dual effect principle - also known as double effect rule ; double effect doctrine , often abbreviated as DDE or PDE , dual effect reasoning ; or just a double effect - is a set of ethical criteria that the Christian philosopher, and some others, have advocated for evaluating the permissiveness of acting when a person's legitimate action (eg, relieving the pain of a terminally ill patient) can also cause effects that should be avoided (sedation and a slightly shorter life). The first known example of double-effect reasoning is the treatment of Thomas Aquinas about self-defense, in his work of Summa Theologica .
This set of criteria states that an action that has a harmful forecast effect that is practically inseparable from a good effect can be justified if the following things are true:
- the nature of the act itself is good, or at least morally neutral;
- agents intend good effects and do not mean bad effects either as a means to good or as an end in itself;
- Good effects outweigh the adverse effects of being insufficient grave to justify the cause of adverse effects and the agent performs due diligence to minimize harm.
Video Principle of double effect
Accidental damage versus side effects
The principle of multiple effects is based on the idea that there is a relevant moral difference between the "intended" consequences of an action and something that the actor predicts but is not counted to achieve its motives. Thus, for example, this principle is used to consider terrorist bombings against non-combatants who have as their goal victory in morally legitimate wars out of bounds while holding ethically within the limits of strategic bombing actions that are also harmful to non-combatants with foresight as a side effect of destroying legitimate military targets. Since dual effect advocates propose that consistently similar actions may differ morally, the dual effects are most often criticized by the consequentialists who consider the consequences of action to be entirely determinative of the morality of action.
In its use of the distinction between intent and foresight without purpose, dual effect advocates make three arguments. First, the intent is different from foresight, even in cases where one predicts the effect as unavoidable. Secondly, one can apply differences to specific set of cases found in military ethics (strategic bombing/bombing), medical ethics (craniotomy/hysterectomy), and social ethics (euthanasia). Third, that the distinction has moral relevance, importance, or significance.
This doctrine consists of four conditions that must be met before an act is allowed morally:
- Condition nature-of-acting. The action must be either morally or unimportant.
- The final average condition. Adverse effects should not be the means by which a person achieves a good effect.
- Conditions of right intention. The intention must only achieve a good effect, with adverse effects only in the form of unwanted side effects.
- Proportionality condition . Bad effects should not be disproportionate to good effects.
The second of these four conditions is the application of a more general principle that a good purpose does not justify evil ways.
Maps Principle of double effect
Example
Medicine
The principle of multiple effects is often quoted in cases of pregnancy and abortion. A doctor who believes that abortion is always morally wrong can still lift the uterus or fallopian tubes of a pregnant woman, knowing the procedure will lead to the death of an embryo or fetus, in cases where the woman will surely die without a procedure (examples cited include aggressive uterine cancer and ectopic pregnancy ). In this case, the intended effect is to save a woman's life, not to end the pregnancy, and the effect of not performing the procedure would result in a greater crime of maternal and fetal death.
In the case of a severely ill patient who will accelerate their deaths due to unbearable pain, or the caregiver will do it for them (euthanasia, medical assistance in a state of dying, etc.), the principle of "double effect of death" can be applied to justify the administration deliberate pain killers in potentially unsafe doses - not in an attempt to end life but the pain suffered is considered harmful to the patient. The US Supreme Court has voiced support for this principle in its consideration of the constitutionality of medical aid in death.
Criticism
Consequential, in particular, rejects the idea that two actions may differ in their moral permissibility if both have the exact same consequences, or expected consequences. John Stuart Mill, a nineteenth-century advocate of the utilitarian version of consequentialism, argues that it is a mistake to confuse the standard for right action with the consideration of our motives for doing the right thing: "He who saved fellow beings from drowning, doing what is morally whether he is the motive of a duty, or the hope of being paid for his problem, he who betrays a friend who believes him, is guilty of a crime, even if his purpose is to serve another friend to whom he is under greater obligation. "According to Mill, motif observations will show that almost all good behavior comes from questionable intentions. Therefore, Mill argues, our moral analysis must ignore the problem of motivation, so we must reject the DDE, which draws the distinction between the intended and undesirable consequences. Mill further claimed that motive surveillance would reveal the character of a man, but utilitarianism does not judge character, merely the truth or error of action.
See also
- Trojan issues - moral dilemmas exploring the principle of double effect
- Compete with danger and need - similar theory in civil law
- Smaller than two criminal principles
References
External links
- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry
- PhilPapers Bibliography: 'Doctrine of Double Effect'
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments