The Principle of

Double Effect
 Learning Goals and Objectives:
 To be able to understand that certain actions have
different consequences.

 Todistinguish the various conditions of the

principle of double effect.

 Tobe able to make decisions by understanding the

consequences of the actions.
 The Principle of Double Effect

One of the best known principles of ethics. It is most often

used in the analysis of the moral aspect of controversial
human acts, and commonly called upon to evaluate medico-
moral problems.

It is also known as the voluntary indirect principle.

 To understand the nature of this ethical principle
and the role it plays in the evaluation of moral actions,
it is important to consider the complexity of the
human act. First, a person always acts for purpose.

The mind and the will are involved in the

performance of a truly human act. In the analysis of
the structure of the human act, a distinction has to be
made between the purpose or intention of the agent
(finis operantis), and the purpose of the action(finis
operis)
 They may or may not be the same. It may also
happen that other than what the person intends to
achieve , there are other consequences that may come
from his/her action.

As experience shows, it is most often the case that

an action results in more consequences or effects than
what is originally intended or expected.
 At times, however, we are aware that those
consequences will ensue, even if we do not include
them in our deliberate planning; in this case, they are
called unintended but foreseen consequences.

There are times, however, when we never know

what particular effect will be caused by our action;
this is referred to as unintended and unforeseen
consequence.
 Whether foreseen or unforeseen, these
consequences are called indirectly voluntary. In this
sense, even if they are not willed that is, they do not
fall under the object and consideration of our will −
they are, nevertheless, the offshoot of a directly willed
action.
The Four Conditions of the Principle of Double Effect

To the question of whether such an action can be

morally justified or not, we often answer: “it
depends.” On what? Traditionally, moral philosophy
has always required the presence of four conditions
for a valid application of the principle of double
effect.

These conditions are as follows:

1. The action itself must be morally good or at least
indifferent. An action which is morally evil is always
wrong. A person must never intend to do something
which in itself is evil because it is a negative principle
of natural law.
Even if an individual intends to accomplish
something good, hi/she cannot morally justify the use
of evil means. Simply put, that a good end does not
justify evil means.
2. The good effect must precede the evil effect or at
least be simultaneous with it.
It should be noted that this second condition is
concerned primarily with the precedence of causality,
not with the time sequence of the good and the bad
effects.
The reason for this condition is that under no
reason is one justified to do evil in order to attain
good, for in acting that way one will be willing evil in
itself.
Thus an action whose primary effect is evil cannot
be morally justified, even if through that evil, a
secondary effect, which is good, follows.
 That will be the case, for example, for craniotomy,
where the head of the fetus is crushed by the
pregnancy is threatening the life of the mother. But it
will be an entirely different case if the immediate and
primary effect of the action is good, though the
secondary effect that follows is evil.
Such will be the case of hysterectomy, the removal
of the cancerous uterus of a pregnant woman in which
the condition mandates immediate operation, even if
the fetus is not yet viable.
 The good effect(attending to the condition of the
woman) is in no way caused by the evil effect (the
death of the fetus). Nevertheless, it should be noted
that in order to justify such an action, other conditions
will be required such as that of proportionality, which
is discussed in #4.
It is stressed, at this juncture, that the good effect
may not be produced by the evil effect. It may also be
the case that both effects are produced simultaneously
and independently of each other, in which situation the
action may be morally justified if other conditions are
present.
3. The intention of the agent should be directed
towards the good effect, never to the evil effect. The
intention of the agent (finis operantis) specifying the
morality of the action is mentioned when speaking of
the sources of the morality.
Both the mind and the will commit themselves
towards the intended purpose, the one thing that
prompts the performance of the action. If what is
intended is something evil, then the action is morally
specified as n evil action.
 Thus, an evil effect can never be intended, even
indirectly. The most that is morally allowed for such
an effect is regretfully permitted as an unavoidable
circumstance.
The example of hysterectomy, mentioned above,
illustrates this point. As much as the pregnant woman
likes to have a baby, regretfully, the operation will end
the life of the fetus. This again will be morally
justified in the fourth and last condition, which is
equally important, is present.
4. Proportionality: the good effect must be more
important than or at least equal to the bad effect. One
must remember that all moral actions are directed
towards certain moral goods or values, towards effects
or objects that are considered valuable to a person.

The individual is enriched with acquisition of that

good or value. There is, however, a certain hierarchy of
values. things are more valuable than others, and some
may even be considered as “dis-values,” especially
when a person is involved in a certain action or situation
where there is
 -Conflict of values. In the example given, both the
life of the mother and that of the fetus are two very
important values. If a person is forced to choose to
protect one of the values and discard the other, this
will be morally allowable if and when there is a
proportionality or balance between the values
involved .
It will be utterly immoral to sacrifice the life of a
person to protect the material comfort of another
person.
INTEGRATION:
Proverbs 22:3
‘A prudent man foresees evil and hides himself, but
the simple pass on and are punished.

Do you always think of the consequences of your

actions? are you always aware of what will be the result
of your decisions in life?

What do you think will happen if you are prudent enough

of all your deeds?
ASSESSMENT
1. Is the doctrine of double effect
irrelevant in end of life decision
making?
2. Give 2 examples or instances that
you can use the principle of double
effect.