant to give up the bomb's location, his interrogators can exploit his attachment to his family by torturing them before his eyes, in order to extract the information which would save millions of lives.

Many find it difficult to oppose deliberate evil as a means to an end when the stakes are so high. But if evil acts for good ends might be permissible in extreme cases, then where to draw the line becomes a difficult question - just how high must the stakes be?

See also

• Trolley problem

External link

• Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry

This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License.
It uses material from the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle+of+double+effect Wikipedia article Principle of double effect.