The Doctrine of Double Effect - Explained & Debated

Summary

In this Philosophy Vibe episode, the doctrine of double effect is explored, a moral principle justifying actions causing harm for a greater good. It's attributed to St. Thomas Aquinas and involves four conditions: the action must be morally good or neutral, the harm unintended, the good effect not caused by the harm, and the good must outweigh the harm. The video discusses these conditions with examples, such as a fire in an office building affecting a hospital's power supply, and debates the doctrine's limitations and criticisms, suggesting it's a useful guide but not a comprehensive ethical solution.

Takeaways

• 📚 The Doctrine of Double Effect (DDE) is an ethical principle used to justify actions that may cause harm but promote a greater good.
• 👨‍🏫 St. Thomas Aquinas is credited with first proposing the DDE as part of Christian ethics.
• 🔍 The DDE is often invoked in ethical dilemmas where harm is unavoidable, such as in medical or wartime scenarios.
• 🚦 There are four conditions that must be met for the DDE to justify an action causing harm: the action itself must be morally good or neutral, the harm must be unintended, the good effect must not be caused by the harm, and the good achieved must be proportional to the harm.
• 🔑 The first condition is that the action itself must be morally good or at least morally neutral.
• 🚫 The second condition states that the person doing the action does not intend the harm; it's merely a side effect.
• ⛔ The third condition asserts that the harm must not be the means to the good end; it's an allowable side effect, not the cause.
• 📈 The fourth condition, proportionality, requires that the good achieved must be proportionate to the harm done.
• 🏥 An example scenario involves a fire in an office building and a hospital next door, where turning on a backup generator could save many but also cause the death of one person on life support.
• 🤔 Critics argue that the DDE can be too simplistic and may not account for complex moral intuitions or situations where the proportionality is not clear-cut.
• 📖 The script suggests that while the DDE provides guidance in clear moral dilemmas, it may not be sufficient for more complex or nuanced ethical situations.

Q & A

What is the Doctrine of Double Effect?

The Doctrine of Double Effect is a set of criteria used to justify an action that may cause harm in order to promote a greater good. It is often invoked to determine when it is permissible for an action to cause harm in the pursuit of a good end.

Who is credited with the Doctrine of Double Effect?

St. Thomas Aquinas is often credited as the first philosopher to espouse the Doctrine of Double Effect, as part of Christian ethics.

What are the four conditions that must be satisfied for the harm to be morally justified according to the Doctrine of Double Effect?

The four conditions are: 1) The action itself must be morally good or at least morally neutral. 2) The person doing the action does not actually will the harm, it's just a negative side effect. 3) The good outcome must be caused by the action, not the harm. 4) The good end must be justified in proportion to the harm that happens.

Can you provide an example scenario where the Doctrine of Double Effect is applied?

In the script, an example is given where a fire breaks out in an office building, and turning on a backup generator to activate the sprinklers would cause a short blackout in a nearby hospital, potentially killing a person on life support. According to the Doctrine of Double Effect, turning on the generator would be permissible because it satisfies all four conditions.

How does the Doctrine of Double Effect relate to consequentialism or utilitarianism?

While there are consequentialist elements in the Doctrine of Double Effect, it also has ontological elements, as evidenced by the third condition which states that the good must be caused by the action, not the harm. This distinguishes it from utilitarianism, which is solely concerned with the end result and not the means.

What are some criticisms of the Doctrine of Double Effect?

Critics argue that the Doctrine can be too simplistic and may not go far enough for complex ethical dilemmas. It may rely too heavily on moral intuitions and meta-ethics in ambiguous cases, and the proportionality condition can be difficult to apply when balancing different types of harm and good.

How does the Doctrine of Double Effect handle cases where the harm is directly needed to save lives?

According to the Doctrine, if a small harm is directly needed to save lives, it would not be permissible because the harm would be the means to the end, which violates the third condition that the good must be caused by the action, not the harm.

What is the significance of the proportionality condition in the Doctrine of Double Effect?

The proportionality condition ensures that the good achieved is worth the harm caused. It prevents causing grave unintended harm for small amounts of good, requiring that the good end is significant enough to justify the harm.

Can you provide a real-world example where the Doctrine of Double Effect is applied?

Yes, one example mentioned is a doctor administering painkilling drugs to a terminally ill patient. The drugs may hasten the patient's death, but if the sole intention is pain relief, the Doctrine would allow this as the death is an unfortunate side effect, not the intended means to an end.

How does the Doctrine of Double Effect address moral dilemmas in wartime?

