winstonjen

Essentially, the Doctrine of Double Effect states that if an action has a good outcome and a bad outcome, it is acceptable to commit that action so long as the bad outcome was not intended, even if it was foreseen. There also must be a reason of necessity and the 'good outweighing the bad' outcome in some descriptions of this. This is used to justify killing in self defence (especially against the 'don't kill' commandment), and lethal doses of morphine to relieve pain in the terminally ill, among other things.

However, I believe this to be seriously flawed, as it would allow (at least in some cases) the use of a rocket launcher for self-defense even if it meant killing innocent bystanders next to the mugger. It would also justify the use of a nuclear weapon to kill an evil dictator.

What is everyone's thoughts on this?

Loren Pechtel

1) The harm caused must be less than the harm avoided. (We consider the mugger's right to life forfeit)

2) It must be the least secondary harm that can reasonably be inflicted in the situation.

There are times it means that shooting the nuke at the dictator is the right thing to do. However, it must be impossible to get they guy with a conventional strike and he must be doing something that will do more harm than the nuke would.

viscousmemories

I don't see how this is really even possible. I mean, if you can forsee the result of an action having a particular side-effect, and you take that action, how can you deny intending the side-effect?

Say a person believes they can relieve some stress by kicking someone else in the ass. He/she can forsee the other person being hurt by this action, but they don't intend for that to happen; they just want to relieve some stress. Is it acceptable, then, for him/her to kick the other person in the ass?

vm

winstonjen

I know. It makes NO sense. If it's forseen, how can it not also be intended?

Alonzo Fyfe

"Intending" in this sense means something akin to "aiming for" or "seeking". It has to, in some sense, be wanted.

So, when I go to the dentist, I know that I will feel some pain. I do not go to the dentist IN ORDER TO feel pain. I do not seek pain when I go to the dentist. Thus, being in pain is not a part of my intention. My intention is to have a damaged tooth repaired. The pain is an unintended but unavoidable side effect of that.

[Note: Not that I think that the Doctrine of Double Effect has any merit. If you know that X will result from A, then you are responsible for X. The person who neglects to have the breaks on his truck checked does not INTEND to run somebody over. But, if it happens, he is responsible, simply due to the fact that he knew it was a possibility.]

winstonjen

I know. It's nothing more than an evasion of responsibility.

pmurray

I read a wonderful quote on exactly this topic. Hang on: I'll see if I can find it ...

Ahh. here it is:

http://www.infidels.org/library/hist...of_belief.html

kkholiday

I only had one semester of watered-down Philosophy for Engineers, but isn't the cliche example of double effect the car manufacturer?

Companies that manufacture cars have to know that statitically, some of the cars they produce are going to end up killing someone. That is not the intended effect, and most probably wont lead to someone's death, so it is still morally acceptable to produce cars.

That is a pretty sloppy synopsis and I couldn't stand that class/professor, so I may have botched the example a bit. Hell, it may even be an example of some other principle, but it seems like it fits here. [/disclaimer]

viscousmemories

I don't think that example works because producing cars doesn't directly cause accidents, whereas dropping a bomb with a certain range of detonation on a target surrounded by civilians directly causes the deaths of the civilians in that range. I think by saying the negative impact can be foreseen, they are specifying that it will happen, not that it could happen. Or maybe I don't understand the logic.

vm

Calzaer

But we all know that fatailities will result from building cars. Not "could", but will.