Actions, intentions, and consequences: the doctrine of double effect

Abstract

A version of the doctrine of double effect is defined and defended. As defined in light of objections by Hart and Bennett, it rules not merely against choices in which harm or something close to harm is directly intended, but against any choice involving a direct intention to affect someone where that will, intentionally or “un”intentionally, bring harm. The doctrine is defended along vaguely Kantian lines: choices that the doctrine rules against are harder to justify because they involve not only harm but a distinctive, if difficult to characterize, morally offensive presumption that the victim is available for one’s purposes.