Doctrine Of Double Effect Analysis

678 Words3 Pages
The Doctrine of Double Effect often refers to actions that have two relevant effects, in which they include: people whom we bring about, and those that we see but do not have a set goal for. This refers to the following, “Provided that your goal is worthwhile, you are sometimes permitted to act in ways that foreseeably cause certain types of harm, though you must never intend to cause such harms” (Landau, 2015, p. 224). Consequently, many people are lured by absolutism, since it is the one and only way to overcome consequentialism. To bring good in, absolutists need to portray their side and grant people the vision of previous arguable cases, without counting on hidden ‘consequentialist assumptions’. According to Alison Mclntyre, “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” (Mclntyre, 2014, p. 1). Specifically, there is not a right or wrong factor to intentionally cause harm to others; in a way, harmful punishments are sometimes reasonable. The doctrine simply says that certain ‘harms’ will never be considered, though said harms may be allowed as side punishments of certain actions; ‘collateral damage’.…show more content…

More about Doctrine Of Double Effect Analysis

Open Document