In wartime, the Doctrine can be used to justify actions that foreseeably cause civilian casualties, as long as these casualties are not intended and the primary aim is a justifiable military objective.

What is the role of moral intuition in applying the Doctrine of Double Effect?

Moral intuition plays a significant role, especially in complex cases where the Doctrine's conditions may not provide clear guidance. In such situations, individuals may need to rely on their moral intuition and broader ethical frameworks to make a decision.

Outlines

00:00

🔍 Introduction to the Doctrine of Double Effect

The video begins with an introduction to the Doctrine of Double Effect, a principle used to justify actions that may cause harm but promote a greater good. It explains that ethical dilemmas often arise where harm seems unavoidable, and this doctrine helps determine when it's permissible to cause harm. The video mentions St. Thomas Aquinas as a key figure in the development of this doctrine within Christian ethics. The doctrine has four conditions that must be met for harm to be morally justified: the action itself must be morally good or neutral, the harm must be unintended, the good outcome must not be caused by the harm, and the good achieved must be proportional to the harm caused.

05:00

💡 Applying the Doctrine of Double Effect

This section of the script presents a hypothetical scenario to illustrate the application of the Doctrine of Double Effect. It involves a fire in an office building and the need to turn on a backup generator to activate the sprinklers, which would save hundreds but also cause a hospital's power to go out, leading to the death of one person on life support. The discussion ensures that all four conditions of the doctrine are met: the action (pulling a lever) is morally neutral, the harm (death of one person) is unintended, the good (saving hundreds) is not caused by the harm, and the good (saving many) is proportional to the harm (one death). The script also contrasts the doctrine with consequentialism or utilitarianism, emphasizing that the doctrine considers the means as well as the ends, not just the greatest good for the greatest number.

10:00

📚 Conclusion and Critique of the Doctrine

The final paragraph discusses real-world applications of the Doctrine of Double Effect, such as administering painkillers to terminally ill patients or wartime decisions with civilian casualties. It also addresses criticisms of the doctrine, particularly regarding its proportionality condition. The critique suggests that while the doctrine provides a clear guide in obvious moral dilemmas, it may not be sufficient in more complex situations where the balance of good and harm is not clear-cut. The discussion points out that in such cases, moral intuitions and meta-ethics play a more significant role than the doctrine itself. The video concludes by inviting viewers to consider the effectiveness of the doctrine and to engage in further discussion in the comments.

Keywords

💡Doctrine of Double Effect

The Doctrine of Double Effect is a principle in ethics that provides criteria to justify actions that might cause harm but promote a greater good. It is central to the video's theme as it is the main ethical principle being discussed. The video uses the example of a fire in an office building and a potential blackout in a hospital to illustrate how the doctrine can be applied to justify turning on a backup generator, which could save many lives but foreseeably cause the death of one person on life support.

💡Ethical Dilemma

An ethical dilemma refers to a situation where one must choose between two or more conflicting options, each with its own moral implications. The video's narrative revolves around ethical dilemmas, such as the one involving the fire and the hospital, where applying the Doctrine of Double Effect helps to navigate the decision-making process.

💡St. Thomas Aquinas

St. Thomas Aquinas is credited as the first philosopher to propose the Doctrine of Double Effect within Christian ethics. His influence is mentioned in the video to establish the historical context and philosophical foundation of the doctrine being discussed.

💡Moral Justification

Moral justification refers to the process of determining whether an action is morally right or wrong. The video discusses the four conditions that must be met for harm to be morally justified under the Doctrine of Double Effect, which is a framework for moral justification.

💡Moral Neutrality

Moral neutrality is the state of an action being neither morally good nor bad. The first condition of the Doctrine of Double Effect requires that the action itself must be morally good or at least morally neutral. The script uses the action of pulling a lever to illustrate moral neutrality.

💡Intentionality

Intentionality in ethics refers to the deliberate aim or plan behind an action. The second condition of the Doctrine of Double Effect states that the person performing the action does not intend the harm; it's merely a side effect. The video contrasts this with actions where harm is the intended outcome.

💡Proportionality

Proportionality is the condition that the good outcome must be proportional to the harm caused. The video explains this by stating that the good must be significant enough to justify the harm, such as saving hundreds of lives versus causing one death.

💡Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that focuses on maximizing overall happiness or minimizing overall suffering. The video contrasts the Doctrine of Double Effect with utilitarianism, arguing that the former is not solely focused on the end result but also considers the means and intentions.

💡Consequentialism

Consequentialism is the view that the morality of an action is determined by its consequences. The video script suggests that while the Doctrine of Double Effect has elements of consequentialism, it also includes considerations of the action itself and its intentions.

