The “doctrine of double-effect” is the somewhat contentious ethical principle that an act which has morally-problematic consequences can be justified if those consequences were unintended. Assuming that the person performing the act was trying to do something good (or, at least, not something bad), they can be let of the hook, ethically speaking, if a less-than-ideal outcome ensues, just so long as they weren’t actually trying to bring that outcome about.
So, for instance, in medical ethics, a physician can justify hastening death for a terminally-ill patient by prescribing lots of pain medication; because the doctor’s intent is to reduce the patient’s suffering, it’s considered (by proponents of the doctrine of double-effect) to be morally acceptable for the administration of the drugs to bring about the patient’s demise. The doctor wasn’t trying to kill the patient; that just happened as a “double effect” of the analgesic.
And while I’m not completely sold on the coherence of the principle, it does come in handy when, as a vegetarian, one needs to make an exception in the case of Jello shots. You see, the animal wasn’t killed for the bones that go into making the gelatin; it was killed for its meat; the bones are a by-product, a “double-effect” of that killing, so Jello’s cool.
Same goes for the wearing of short pants after dark. As long as those pants are intended for swimming, (or biking), they can appropriately be sported by an adult male even after the sun sets and a blood orange crescent moon rises over the Lake.
Coincidentally, both these examples were in play on this year’s version of the annual Jello Slip n’ Slide ride, modified, as per the ongoing pandemic, to focus primarily on the Jello itself slipping and sliding down one’s throat.
And, of course, the intoxication that followed was perfectly justified, since that was a double-effect of the primary intent to enjoy the fruity flavor and ingest healthy protein for the ride.
No comments:
Post a Comment