Thomas Scanlon On The Doctrine Of Double Effect

The Doctrine of Double Effect is the process in which someone must sacrifice some bad to achieve more good. According to Alison McIntyre of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2014) defines the concept as “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 positive end”. This is often referred to in the military as “collateral damage”. While your goal is to not have any unintended casualties, if the threat is so great that you must take the chance and harm civilians, you take it. Thomas Scanlon’s view on the Doctrine of Double Effect is that it is never justified to take a life, regardless of the value added that may come of it (Lippert-Rasmussen & Kasper, 2010). Scanlon’s view is that the concept is black and white. There is no area in between to justify even the possibility of a means to an end type of thought.

The doctor has the medication to cure the disease except that the patient is an organ donor match for five other patients. The doctor chooses to let the patient die in order to use the organs of that patient to potentially cure the other five. This is an example of the Doctrine of Double Effect due to the doctor making a decision to allow the first patient to die in order to potentially save the other five. In the doctor’s mind, potentially saving five people is more necessary than surely saving the one patient. It is somewhat similar to playing a game where odds come into