💡Moral Intuitions

Moral intuitions are immediate judgments about the moral value of an action. The video discusses how, in complex ethical dilemmas, moral intuitions may play a larger role than the Doctrine of Double Effect, especially when the proportionality condition is not clear-cut.

💡Meta-Ethics

Meta-ethics is the branch of philosophy that explores the nature of moral judgments. The video mentions meta-ethics in the context of discussing how moral intuitions and broader ethical theories might come into play when the Doctrine of Double Effect is insufficient to resolve a moral dilemma.

Highlights

Introduction to the doctrine of double effect as an ethical principle.

Doctrine of double effect is used to justify actions that may cause harm for a greater good.

Doctrine often credited to St Thomas Aquinas as part of Christian ethics.

Four conditions that must be satisfied for harm to be morally justified.

First condition: The action itself must be morally good or at least morally neutral.

Second condition: The person doing the action does not actually will the harm.

Third condition: The good outcome must be caused by the action, not the harm.

Fourth condition: The good end must be justified in proportion to the harm that happens.

Scenario illustrating the doctrine of double effect with an ethical dilemma.

Discussion on the moral neutrality of the action in the scenario.

Explaining that the harm is not intended and is a side effect.

Clarification that the harm does not directly cause the good outcome.

Proportionality condition and its role in ethical decision-making.

Real-world examples where the doctrine of double effect is applied.

Criticism of the doctrine as being too similar to utilitarianism.

Defense of the doctrine against utilitarian criticisms.

Discussion on the proportionality condition and its limitations.

Critique of the doctrine's reliance on moral intuitions and meta-ethics.

The need for more than a simple doctrine for ethical dilemmas.

Invitation for viewers to share their thoughts on the doctrine of double effect.

Transcripts

[Music]

