Skip to content

The principle of double effect

Updated Wednesday 27th February 2008

Is there a difference between deliberately killing someone and doing something that will lead to their death? Nigel Warburton explores the Doctrine of Double Effect.

Some people believe there is a significant moral difference between deliberately killing someone and performing an action that you know will result in another's death. These people subscribe to what is known as the Doctrine of Double Effect, a principle drawing a distinction between intentionally doing something undesirable and doing something where you foresee an undesirable consequence, but don’t wish this consequence. The name 'Double Effect' comes from the fact that the action in question is thought to have two effects: a good one (intended) and a bad one (merely foreseen).

It may sound esoteric, but this principle has many vitally important applications: for example in medical cases. A doctor may justify administering a lethal pain-killing drug that predictably hastens a patient's death on the grounds that she aims to lessen the patient's pain rather than kill him. 

Critics of this view, including strict utilitarians, will say that if the predictable consequences are the same, the moral worth of the actions must be the same. If you know your actions will result in a death, what difference can it make if you intend this death, rather than merely foresee it? Some of those who subscribe to the Doctrine of Double Effect do so because they are members of a religion that has an absolute prohibition on intentional killing; from outside these religions the double effect doctrine can look like a convenient kind of conscience-saving rationalization. 

Through a series of ingenious, if highly implausible, thought experiments involving out-of-control trolleys, innocent people tied to railway tracks (and, in one case, a fat man pushed over a bridge), Michael Otsuka defends the Doctrine. In this weeks’ Ethics Bites, he claims that our intuitions about these cases support the Doctrine. 

I'm not completely convinced he's right. Perhaps what we need to do is abandon our intuitions, rather than stick to the Doctrine.

Further Reading

 

For further information, take a look at our frequently asked questions which may give you the support you need.

Have a question?

Other content you may like

Sex and perversion Copyrighted image Icon Copyright: photos.com audio icon

History & The Arts 

Sex and perversion

When does sex bring fulfillment and when is it hollow? What distinguishes us from animals? Roger Scruton talks about sex and perversion.

Audio
15 mins
How should we live together? Copyrighted image Icon Copyright: BBC video icon

History & The Arts 

How should we live together?

Watch these animations on the subject of how we can live together. 

Video
30 mins
Key Questions in Philosophy with The Open University Copyrighted image Icon Copyright: Magentis08 | Dreamstime.com video icon

History & The Arts 

Key Questions in Philosophy with The Open University

Our broad-ranging module 'Key Questions in Philosophy' investigates five different topics in philosophy: truth in fiction, the justice of war, reason and action, life and death, knowledge and reason.

Video
1 hr
Virtual murder: Just a game? Creative commons image Icon Casey Fleser under CC-BY-2.0 licence under Creative-Commons license article icon

History & The Arts 

Virtual murder: Just a game?

Can playing violent video games be perceived as a bad thing even if the game player does not show aggressive behaviour in reality?

Article
Civil Disobedience Copyrighted image Icon Copyright: The BBC video icon

History & The Arts 

Civil Disobedience

Should you follow your conscience and break the law if you feel it is morally right, rather than be a cog in an unjust system? Stephen Fry investigates some people in history who believed so. 

Video
5 mins
On trust and philosophy Copyrighted image Icon Copyright: BBC article icon

History & The Arts 

On trust and philosophy

On a journey from Plato's Republic to the Mitchell Brothers' Walford, can we use philosophy to understand trust?

Article
The Antikythera Mechanism Copyrighted image Icon Copyright: The BBC video icon

History & The Arts 

The Antikythera Mechanism

Our animation unpacks the antikythera mechanism.

Video
15 mins
Trust and the state of nature Copyrighted image Icon Copyright: BBC article icon

History & The Arts 

Trust and the state of nature

Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679), perhaps the greatest English political philosopher, argued that life in the state of nature would be, "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short". But what is the state of nature? Need it be so miserable? And why does this matter, anyway? Jonathan Wolff, Professor of Philosophy, University College London, considers the issues.

Article
Aristotle on flourishing Copyrighted image Icon Copyright: BBC video icon

History & The Arts 

Aristotle on flourishing

This animation looks at Aristotle's ideas about flourishing and how to live a good life.

Video
5 mins