The Doctrine of Double Effect - Explained & Debated
Summary
TLDRIn 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
🔍 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.
💡 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.
📚 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.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Doctrine of Double Effect
💡Ethical Dilemma
💡St. Thomas Aquinas
💡Moral Justification
💡Moral Neutrality
💡Intentionality
💡Proportionality
💡Utilitarianism
💡Consequentialism
💡Moral Intuitions
💡Meta-Ethics
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
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)