hello and welcome to philosophy Vibe the

channel where we discuss and debate

different philosophical ideas today

we'll be looking into a very interesting

ethical principle and that is the

doctrine of double effect excellent so

the doctrine of double effect is a set

of criteria used to justify an action

that may cause harm in order to promote

a greater good often we humans may find

ourselves in ethical dilemas where

causing some sort of harm is unavoidable

the doctrine of double effect is then

invoked to set out when it is

permissible for an action to cause harm

in the pursuit of promoting a good end

in this video I will explain the

doctrine of double effect and then we

will look at some potential problems

with the principle great let's begin

very well so then the doctrine of double

effect is often credited to St Thomas

aquinus as the first philosopher to

espouse the theory as part of Christian

ethics now it's very well known that

there are often ethical dilemmas whereby

a certain amount of harm will come about

and ethicist struggle to determine when

it's acceptable to allow or even cause

grave harm in order to achieve a greater

good typically people think about the

foreseen death of human beings in order

to save the lives of other human beings

so the question moral philosophers ask

is when is this permissible here is

where the doctrine double effect comes

into play there are four conditions that

must be satisfied in order for the harm

to be morally Justified right the first

is that the action itself must be

morally good or at least morally neutral

the second is that the person doing the

action does not actually will the harm

they do not intend or want the harm to

happen but rather it's just a negative

side effect of their action in other

words if the same outcome can happen

without the harm the person would avoid

doing the harm yeah that makes sense the

third condition is that the good outcome

must be caused by the action not the

harm that happens so if the harm

directly causes the good consequence

this is using a moral bad to create a

moral good which is not permitted the

doctrine is merely allowing a moral bad

to happen as a side effect in achieving

a moral good not that the moral bad is

happening for the sake of achieving a

moral good

so a good result does not justify evil

means and finally the fourth is the

proportionality so the good end must be

justified in proportion to the harm that

happens so the good must be desired you

can't for example allow the death of

hundreds of people to save one person

breaking an arm that is not in

proportion yes I understand so let's

come up with a scenario an ethical

dilemma where the doctrine of double

effect will come into play all four

conditions will be met with ethical

reasoning to see how this would work

sure go for it imagine we have a big

office building right next to a small

Hospital a big fire breaks out in the

office building and there are hundreds

of employees trapped the power supply

has been fried and the building's water

sprinklers won't come on The Rescuers

assess the situation and figure out that

if the backup generator is manually

turned on the sprinklers will start and

put out the whole fire however they are

informed this surge will cause a

blackout in the hospital next door it

will be a really short blackout but one

person who is on life support machine

will die as a result so a foreseen harm

will happen as a side effect of pursuing

the moral good now The Rescuers want to

save the hundreds of people so they turn

to the doctrine of double effect is the

action itself morally good or at least

morally neutral so the action is pulling

a lever it's not stabbing someone or

choking someone the ACT is pulling a

lever so it's probably morally neutral

so that's satisfied number two do The

Rescuers will for the personal life

support machine to die absolutely not

they don't know this person they feel

bad they wish he could survive they have

informed the hospital to try everything

they can to save him number three does

the good result in the harm no it

doesn't the people will not be saved

because this person has died it's not

like the situation needs the personal

life support machine to Die the death

does not cause the saving of the office

workers all that's needed is the

sprinklers to work the death is an

unfortunate side effect so this is

satisfied and finally is it proportional

yes we are talking about saving hundreds

of people versus one unfortunate death

so the doctrine of double effect will

permit turning on the backup generator

fascinating well I completely made up

the scenario to illustrate the point but

there are a lot of real world examples

where the doctrine comes into play

consider the Doctor Who administers

painkilling drugs to a terminally ill

patient he knows that the drugs will

cause the death of the patient but the

sole intention is pain relief the death

would be an unfortunate side effect so

the doctrine would allow this however if

the doctor's intention was purely to end

the patient's life then this would not

be morally permissible there's also the

story of wartime battles and bombers

where armies who are trying to destroy

the enemy will have civilian casualties

being foreseen but not intended and of

course a common one that's discussed is

around the life of a fetus during a

procedure trying to save the mother so

this Doctrine is used very often during

many moral situations yes I can see I

think it's quite a reasonable Doctrine

it makes sense it reasons how and when

to allow harm in a moral situation but

if I was to look at the criticisms of

the doctrine at first to me this just

seems like a typical consequentialist or

utilitarian principle we are solely

concerned with the end result and it's

all about maximizing utility the

greatest good for the greatest number

it's not any more profound than that and

in addition It suffers the same

objections that will be marshaled

against the utilitarian moral philosophy

no I completely disagree with you whilst

there are consequentialist elements in

this Doctrine there are equally

ontological elements as well how so the

end result is not the sole concern as

would be the case with utilitarianism

and this is pretty obvious when you look

at the third condition the good must be

caused by the action not the harm so if

for example you're in a situation where

you must kill five people in order to

save 10 so the harm is actually the

means to the good end the doctrine would

not permit this whereas utilitarianism

would permit this as it is solely

concerned with the end not the means so

condition three of the doctrine of

double effect completely escapes it from

utilitarian criticisms right I see okay

let's focus on the proportionality

condition it completely makes sense and

it's there to stop grave unintended

harms for small amounts of good so if we

use your office Hospital example say the

office was empty apart from one plant

about to be burnt the doctrine would not

permit the generator being turned on or

the doctrine would not permit a doctor

prescribing strong painkillers that

could kill you for a small headache even

if their intention was to alleviate your

pain correct yes but the criticism I

have around proportionality is that it's

fine for these clear-cut cases like the

one you mentioned one person versus

hundreds of people it gets really

difficult when the scal start to balance

imagine there were 19yearold people on

life support machine in the hospital but

there were 10 5-year-old children in the

building or what if there was one person

with the cure for all deadly diseases in

the building versus 1,000 random people

on life support machine in the hospital

at this point the doctrine is not enough

the proportionality condition is not

enough and the Loosely defined terms of

good and harm are not enough we then

need to lean on our moral intuitions and

meta ethics as to what feels right so at

best this is a guiding principle for

clear and obvious moral dilemas like the

one you raised outside of this the

doctrine of double effect is pretty much

dropped H even condition three of the

means to an end can seem intuitively

wrong in certain situations imagine if a

small harm is directly needed to save

the lives of thousands of people so

someone says I will kill all these

people unless you pinch that person so

it's a small harm but the harm is the

means to an end and therefore

unjustifiable yes I see it's a stupid

example but I'm using it to show that

our moral intuitions come into play here

more so than the doctrine of double

effect so for ethical dilemmas you need

more than a simple Doctrine I don't

think it goes far enough good

point if you would like the script to

this video and you wouldd also like to

help support the channel then please

check out the philosophy Vibe ethics

ebook available on Amazon this is a

compilation of the scripts from a number

of our ethics videos it's a great read

for those interested in ethics and it's

a great study guide for those studying

ethics at college or university all

sales really help out this Channel and

we really appreciate it the links are

below but that's all the time we have

for now thank you for watching we hope

you enjoyed the vibe and what does

everyone else think is the doctrine of

double effect a good Doctrine for

approaching moral dilemmas let us know

in the comments below don't forget to

like and share and for more

philosophical debates and discussions

please subscribe to the channel take

care and we look forward to seeing you

all soon bye-bye