Intentional Harm Versus Side Effects
Although different writers state and employ double effect differently, they share the position that consequentially similar acts having different intentional structures make for ethically different acts. So, for example, advocates of double effect typically consider the intentional terror bombing of non-combatants having as its goal victory in a legitimate war morally out of bounds, while holding as ethically in bounds an act of strategic bombing that similarly harms non-combatants with foresight but without intent as a side effect of destroying a legitimate military target. Because advocates of double effect propose that consequentially similar acts can be morally different, double effect is most often criticized by consequentialists who consider the consequences of actions entirely determinative of the action's morality.
In their use of the distinction between intent and foresight without intent, advocates of double effect make three arguments. First, that intent differs from foresight, even in cases in which one foresees an effect as inevitable. Second, that one can apply the distinction to specific sets of cases found in military ethics (terror bombing/strategic bombing), medical ethics (craniotomy/hysterectomy), and social ethics (euthanasia). Third, that the distinction has moral relevance, importance, or significance.
The doctrine consists of four conditions that must be satisfied before an act is morally permissible:
- The nature-of-the-act condition. The action must be either morally good or indifferent.
- The means-end condition. The bad effect must not be the means by which one achieves the good effect.
- The right-intention condition. The intention must be the achieving of only the good effect, with the bad effect being only an unintended side effect.
- The proportionality condition. The good effect must be at least equivalent in importance to the bad effect.
The second of these four conditions is an application of the more general principle that good ends do not justify evil means (cf. Romans 3:8).
Read more about this topic: Principle Of Double Effect
Famous quotes containing the words intentional, harm, side and/or effects:
“... thoughts are a “source of intentionality”Mi.e., nothing would be intentional were it not for the fact that thoughts are intentional.”
—Roderick M. Chisholm (b. 1916)
“It is not stressful circumstances, as such, that do harm to children. Rather, it is the quality of their interpersonal relationships and their transactions with the wider social and material environment that lead to behavioral, emotional, and physical health problems. If stress matters, it is in terms of how it influences the relationships that are important to the child.”
—Felton Earls (20th century)
“What every artist should try to prevent is the car, in which is our civilized life, plunging over the side of the precipice—the exhibitionist extremist promoter driving the whole bag of tricks into a nihilistic nothingness or zero.”
—Wyndham Lewis (1882–1957)
“Trade and commerce, if they were not made of India-rubber, would never manage to bounce over the obstacles which legislators are continually putting in their way; and, if one were to judge these men wholly by the effects of their actions and not partly by their intentions, they would deserve to be classed and punished with those mischievous persons who put obstructions on the railroads.”
—Henry David Thoreau (1817–1862)