Essay On Double Effect

The doctrine of the Double-effect states that if something is done for the moral good but also includes morally questionable side-effects, it is ethically acceptable to do so providing that these side-effects were not part of the actions original intentions. This includes the foresight of these negative side-effects potentially occurring. This doctrine originates with Thomas Aquinas, and his treatment of homicidal self-defense, the Summa Theologica. This work states that an action having foreseen harmful effects that are practically inseparable from it’s good effect is justifiable if the following are criteria are met:
The nature of the act is itself good, or at least morally neutral.
The agent intends the good effect and not the bad either as a means to the good or as an end itself. The good effect outweighs the bad effect in circumstances sufficiently grave to justify causing the bad effect and the agent exercises due diligence to minimize
A doctor who believes abortion is always morally wrong may still remove the uterus or fallopian tubes of a pregnant woman, knowing the procedure will cause the death of the embryo or fetus, in cases in which the woman is certain to die without the procedure. In these cases, the intended effect is to save the woman's life, not to terminate the pregnancy, and the effect of not performing the procedure would result in the greater evil of the death of both the mother and the fetus. In The Wrath of Khan (1982), After sacrificing himself to repair the ship and save it’s crew, Spock says “Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.” Captain Kirk answers, “Or the one.” This is a great example of the utilitarianism that follows when correctly adhering to the Double-effect’s conditions. It is an appropriate allegory of the belief among Christians that God sacrificed his son, Jesus