-An article by Lavanya Goinka
Although the terms ‘ethics’ and’morality’ are sometimes used interchangeably by laypeople, they actually have different meanings. Morality is more concerned with a person’s unique and personal perspective on what is ‘good or bad.’ Ethics, on the other hand, is the yardstick or measure by which a group or society defines what is good or harmful. As a result, there is a chance that ethics and morality will clash if there is discrepancy.
A patriarchal culture, for example, may regard women as inferior and submissive to men. A woman venturing out of the house to work in an office rather than staying at home and caring for the children is considered unacceptable under patriarchal society’s ideals. An individual in the community, on the other hand, may hold the personal view that hindering women’s empowerment is against his morals.
As a result, we can see that morality has a more limited, personal reach. Ethics, on the other hand, is established by the entire community or civilization. Another example is that society as a whole views looting and murder as morally repugnant behaviours. A thief or murderer, on the other hand, may not regard the aforementioned acts to be against his or her principles.
Morality is frequently associated with religious ideas and theology. Ethics, on the other hand, has been used in secular professions such as law, medicine, and business. The code of conduct for these professions is determined by ethics, which establishes a baseline for what is deemed proper and ethical behaviour. The doctrine of double impact is a notion that is applicable to both morals and ethics, and it is most commonly utilised in medical instances where doctors must make difficult judgments between the patient’s comfort and his or her life.
Historical background of the doctrine of double effect:
In an act of self-defense, Sir Thomas Aquinas argued that murdering one’s adversary was justifiable. This is because, regardless of the intent of the person performing the action, each action can have multiple effects. Similarly, self-defense would have the intended goal of preserving one’s life while having the unintended impact of killing the aggressor. However, Aquinas stipulated that self-defense must not be excessive or inappropriate in order to be legal. It is not permissible to continue inflicting lethal injuries on the assailant if he has already been sufficiently subdued and cannot attack again.
As a result, important parts of the philosophy of twofold effect emerge: the action must not be excessive, and the action must not be improper in light of the situation’s context.
Later, as the doctrine’s interpretation grew, it came to be viewed as a morally beneficial action’s unintended consequence. The morally beneficial conduct, on the other hand, should not have been triggered by the morally evil side-effect. It is still illegal to conduct something immoral with the excuse that the outcome would be ethically beneficial. This idea, for example, could not be used to justify thieving from the wealthy and giving to the needy.
What is the double effect doctrine?
According to the idea of double impact, if a person’s behaviour or conduct is meant to attain a morally desirable purpose but has a morally terrible side-effect as a result, it is still appropriate to engage in that behaviour or conduct. Even if the person knew that his decision would have a morally negative consequence, the decision is nevertheless regarded ethically permissible.
Let’s look at a few simple instances to see how the idea of double effect is applied:-
The couples ‘B’ and ‘C’ are married. ‘A’ becomes aware that ‘B’ is having an affair with ‘D,’ but ‘C’ is completely unaware. ‘A’ informs ‘C’ about ‘B’s’ adultery in order to avoid ‘C’ from being duped further. ‘A’ has a good moral goal. However, as a result of his notifying ‘C’ about ‘B’s’ adultery, the marriage divorces, which is a morally undesirable outcome.
’X’ is behind the wheel of ‘Y’s’ vehicle. To avoid hitting ‘Z,’ who emerges out of nowhere on the road, ‘X’ swerves and collides with a tree on the pavement. The morally good purpose of saving ‘Z’s life has been fulfilled, but the morally terrible side effect is that ‘Y’s’ car is ruined.
The law and medicine are both heavily influenced by the idea of double effect. As an example:
If a doctor is forced to amputate a patient’s infected limb in order to save the patient’s life. A doctor may prescribe some medications to terminally sick patients in order to alleviate their agony and anguish. However, one of the medicine’s side effects is that the patient’s body is destroyed or that the patient’s life expectancy is shortened.
Law and medicine are both heavily influenced by the idea of double effect. As an illustration:
In order to save a patient’s life, a doctor may have to amputate an infected limb. A doctor may prescribe some medications to terminally sick patients to help them cope with their agony and discomfort. However, one of the medicine’s side effects is that it damages the patient’s body or reduces their life expectancy.
In the following instances, the idea of double effect may be applied:-
Ethnic cleansing by an extremist dictatorship is a deliberate act of systematic mass slaughter through genocide that cannot be condoned. It is permissible, however, for special forces soldiers from the military to conduct operations in hostile territory in order to track down organised crime groups such as drug cartels. Even if the military anticipated a small number of civilian casualties as a result of the raid, this is only a regrettable side effect of the action to eliminate dangerous drug traffickers.
Self-sacrifice is demonstrated when a firefighter enters a burning building to save the lives of the trapped people. While acting to rescue lives, the firefighter is aware that his actions may result in his death as an unforeseen consequence. When a person commits suicide via self-immolation, on the other hand, he intends to die. As a result, sacrificing your life to save others is justified, but taking your own life through suicide is not.
A doctor provides strong medicines to relieve a patient’s agony, knowing that the pills may shorten the patient’s life expectancy. Another example is when a doctor gives powerful drugs with the intent of killing the patient and putting an end to his agony.
The former is justified by doctrine, whereas the latter is not.
When a doctor performs an abortion to preserve the life of a pregnant mother, the goal is to save the mother’s life, with the death of the unborn being an unwanted but predictable side effect. The theory does not apply to simply executing an abortion when there is no foetal abnormalities or threat to the mother and child’s lives.
Principles of the Double Effect Doctrine:
The doctrine of double effect is based on the following principles:-
There should be no causal relationship between the good and bad outcomes, i.e. it is not appropriate to do something morally wrong in the hopes of achieving a morally good consequence.
The doctrine can justify the former, but not the latter.
When a doctor performs an abortion to save the life of a pregnant mother, the goal is to save the mother’s life, with the death of the baby being an unplanned but expected side effect. The theory does not apply when an abortion is performed solely because there is no foetal abnormalities or threat to the mother or child’s life.
The idea of double effect and its principles.
The idea of double effect is founded on the following principles.
There should be no causal relationship between the good and bad outcomes, i.e. it is not appropriate to do something morally wrong in order to achieve a morally good end.