EthicAtlas — Explore the questions behind the world

EthicAtlas

A LIVING MAP OF MORAL IDEAS

Loading the map…

Source article

Doctrine of Double Effect (article)

ABOUT THIS READING

Explores the distinction between intended and merely foreseen harm and its use in trolley cases.

What this article covers

The entry examines a doctrine about pursuing good while foreseeing harmful effects. It distinguishes intention from foresight and sets out conditions beyond that distinction, including the relation between means and ends. Applications and criticisms show why the doctrine cannot be reduced to a convenient description of harm.

Read intention as the role an effect plays in a plan, not simply as the agent’s attitude toward it. Someone can regret a harmful means while deliberately choosing it. Equally, expecting a loss does not necessarily make that loss the purpose of an intervention. The doctrine requires additional justification, including proportionality, so finding a side effect is only part of the assessment. Keep those conditions visible when moving from the formulation to a concrete case.

Reading guide and questions

How to read it

Begin with the formulations of the principle, then consult the section on misinterpretations. For each case, identify the agent’s aim, the role of the harmful effect, and the proportionality argument. Avoid treating an effect as unintended just because the agent regrets it.

Questions to carry forward

Consider whether intention is sufficiently clear and morally significant to support the distinction. Could an agent redescribe the same plan to obtain permission? Compare objections about outcomes with objections about identifying means, and notice which part of the doctrine each criticism actually targets.

For an original comparison, imagine repairing a bridge while anticipating temporary disruption, then imagine causing disruption specifically to pressure a business owner. The loss plays a different role in each plan even if its size matches. Now ask whether a less burdensome method is available. The exercise helps distinguish classification from permission: understanding how an effect is intended does not by itself establish that the entire action is justified to the people who bear its costs.

Reference articleDoctrine of Double Effect

Read the full topic Read the reference article

CONNECTIONS 2

View all 2 connections and context

Connection context

Discussions of the Trolley Problem and the relevance of the principle of double effect to explaining our intuition that it is permissible to swerve the trolley can be divided into three groups.

Automatically found mention; does not imply agreement.

Read source passage

Discussions of the Trolley Problem and the relevance of the principle of double effect to explaining our intuition that it is permissible to swerve the trolley can be divided into three groups.

Open reference article Retrieved 2026-10-01 · Automatically found mention

Connection context

If the permissibility of an action depended only on the consequences of the action, or only on the foreseen or foreseeable consequences of the action, then the distinction that grounds the principle of double effect would not have the moral significance claimed for it (see the related entry on consequentialism ).

Automatically found mention; does not imply agreement.

Read source passage

If the permissibility of an action depended only on the consequences of the action, or only on the foreseen or foreseeable consequences of the action, then the distinction that grounds the principle of double effect would not have the moral significance claimed for it (see the related entry on consequentialism ).

Open reference article Retrieved 2026-10-01 · Automatically found mention

Map key

QuestionIdeaThinkerIn the worldSource article

Strands include curated connections and article mentions. A mention does not imply agreement. Image credits

DRAG TO ORBIT · SCROLL TO ZOOM · CLICK A NODEOrbit speed