Philosophy In Action All the ideas and discussions
5 votes Vote

Is the doctrine of double effect true?

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy says: "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 good end. It is claimed that sometimes it is permissible to cause such 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." How has this principled used in analyzing real-world ethics? Is it true? Why or why not?

c andrew , 12.01.2014, 08:39
Idea status: completed

Comments

Lionell Griffith, 23.01.2014, 07:56
It depends upon what is or is not included in the concept of "serious harm" and the specific details that brought about the particular harm in question.

In the apparent current social view of reality, harm is any thing that causes any degree of emotional distress in anyone for any reason. ANY such harm is viewed as serious and therefor prohibits your acting in anyway that someone somewhere doesn't like for any reason. Such harm resides wholly within the person claiming to be harmed and is caused by his self accepted values and standards. Further, it blanks out the actual harm caused to the persons who's legitimate freedom to speak and act is restricted or prohibited. Aka: Political Correctness.

This contrasts with the situation in which an action directly and by the use of initiated physical force causes actual physical harm to another's person and/or property. In this case the individual who is harmed has had HIS individual rights actually and willfully violated.

There are many shades of actual, accidental, coincidental, and imagined harm between these two extremes. Without a clear concept of individual rights consistently upheld, dealing with them in a just way is not possible. The situation becomes an unstable switching between no one can do anything to everyone can do anything and every shade in between. All guided by no principle other than the biggest and most vicious gang sets the rules of the moment. Subject to change by an even larger and more vicious gang. See our current social-political environment for instructive detail.

Leave a comment