The Doctrine of Double Effect: An Aid in Decision-Making

Pavol Dancák

doi:10.21697/seb.2020.18.3.03

Published: 2020-09-30

Vol. 18 No. 3 (2020)

The Doctrine of Double Effect: An Aid in Decision-Making

Pavol Dancák

Studia Ecologiae et Bioethicae

Section: Articles

https://doi.org/10.21697/seb.2020.18.3.03

Abstract

Human society of the modern world, which is greatly affected by technological and economic advancements, has to address moral problems with a new urgency. In many instances, the decision does not bring only positive effects. Such cases can be found in applied ethics: bio-medical ethics, business ethics, and legal ethics, but also in other areas of human activity, too, most recently, in debates, concerning the use of autonomous vehicles or autonomous machines in general. This paper aims to describe and explain the principle of ‘double effect’, when solving complicated and, from the perspective of morality, profoundly dilemmatic situations. The principle of double effect was gradually developed as a means of seeking the right moral decisions. It has a firm and respected position within Catholic medical ethics, but also in secular legislation. The paper presents current thought experiments, which clarify moral decision-making in dilemmatic situations. What seems to be a shortcoming here, is that ethical thought experiments are far too abstract. On the one hand, they refine our knowledge, but on the other hand, they are very partial. The evolution of medical imaging methods, has enabled us to take a closer look at the relationship between the deontological and utilitarian approaches to making moral judgments, but it does not relieve us of our responsibility for the decisions that we have made. The positive side of the principle of double effect, is that it protects us from the slippery slope of utilitarian consequentialism, where the admission of a lesser evil, is only a step away from committing evil in the name of the greater good.

Keywords:

moral dilemmas, medical ethics, principle of double effect, utilitarian consequentialism

Download files

PDF

Citation rules

Dancák, P. (2020). The Doctrine of Double Effect: An Aid in Decision-Making. Studia Ecologiae Et Bioethicae, 18(3), 19–28. https://doi.org/10.21697/seb.2020.18.3.03

Cited by / Share

Licence

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

References

Aristotle. 2009. The Nicomachean Ethics. New York: Oxford University Press.
Google Scholar

Aquinas, Thomas. 2006. Summa theologiae. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Google Scholar

Allsopp, Michael E. 2011. “The Doctrine of Double Effect in U.S. Law. Exploring Neil Gorsuch’s Analyses.” National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 11: 31-40. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5840/ncbq201111169
Google Scholar

Augustinus, Aurelius. 1955. De Libero Arbitrio. London: Newman Press.
Google Scholar

Bentham, Jeremy. 1823. Introduction to Principles of Morals and Legislation. http://www.econlib.org/library/Bentham/bnthPMLCover.html.
Google Scholar

Billings, Andrew J. 2011. “Double Effect: A Useful Rule that Alone Cannot Justify Hastening Death.” Journal of Medical Ethics 37: 437-440. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.2010.041160
Google Scholar

Buzar, Stipe. 2020. “The Principle of Double Effect and Just War Theory.” Philosophia 48: 1299-1312. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11406-020-00209-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11406-020-00209-2
Google Scholar

Chyrowicz, Barbara. 1997. Zamiar i skutki. Filozoficzna analiza zasady podwójnego skutku. Lublin: Towarzystwo Naukowe Katolickiego Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego.
Google Scholar

Chyrowicz, Barbara. 2003. “Tramwaj i ustawa. O sytuacjach «bez wyjścia» w etyce.” Ethos 1-2: 256-273.
Google Scholar

Černý, David. 2015. Princip dvojího účinku. Praha: Univerzita Karlova v Praze.
Google Scholar

Evans, Jonathan. 2008. „Dual-Processing Accounts of Reasoning, Judgment, and Social Cognition.” Annual Review of Psychology 59(1): 255-278. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093629
Google Scholar

Faggoni, Maurizio. 2007. Život v našich rukách. Spišská Kapitula: Nadácia Kňazského seminára biskupa Jána Vojtaššáka.
Google Scholar

Finnis, John. 1991. Moral Absolutes. Tradition, Revision, and Truth. Washington, D. C.: The Catholic University of America Press.
Google Scholar

