Can the Doctrine of Double effect be used to justify an immoral action Flashcards
INTRO - define
if doing something morally good has a morally bad side-effect it’s ethically OK to do it providing the bad side-effect wasn’t intended
INTRO - define both sides of the debate
Absolutist deontological approach, which follows Gods law / Relativist would disagree and argue that morality needs to be relativised to each circumstance
Section one: AO1
APPLIED
Euthanasia – the case of Tony Bland (Vegetive state)
NML: Upholds Sanctity of Life and primary precept of Preservation of Life
Section one: AO2 FOR
APPLIED
Hippocratic Oath that Doctors take
-Helpful as does not place the decision making on the Doctors if there is one absolute that all should follow. Strict guidelines does not g against Gods law for humans and their (telos)
The doctrine of Double effect: though administering a drug may shorten their life it is acceptable provided the intention is to relieve pain and the shortening of life is an unintended secondary effect
-Helpful as offers clear absolute rules still in ligh with Gods laws whilst also allowing some flexibility so people are not left to suffer
Section one: AO2 AGAINST
APPLIED
Pointless to help someone who can’t overcome disease upholding preservation of life if someone is suffering seems immoral and pointless
Ambiguous
Can never no someone’s true intentions and whether there actions were moral, which makes moral decision making or judgement difficult
Section one: AO2 CONCLUSION
APPLIED
When applied to Euthanasia NML although offers clear guidelines is unhelpful as a persons true intentions can never be known, thus it is unhelpful for moral decision making. However, perhaps this highlights a flaw in the system as a deontological morality is only really concerned with the actions as they can be observed.
Section two : AO1
REASON
Human reason – shouldn’t we discern ourselves what is morally correct within situations rather than needing to invoke a doctrine?
4 Tiers of Law: Eternal, Divine, Natural, Human
Section two : AO2 FOR
REASON
Barth/ Nieblur humans “fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23) and born into sin. Always tempted to do evil “For I do not know why I do bad when I do good” so won’t be able to discern the good and Gods eternal law
-Propensity to reason fails
Section two : AO2 AGAINST
REASON
Romans “The Law is written on our hearts”
=We hold ourselves accountable for our actions and feel guilt as we know that this contradicts Gods eternal law
Suggests that we can use reason to discern God’s alw and do not need to invoke the Doctrine
Human moral growth and purpose
Physicians need to look beyond the doctrine to consider their own values and intentions to provide the more honest and ethical care possible to their patients. Distinguish between real and apparent goods
Section three: AO1
WARFARE
Allows flexibility in the NML approach
Section three: AO2 FOR
WARFARE
Can evaluate the intent of an action and use reason as to whether the cause is consistent with Gods design. may decide that killing innocent people goes against God’s design for us, so it is always wrong to kill innocent people, or that in time of war or for reasons of self-defence, killing is justified
Most legal systems regard the intention of a person as a vital element in deciding whether they have committed a crime, and how serious a crime, especially in cases of causing death.
Section three: AO2 AGAINST
WARFARE
Some actions are inherently right/wrong and intention is irrelevant
How do you measure intent – impossible to know what someone intended and impossible to judge
Section three: AO2 CONCLUSION
WARFARE
Although Doctrine of Double effect allows some flexibility in the NML approach whilst still being intrinsically aligned with God’s eternal law its impossible to judge a persons intent of an action unless you were the person carrying out the action. Could base judgement on external factors but this debases the emphasis on the action itself.
