Doctrine of Double Effect: What is the correct version and how to apply it?

[EthicsQuestions]

Hi Guys,

Recently I learned about the Doctrine of Double Effect. I ran in to some confusion because it is formulated differently depending on where I read about it.

One version:

1. Mental Test - Do I actually want to make an ethical decision or am I looking for ways to rationalise something bad? (if wanting to make ethical decision, proceed to step 2)
2. Is there an alternative that avoids the bad effect? (if there is not alternative, proceed to step 3)
3. Is the the bad effect the means to producing the the good effect? (if the bad effect is not the means to producing the good effect, proceed to step 4)
4. Is the bad proportional to the good? (if proportional, the action is permitted)

This is the version I like but I find step 2 confusion - there is always an alternative to something (i.e. not doing it). The alternative to telling a friend you no longer want to be friends is to not tell the friend you do not want to be friends. Or you could move to another country/city/town.

Another version from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

1. The act itself must be morally good or at least indifferent.
2. The agent may not positively will the bad effect but may permit it. If he could attain the good effect without the bad effect he should do so. The bad effect is sometimes said to be indirectly voluntary.
3. The good effect must flow from the action at least as immediately (in the order of causality, though not necessarily in the order of time) as the bad effect. In other words the good effect must be produced directly by the action, not by the bad effect. Otherwise the agent would be using a bad means to a good end, which is never allowed.
4. The good effect must be sufficiently desirable to compensate for the allowing of the bad effect“.

I don't really like this version because step one seems to defeat the whole purpose of the exercise - if I know that an action is morally good or at least indifferent, there is no ethical dilemma to resolve. I.e. is firing an employee for incompetence morally good or indifferent? If it is, I already know what I need to do. Also, isn't step three already covered by Step one?

I am not a student of Ethics and I am quite new to the subject. My assumption is that there is a "correct" version of the doctrine of double effect in the sense that philosophers have extensively argued over its formulation and eventually agreed on the best way to approach it. I am guessing (hoping) the Stanford Encylclopedia version of it might be old and the first one I wrote is the most modern formulation?

In any case, if the first version is the modern formulation, I still don't understand how "Is there an alternative that avoids the bad effect?" can really be answered...

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

My assumption is that there is a "correct" version of the doctrine of double effect in the sense that philosophers have extensively argued over its formulation and eventually agreed on the best way to approach it.

I strongly disagree with this assumption. In fact, I would argue that the exact opposite is the case. Philosophers love to disagree with each other and have an incredible habit of it not only about this one particular subject regarding the Doctrine of Double Effect but about anything even the most seemingly agreeable and simple things.

In any case, from my reading, the two versions of the doctrine you provided are essentially saying the same thing. The former version is just a looser exercise that helps one understand and implement the policies expressed in the more formal philosophical language of the latter example.

2. Is there an alternative that avoids the bad effect?

[...]

This is the version I like but I find step 2 confusion - there is always an alternative to something (i.e. not doing it).

Consider various examples of situations when someone finds themselves choosing between the so-called "lesser of two evils". There are always alternatives, but there may not be any 'better' alternatives. This could and presumably usually would hold true even when the word better is narrowly defined as simply minimizing the gross "bad" effect(s) and/or minimizing the net 'badness' of the effect(s), depending of course on what is really meant by the word "bad".

[Karpel Tunnel]

This is the version I like but I find step 2 confusion - there is always an alternative to something (i.e. not doing it). The alternative to telling a friend you no longer want to be friends is to not tell the friend you do not want to be friends.

This has lots of bad effects. 1) you will end up spending time with someone you do not want to. 2) they are experiencing a friendship that isn't really one. If they figure this out...well imagine how you would feel. 'You spent all this time with me when you would rather have not?' Or they don't figure it out, which means you suffer and sacrifice yourself for them, and they never really learn how to experience true friendship. Or at least what you are doing, which is a form of a lie, will contribute their lack of intuition in such things. 3) someone you would like to hang out with is less likely to have your time or as much of it. 4) your life is off kilter. You are not in situations that make you thrive as much as you could. You will be less able to be good friends to others and perhaps other facets of your life will suffer.

Or you could move to another country/city/town.

I think if this is happening anyway, rather than the reason is because you are afraid to hurt someone's feelings - which is actually rather disrespectful - then this might be ok. Unless there was a really clear thing you each might learn from having the conversation.

In any case, if the first version is the modern formulation, I still don't understand how "Is there an alternative that avoids the bad effect?" can really be answered...

It sounds to me like a rule that will make good people feel guilty and be less effective in life. And the bad people won't care.