Applying The Principle Of Double Effect.

“But what about cases where an action aims at a good end that is achieved only through what is, according to natural law, evil? For example, in order to preserve my life (a basic good according to natural law), I must kill my attacker. Since killing violates the basic good of life, I seemingly violated the natural law at the same time I was obeying it. The “principle of double effect” has been developed by natural law theorists to resolve such dilemmas. In brief, the principle states that, in the attempt to bring about a good end, it is morally permissible that a foreseen yet unintended evil result occurs (Simon, 127).”

This quote essentially means that a double effect is acting as a double standard, and while double standards are usually not considered fair/just/appropriate, in this case of natural law, it is permissible. This is because that even though an …show more content…
live saving) good. The good of life saving, in this case, out weighs the evil being committed, of killing the attacker. The “principle of double effect” resolves these ethical/moral issues by stating that in the attempt to bring about a good end, it is morally permissible that an unintended, yet evil, result occurs. I however pose the argument that the ‘principle of double effect’, where natural law theorists’ purpose an evil/unethical act(s) can occur if a good end result comes about, is not universal and is more subjective, than equally applying to any given situation. I believe that background information on a given scenario, to see if the “principle of double effect” is appropriate, is essential in making a determination if the good end result does in fact out weigh the unintended evil. For example, possibly somebody does not value their life or see