The principle of double effect is an ethical framework that provides guidance for moral decision-making in difficult situations. It applies to situations where a single action will have both a good effect and a bad effect. The principle states that sometimes it is morally permissible to cause harm as a side effect of bringing about a good result, even though we must never intentionally cause harm as a means to a good end.
This principle originated in Roman Catholic moral theology, but it is now used more broadly in ethical reasoning. It provides a framework to evaluate actions that have both positive and negative consequences. The principle has four key criteria that must be met for an action with double effect to be morally justified:
- The nature of the act itself must be morally good or at least indifferent. The action cannot be intrinsically wrong.
- The agent must only intend the good effect and not the bad effect. The bad effect can be foreseen but not intended.
- The good effect must not be brought about by means of the bad effect. The good end does not justify an immoral means.
- There must be a proportionate reason for permitting the bad effect. The good achieved must outweigh the bad that is allowed.
A classic example used to illustrate double effect is a doctor administering morphine to a terminally ill patient. The doctor administers the morphine with the intent to relieve the patient’s pain and suffering. The bad effect – that the morphine could potentially hasten the patient’s death – is foreseen but not directly willed by the doctor. Providing relief from pain is a morally good action, and the doctor only intends that good effect. The doctor does not aim at death either as an end or a means. Lastly, the reason to relieve the patient’s pain and suffering is sufficiently grave to justify the risk of potentially shortening their life. So administering the morphine would meet the four criteria and be morally permissible under double effect.
Another common example is in wartime, when carrying out a legitimate military operation like bombing a weapons facility. Civilian casualties are foreseen but not intended. The intent is to destroy the military target, so the act of bombing meets the first two criteria. The civilian deaths are also not a means to achieve this military end. Lastly, there must be a sufficiently weighty reason that allows risking civilian lives, such as crippling the enemy’s ability to attack. So double effect could potentially justify military action with foreseen but unintended civilian casualties.
The principle of double effect requires making nuanced distinctions between what is intended versus foreseen, especially when both good and evil are caused by the same action. Four key questions help analyze a decision:
- Is the act itself morally good or neutral, independent of consequences?
- What effect is actually intended by the agent – the good or the bad?
- Is the evil effect being used as a means to achieve the good effect?
- Do the agent’s reasons for causing the foreseen evil outweigh allowing that evil?
If the answers to these questions satisfy the four criteria of double effect, then the action in question would be permissible. This framework aims to evaluate complex real-life situations where ideal solutions avoiding all harm are impossible. It provides guidance for choosing the lesser evil when only bad options are available.
Double effect also has its critics. Some argue it can be used to rationalize intentionally causing harm, if one pretends not to intend the negative side effects that clearly follow from an action. The framework requires honesty and transparency from the agent about their intent. Double effect should not be misused to disguise deliberately evil actions through mental reservations and euphemisms. The agent’s actual intent is crucial.
Others argue that foreseen consequences should bear equal moral weight, regardless of intent. In their view, people are equally responsible for consequences they foresee as those they intend. But double effect differentiates between direct intent and indirect side effects. This reflects common intuitions about moral culpability. The terror bomber intending civilian deaths is judged more harshly than the tactical bomber who foresees collateral damage to civilians while targeting a military asset.
While initially formulated in a Catholic context, many secular ethicists and moral philosophers incorporate double effect into their reasoning. It offers useful guidance in applied ethics for medicine, law, business, and other fields prone to tragic choices. The principle upholds moral absolutes that certain actions are intrinsically evil, while also accounting for nuance and complexity of real-world judgment calls. Rigorously practiced, double effect can effectively navigate ethical dilemmas.
The principle of double effect has foundations in several biblical sources which recognize the complexity of moral choices.
In Exodus 21, the Law makes a distinction between someone who kills unintentionally versus intentionally. The one who kills unintentionally may flee to a city of refuge, while intentional murder bears the death penalty. This implies diminished culpability when a death, though foreseen, is not directly intended (Exodus 21:12-14).
The apostle Paul recognizes that sometimes good can come even out of ill will. “What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed, and in that I rejoice” (Philippians 1:18). Though the gospel was shared insincerely, the good end of the gospel proclamation occurred through the ill intent. Paul focused on the desirable outcome while acknowledging the flawed means.
Jesus stated that “the poor you will always have with you” (Matthew 26:11), while commending those who aid the poor. This recognizes that in this fallen world, poverty cannot be entirely eliminated despite society’s best efforts. But Jesus compels us to do good where we can, though suffering will persist. The perfect must not be the enemy of the good.
When critics accused Jesus and His disciples of breaking the Sabbath laws, Jesus responded that human need at times overrides strict adherence to the law. “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is lord even of the Sabbath” (Mark 2:27-28). Choosing to meet essential human needs could justify overriding secondary strictures. This suggests a hierarchy of priorities, where higher goods can at times supersede lesser laws.
During His arrest, when Peter cut off the ear of the high priest’s servant, Jesus rebuked the act, saying “all who take the sword will perish by the sword” (Matthew 26:52). Jesus healed the servant’s ear, stopping further violence. Though Peter sought to defend his Lord, Jesus knew this armed resistance would precipitate greater bloodshed. The foreseeable consequences severely outweighed Peter’s intent, making the act unjustified.
In Romans 3:8, Paul condemns those who argue “Let us do evil that good may come.” This clearly violates the principle of double effect, by using evil means to achieve a good end. Christians must never deliberately do evil or violate moral absolutes, even in the hoped pursuit of an eventual greater good as a result.
These and numerous other biblical passages recognize moral complexity in a fallen world. Sometimes human actions have mixed motives and mixed results. While always avoiding deliberate evil and prohibited acts, Christians may sometimes choose the lesser of two imperfect options. The principle of double effect offers wisdom for navigating those tragic situations.
The principle of double effect originated in Roman Catholic moral theology, but it now has broad applicability for ethics. This framework evaluates acts with both good and bad consequences, when those effects flow from a single action. The key is whether the evil result is directly intended as an end or means, versus merely tolerated as a foreseen side effect. With due caution against rationalization and misuse, double effect can guide decision-making when ideal solutions are unfeasible. By upholding moral absolutes while accounting for nuance, the principle forms a middle path between rigid legalism and situational relativism. Christians facing difficult dilemmas can apply this reasoning, provided it is used with honesty, wisdom, and full awareness of our fallen human condition.