Finnis, John. 2011. Natural Law and Natural Rights. Oxford: Clarendon. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199580057.003.0014
Google Scholar

Foot, Philipa. 2002: “The Problem of Abortion and the Doctrine of the Double Effect.” In Virtues and Vices and Other Essays in Moral Philosophy, edited by Philippa Foot, 19-32. Oxford: Clarendon. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/0199252866.003.0002
Google Scholar

Greene, Joshua, R. Brian Sommerville, Leigh E. Nystrom, John M. Darley, Jonathan D. Cohen. 2001. “An fMRI Investigation of Emotional Engagement in Moral Judgment.” Science 293: 2105-2108. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1062872. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1062872
Google Scholar

Greene, Joshua. 2009. „Dual-process Morality and the Personal/Impersonal Distinction: A Reply to McGuire, Langdon, Coltheart, and Mackenzie.“ Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 45(3): 581-584. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2009.01.003
Google Scholar

Greene, Joshua, and Jonathan D. Haidt. 2002. “How (and Where) Does Moral Judgment Work?” Trends in Cognitive Science 6(12): 517-523. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(02)02011-9
Google Scholar

Greene, Joshua. 2016. “Solving the Trolley Problem.“ In A Companion to Experimental Philosophy, edited by Justin Sytsma and Wesley Buckwalter, 173-189. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118661666.ch11
Google Scholar

Hare, Richard. 1997. “Utilitarizmus.” In Súčasná politická filosofie, edited by János Kis, 123-142. Praha: Oikoymenh.
Google Scholar

Kahneman, Daniel. 2011. Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Google Scholar

Koniar, Ivan. 2009. “Zdôvodnenie vojny v prácach sv. Augustína.” Studia theologica 11, no. 4(38): 15-36.
Google Scholar

Mangan, Joseph. 1949. “An Historical Analysis of the Principle of Double Effect.” Theological Studies 10: 41-61. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/004056394901000102
Google Scholar

McInerny, Ralph. 1992. Aquinas on Human Action. A Theory of Practice. Washington, D. C.: The Catholic University of America Press.
Google Scholar

McInerny, Ralph. 1997. Ethica Thomistica: The Moral Philosophy of Thomas Aquinas. Washington, D. C.: The Catholic University of America Press.
Google Scholar

Timmos, Mark. 2013. Moral Theory. An Introduction. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Google Scholar

Osborne, Thomas M. Jr. 2014. Human Action in Thomas Aquinas, John Duns Scotus & William of Ockham. Washington, D. C.: The Catholic University of America Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt5vj8fm
Google Scholar

Oderberg, David. 2000. Moral Theory: A Non-Consequentialist Approach. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers.
Google Scholar

Plato. 2006. Štát. Bratislava: Kalligram.
Google Scholar

Rembierz, Marek. 2015. “Refleksja moralna nad odpowiedzialnością filozofa w XX wieku.” In Filozofia – Etyka – Ekologia, edited by Piotr Domeracki, Adam Grzeliński, and Ryszard Wiśniewski, 501-516. Toruń: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu Mikołaja Kopernika.
Google Scholar

Smith, Janet E. 1991. Humanae Vitae: A Generation Later. Washington D. C.: The Catholic University of America Press.
Google Scholar

Thomson, Judith J. 1985. “The Trolley Problem.” The Yale Law Journal 94: 1396-1397. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/796133
Google Scholar

Thomson, Judith J. 1976. “Killing, Letting Die, and the Trolley Problem.” The Monist 59: 204-217. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5840/monist197659224
Google Scholar

Valčo, Michal. 2015. “Rethinking the Role of Kierkegaard’s ‘authentic Individual’ in liberal capitalist Democracies Today.” European Journal of Science and Theology 11(5): 129-139.
Google Scholar

Volek, Peter. 2011. “Vplyv aristotelizmu pri vysvetľovaní konania u Tomáša Akvinského a Rajmunda Lulla.” Filozofia 1: 11-23.
Google Scholar

Wippel, John. 2000. The Metaphysical Thought of Thomas Aquinas. From Finite Being to Uncreated Being. Washington, D. C.: The Catholic University of America Press.
Google Scholar