Fundamental Moral Theology

Principle of Double Effect

Source: Keenan, James. “The Function of the Principle of Double Effect,” Theological Studies 54 (1993)
294-315.

 Because of the finitude of the world, we encounter situations where we have to simultaneously deal
with evil and good effects in human actions.
 Several moral principles guide us in situations where cooperation with some form of evil is involved.

I. Principle of Double Effect

 Used in moral quandary situations.
 It has a long tradition in Moral Theology.

Context for the use of the principle:

 In a particular hard moral case, a single action results in two foreseen consequences.
 One consequence is “good” (it promotes a particular good) and intended (the doer
directly desires this effect of the action).
 The other consequence is “bad”(it causes some kind of harm) and unintended (the
doer does not desire the effect to happen but knows that it will happen as a
consequence of the action).
 The moral question: Under what circumstances could one cause, tolerate, and/or
allow the bad effect while intending only the good effect?

a. Four conditions:
i. The object of the action (considering the physical act, immediate intention, and
defining circumstances) cannot be intrinsically evil. The object must be good or
neutral.
ii. The good effect is directly intended. The evil effect is foreseen but not intended.
iii. The good effect cannot be the result of the bad effect. Both effects must be
simultaneous in origin. This prevents an intrinsically evil object from being used as a
means for good.
iv. There must be a proportionate reason. There must be a very compelling reason to
allow the unintended evil effect.

b. Be careful not to use the principle unnecessarily.

i. Do not use the principle simply to justify an act with evil and good effects when an
alternative which avoids the evil effects is available.
ii. The principle is also not to be used to justify an act with disproportionate evil
effects even if the good effect is praiseworthy.
iii. The principle is not to be used to look for loopholes to allow a questionable act to
be done.

c. The principle in reality is rarely used. It is only used when the object of the action bears a
considerable degree of moral ambiguity and comes close to performing a wrongful activity
directly. The principle should be invoked only when necessary.
Paradigm cases for the principle of double effect:
1. A pregnant woman is found to have a cancerous uterus. The cancer has spread to the
point that she may die before her child could be born. The principle allows her to choose to
have the cancerous uterus removed to primarily save her life with the undesired effect of
aborting the fetus. To prove lack of direct intent to kill the fetus, one would have removed
the cancerous uterus out of necessity to save the life of the mother even if there was no
fetus in it. (Of course, some heroic mothers could choose to die of cancer while allowing
their baby to be born. This is very praiseworthy. However, we do not demand all mothers
in this situation to give up their lives for their child. The double effect principle allows
mothers to choose to save their lives while not directly intending to kill the child in their
womb. This is allowed by the Church.)
2. At a time of war, a military commander needs to make a pre-emptive attack on a
chemical weapons facility to prevent the production of weapons of mass destruction. The
destruction of the facility could kill or injure civilians working in and near the factory. If
the commander uses the best means available to minimize innocent deaths as much as
possible while seeking to achieve the goal of destroying the factory, the principle of double
effect would be applicable.
3. A person is dying of cancer and there is no hope of recovery. The pain experienced by
the patient is increasingly becoming intense and higher doses of painkillers become
necessary to manage the pain to bearable levels. The principle can allow the gradual
increase of the dosage of painkillers with the direct intention of relieving the pain of the
patient even if the higher dosages would have the unintended effect of hastening the dying
process.

Caution: One needs to be careful not to abuse the principle of double effect.
Examples of the wrong use of the principle of double effect:
1. Using nuclear weapons to destroy the ammunitions factory of an enemy-nation
(unjust aggressor) during world war when the evil effects are too extreme and there
is indiscriminate killing of innocent civilians could never be justified by double
effect. The aim of destroying the factory is not proportionate to the mass
destruction and death that would result from the use of nuclear weapons. Also,
there are alternative ways to achieve the goal of destroying the ammunitions factory
(e.g., using conventional weapons) that might cause less harm.
2. The justification of torture as a means to obtain vital military information – one
cannot justify the use of an intrinsically evil act as means to attain a good end. The
gross violation of human rights and human dignity cannot be tolerated even with
good intentions. One may not use an evil effect to achieve a good effect (the end
does not justify the means).