Content area
Full Text
The Principle of Double Effect has been with us since the Middle Ages and has sanctified actions that might otherwise be viewed as morally wrong. What I wish to show in this brief perspective is that an overlooked element in the discussions of this principle raises a serious question about its applicability.
The principle is invoked in those circumstances in which an individual's action has two consequences: one that the agent can foresee and is purportedly good, the other that he can also foresee and is purportedly bad. For Thomas Aquinas, it permitted an individual to defend himself against physical attack, even if such an action resulted in the death of the assailant. For today's physician, it permits him to provide pain-killing morphine, even if he can foresee that the accumulated dosages may be sufficient to kill the patient. The question is, does this principle, in fact, resolve such dilemmas?
The four conditions of the Principle of Double Effect are
1)
The action in itself must be good or morally neutral
2)
The good effect and not the bad effect...