Double Effect Reasoning -- Aquinas

To say that “sometimes it is permissible to cause a harm as an unintended and merely foreseen side effect“ implies

it may be sometimes impermissible

The proportion that Aquinas says is morally required in cases of self-defense is between

the force needed and the end sought

The first condition of the traditional formulation of the principle of double effect prohibits bringing about bad side effects that result from:

bank robbing: since it is an inherently evil act

What is the most descriptive and relevant definition of Double Effect Reasoning?

unintended consequences

• “I didn’t mean for that to happen“ or “I did it by accident“

Unintended consequences can also be called…

side effects, collateral damage, externalities, mens rea (in law, what’s behind the criminal’s mind)

Where is Double Effect Reasoning usually found/supported?

• agent-centered and committed to exceptionless moral norms

• Home in Catholic Moral Theology — Thomas Aquinas

What does Double Effect answer?

Answers what our moral responsibility is for bads that we bring about unintentionally and what would be wrong to bring about intentionally

Why does Double Effect focus on the bad side effects rather than the good?

responsibility for bad side effects from good actions is more interesting than bad side effects from bad actions (self-explanatory) or good side effects from bad actions (the act was still bad, so the goods produced don’t really matter)

What are the bad side effects judged to determine

The bad side effects are judged to determine whether an act is permissible or impermissible

Mangnan’s conditions of Double Effect

1. that the action itself from its very object be good or at least indifferent

2. that the good effect and not the evil effect be intended

3. that the good effect be not produced by means of the evil effect

4. that there be a proportionately grave reason for permitting the evil effect

What is wrong with 3 and 4?

3 gets into causal structure, which doesn’t really matter

4 nods to utilitarianism, which never actually works

What are the 3 parts of the Principle of Double Effect from a natural law theory perspective?

1. The action, apart from double effect consideration, is otherwise good

2. The bads that are brought about are genuinely unintended, though they might be foreseen with certitude

3. No other moral considerations or principles forbid (make unreasonable) bringing about the bads

What are the “Other Moral Considerations“ that the 3rd part includes?

• avoidability

• creativity

• fairness in distribution

• fidelity or faithfulness

• detachment

• urgency

• trivial goods

Other applications of Double Effect Reasoning

• amputation vs. mutilation

• strip mining vs. environmental terrorism

• bullying vs. name-calling to build character

• inciting a riot vs. using inflammatory rhetoric

What are some classic cases of using the principle of double effect?

self-defense and craniotomy

bad side effects…

stll shape one’s moral self