The Doctrine of Double Effect: Interpretations, Application & Criticisms

An error occurred trying to load this video.

Try refreshing the page, or contact customer support.

Coming up next: Western Theories of Ethics

You're on a roll. Keep up the good work!

Take Quiz Watch Next Lesson
 Replay
Your next lesson will play in 10 seconds
  • 0:01 Doctrine of Double Effect
  • 1:02 Formulation and Interpretation
  • 2:32 Applications of Double Effect
  • 3:42 Criticisms of Double Effect
  • 4:33 Lesson Summary
Save Save Save

Want to watch this again later?

Log in or sign up to add this lesson to a Custom Course.

Log in or Sign up

Timeline
Autoplay
Autoplay
Speed Speed
Lesson Transcript
Instructor: Christopher Muscato

Chris has a master's degree in history and teaches at the University of Northern Colorado.

Actions have consequences, this we know. But how do we separate permissible and impermissible consequences? Explore the doctrine of double standard, and test your understanding with a brief quiz.

The Doctrine of Double Effect

Our actions have consequences. We've all been pretty aware of this basic fact since the first time we were grounded. And the first time we failed a test after not studying for it. And dozens of other times throughout our lives, really. Actually, we're constantly learning this lesson.

But, sometimes actions have consequences that we weren't expecting. Where do these fit into our moral compass? When you do something, knowing that the consequence won't be great, you take on the responsibility for that action. Is the same true of unintended consequences? Well, according to the doctrine of double effect, it can be permissible to cause harm if the harm is a side effect of an action whose main intent was meant to bring about good. This side effect is also called a 'double effect.' Great. Actions have consequences, but as it turns out, we may only be responsible for the main ones.

Formulation and Interpretation

The doctrine of double effect is usually credited to the 13th-century Catholic priest Thomas Aquinas, who claimed that it was permissible to kill someone in your own self-defense, but only if you did not mean to kill that person. And that's been the basic idea ever since. You meant to do something positive, like defend yourself, but that action created an unexpected negative side effect.

Since the main intention was good, the side effect is excusable. But, according to Aquinas, this is only true as long as the total outcome is positive. In Aquinas' example, a negative total outcome could mean using more force than is necessary to defend yourself. The negative side effect is no longer excusable since a positive result could have occurred without it.

In the modern moral world, the doctrine of double effect is still used by the Catholic Church, provided that an action meets four very specific criteria:

  1. The action must be morally good.
  2. You must not desire the negative consequence, and if you can produce a good result without any negative consequence, then you should.
  3. The good effect must be as immediate as the negative effect.
  4. The good effect has to be good enough to make up for the negative effect.

If all four of these criteria are met, then the negative outcome was permissible, and you're not morally responsible for it.

Applications

Okay, let's look at a few applications here. How about warfare - that's a common area where this is applied. If an army tries to kill civilians in order to weaken the rebel army, that's not okay. The army in this case meant to kill civilians. However, if the army decides to tactically destroy a military target, even with the knowledge that civilian causalities could occur, the main intention is destroying a building. So if people are killed, that's permissible, because it was never the intended consequence.

How about another example, maybe more from daily life? What if you saw someone robbing a store? Yes, you could smash the window and cause lots of property damage trying to stop the thief, but in that case, the negative outcomes would be intentional. Now, if you tried to stop the thief by simply making him aware of your presence, and he smashes a window to escape, that consequence was unintended, so it's permissible.

To unlock this lesson you must be a Study.com Member.
Create your account

Register to view this lesson

Are you a student or a teacher?

Unlock Your Education

See for yourself why 30 million people use Study.com

Become a Study.com member and start learning now.
Become a Member  Back
What teachers are saying about Study.com
Try it risk-free for 30 days

Earning College Credit

Did you know… We have over 200 college courses that prepare you to earn credit by exam that is accepted by over 1,500 colleges and universities. You can test out of the first two years of college and save thousands off your degree. Anyone can earn credit-by-exam regardless of age or education level.

To learn more, visit our Earning Credit Page

Transferring credit to the school of your choice

Not sure what college you want to attend yet? Study.com has thousands of articles about every imaginable degree, area of study and career path that can help you find the school that's right for you.

Create an account to start this course today
Try it risk-free for 30 days!
Create an account
Support