Doctrine of Double Effect

The doctrine (or principle) of double effect is often invoked to explain the permissibility
of an action that causes a serious harm, such as the death of a human being, as a side
effect of promoting some good end. According to the principle of double effect,
sometimes it is permissible to cause a harm as a side effect (or “double effect”) of
bringing about a good result even though it would not be permissible to cause such a
harm as a means to bringing about the same good end.
Formulations of the principle of double effect
Thomas Aquinas is credited with introducing the principle of double effect in his
discussion of the permissibility of self-defense in the Summa Theologica (II-II, Qu. 64,
Art.7). Killing one’s assailant is justified, he argues, provided one does not intend to kill
him. In contrast, Augustine had earlier maintained that killing in self-defense was not
permissible, arguing that “private self-defense can only proceed from some degree of
inordinate self-love.” Aquinas observes that “Nothing hinders one act from having two
effects, only one of which is intended, while the other is beside the intention. …
Accordingly, the act of self-defense may have two effects: one, the saving of one’s life;
the other, the slaying of the aggressor.” As Aquinas’s discussion continues, a
justification is provided that rests on characterizing the defensive action as a means to a
goal that is justified: “Therefore, this act, since one’s intention is to save one’s own life,
is not unlawful, seeing that it is natural to everything to keep itself in being as far as
possible.” However, Aquinas observes, the permissibility of self-defense is not
unconditional: “And yet, though proceeding from a good intention, an act may be
rendered unlawful if it be out of proportion to the end. Wherefore, if a man in self-
defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful, whereas, if he repel force
with moderation, his defense will be lawful.”
The passage can be interpreted as formulating a prohibition on apportioning one’s
efforts with killing as the goal guiding one’s actions, which would lead one to act with
greater viciousness than pursuing the goal of self-defense would require.
Later versions of the double effect principle all emphasize the distinction between
causing a morally grave harm as a side effect of pursuing a good end and causing a
morally grave harm as a means of pursuing a good end. We can summarize this by
noting that for certain categories of morally grave actions, for example, causing the
death of a human being, the principle of double effect combines a special permission for
incidentally causing death for the sake of a good end (when it occurs as a side effect of
one’s pursuit of that end) with a general prohibition on instrumentally causing death for
the sake of a good end (when it occurs as part of one’s means to pursue that end).
The Doctrine of Double Effect provides four conditions for the application of this
principle:

1. The act itself must be morally good or at least indifferent.

2. The agent may not positively will the bad effect but may permit it. If he could
attain the good effect without the bad effect he should do so. The bad effect is
sometimes said to be indirectly voluntary.
 3. The good effect must flow from the action at least as immediately (in the order of
causality, though not necessarily in the order of time) as the bad effect. In other
words the good effect must be produced directly by the action, not by the bad
effect. Otherwise the agent would be using a bad means to a good end, which is
never allowed.
4. The good effect must be sufficiently desirable to compensate for the allowing of
the bad effect“.

Explanation:

To give you a bird’s eye view on what is a moral dilemma or to distinguish it from an
ethical dilemma, let me discuss the principle of double effect in the hope of enlightening
you with these two ethical situations. QUESTION????? PAMANGKOT??? When is an
action with two outcomes, one good and one evil, be permitted to be done. So an action,
if you are going to do the action, there is a good result and an evil result? Unlike an evil
act, you will not do it because you know it has an evil, outcome like killing. On the other
hand going to your church to attend religious activities is permissible because there is a
good effect. But what if the action is not evil but only to have two (2) outcome may
come out, one good and one evil. Let’s take example “self-defense” and ‘mercy killing”,,,
which can you consider morally binding act? In both scenarios one action, but on this
particular act two results may come, one good and the other evil, In the case of self-
dense, what are the two outcomes – 1. You protect yourself and 2. You kill you’re your
assailant,, in the case of mercy killing (example a person in coma, vegetable state and
in pain which also causes affliction to the family) what are the two (2) outcomes, first
1. You end the person’s suffering and also the family’s afflictions, expenses etc. and
second 2. You kill the person. Take note that both scenarios has one (1) action with two
(2) outcome which one is good and the other is evil. So which of the two actions could
you perform that could be morally or ethically binding? Self-defense or mercy killing ?
now before we delve further into the action, let me explain the condition in the
application of the double effect principle.

1.. The act itself must be morally good or at least indifferent. – this implies that if an
action with 2 outcomes must be good and not evil, meaning it is good and not evil,
because if it is evil then the act is not permissible. I assume from our first notes you
know what is good act and evil acts.

2. The agent may not positively will the bad effect but may permit it. If he could attain
the good effect without the bad effect he should do so. The bad effect is sometimes said
to be indirectly voluntary. – this means that you must do what is the good action and
not the evil act and in doing so not willing the evil effect but the good effect and that the
evil effect must only be permitted not willed. Let’s take the classic example of a
pregnant mother that had an accident and that only one person will be able to make it.
So if the doctor what you suppose to do? So it’s either save the child and kill the mother
or save the mother and kill the child. Now in both of the action none of which is
permissible. Why? Because first and foremost you willing an evil act, killing! So what
would be the appropriate course of action as a doctor, you save both not putting in mind
who expires first, because saving both is the good action and if one expires it will be a
an unnecessary evil result. Whereas, if you decide to save one say the mother, then you
have in mind the death of the child, so if you save both and one of them do not make it
then, it is not willed as your action and no moral dilemma involve, unlike if you will focus
on saving one then you are also willing the death of the other.

3.. The good effect must flow from the action at least as immediately (in the order of
causality, though not necessarily in the order of time) as the bad effect. In other words
the good effect must be produced directly by the action, not by the bad effect.
Otherwise the agent would be using a bad means to a good end, which is never allowed.
--- this implies that if an action with two effect to be done, it should be that the good act
must always come first and not the evil act, for if the evil act is the result of something
good it may never be permissible. Because we should always do good so as something
worthy may come out, and if we do evil so that good may come out of it, it may not be
permissible. So, self-defense, if you are being attacked by an assailant and you happen
to kill that assailant, then it is permissible. But you say that killing is evil, true, but what
you did first is save your life, what you have in mind is to act in a manner wherein you
are going to preserve your life and the evil effect killing is a permitted eventuality not
willed. On the other hand mercy killing, (as what we have as a situation where a person
in coma, vegetative state and in pain which also causes affliction to the family), to end
everyone’s misery you pull the plug to this person. But take a look, what action did you
do first before achieving the result? You killed the person first. And this is never
permissible because what you did is a violation of God’s commandment?

4. The good effect must be sufficiently desirable to compensate for the allowing of the
bad effect“. – this means that the good effect must be reasonable enough and outweighs
the evil for you to do the action.

So class if you have any queries post it to our edmodo class and I will be answering all
of those queries via edmodo.