The Principle of Double Effect - PhilArchive.
The good effect is not caused by the evil effect. Only the good effects are directly intended; the bad effects are not intended but only tolerated (as unavoidable). There is a due proportion between good and bad effects. Thus, the double effect doctrine forbids the achievement of good ends by wrong means.
Foot argues that what matters in the Doctrine is not the directness of the actor’s intention, but whether they intend to follow a negative or positive duty. This paper is most useful in teaching on the ethics of abortion and euthanasia, as well as the doctrine of double effect in general.
The difference between absolutism and objectivism is that where objectivists believe that there are universal moral principles in which people of all ethical backgrounds and cultures have the validity to follow, absolutists believe that there are underlying values within these beliefs that strictly cannot ever be over-ridden, violated or broken under any circumstances (REF).
Even though a follower of this ethical system may believe that an embryo is a human life, the doctrine of double effect means that it is allowed to use embryos in stem cell research. There is a negative side effect as the embryo doesnt become a person but the intention is to save many the life of a person who is suffering from a disease and hence, life is preserved.
Without taking a position on the overall justification of anti-doping regulations, I analyse the possible justification of Therapeutic Use Exemptions (TUEs) from such rules. TUEs are a creative way to prevent the unfair exclusion of athletes with a chronic condition, and they have the potential to be the least bad option. But they cannot be competitively neutral.
The principle of double effect is used to rationalize the harmful effects of an otherwise good intervention. It is often used in healthcare to justify actions done in good faith. There are several criteria that an act must meet in order for it to be justified by this principle.
The principle of double effect (i.e., multiple consequences) addresses this question. TAKE THE CASE OF CAUSING A DEATH. Is it always wrong to kill another person, or is it only wrong to intentionally do so? If it is always wrong to kill another person, then it is wrong to build highways, because we know that these highways will cause the deaths.