Neg AT to the Double-Effect: 1) Proportionality a. The double effect doesn t adequately take into account proportionality.

First, it is a misinterpretation to claim that the principle of double effect shows that agents may permissibly bring about harmful effects provided that they are merely foreseen side effects of promoting a good end. Applications of double effect always presuppose that some kind of proportionality condition has been satisfied. Traditional formulations of double effect require that the value of promoting the good end outweigh the disvalue of the harmful side effect. -Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy 2) Intent a. The definition of deliberate is pre-meditated. The entire concept of the double-effect is that when one intends to do good, but accidentally causes (foreseeable) harm, then the action is morally permissible. In the debate today we must understand that the action in question is premeditated; when one takes a deliberate action it is the very opposite of accidental. When the victim aims to kill, we therefore understand that the double effect does not apply, because there is intent in killing. To kill a person whom you know to be plotting to kill you would be impermissible because it would be a case of intentional killing; however, to strike in self-defense against an aggressor is permissible, even if one foresees that the blow by which one defends oneself will be fatal under the doubleeffect, according to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy