The Doctrine of Double Effect - Explained & Debated

Join George and John as they discuss and debate different philosophical ideas, in this video they will be looking into the Doctrine of Double Effect.
When facing ethical dilemmas where specific harm to people is foreseen, ethicists struggle to determine what is the morally good action. The doctrine of double effect can be used to as a guiding principle during ethical dilemmas. Watch as the doctrine is explained and debated.
The script to this video is part of the Philosophy Vibe “Ethics” eBook, available on amazon:

[PhilosophyVibe]

The script to this video is part of the Philosophy Vibe “Ethics” eBook, available on amazon:

[henryspragge]

Finally, someone putting my objections into clear words for me! I was getting tired of everyone just giving the principle without steel-manning the criticism that I knew instinctively was there. Great content.

[zrodricks]

One of the best channels on yt . Keep up the good work

[TommasoMarena]

Thank you so much for all of the philosophy content you put out. It's been truly life changing in my journey to study bioethics!

[TheKnowledgeMan]

Hey George, can I ask, have you already reached out to Alex o' Connor (CosmicSkeptic) and arranged a philosophical discussion for the Within Reason podcast?.

[AndyAlegria]

Great video. I have learned that many more things are on a continuum than I was taught as a child. Harm is one of them. We harm people by taxing them to provide for government and government services. We harm children, and other people who require caregiving, when we take them to the dentist for a cleaning or the doctor for a shot. We harm criminals when we put them in prison (by stripping away some of the their liberties, dignity, time, future prospects, etc.). Child circumcision. Corporal punishment of children. The list goes on. The examples in this video were unlikely scenarios, but the pros and cons of the doctrine of double-effect are tested daily.

[kredit]

For example, many might be quick to say that runaway trolley should be diverted to kill one person instead of five, but if asked would they be that one person killed by the trolley, maybe not? Or if that one person was someone admired or loved versus five strangers, maybe not?

[scoogsy]

Love these little debates. Really interesting!

[PowerFromAbove]

This is something I've always felt strongly about. I'm not killing anybody unjustly, even if it saved a billion kids. I'm only saving people without killing or I'm simply doing nothing.

[taker]

Sounds like a bigger version of the trolley debate.

[Skull_Knight_himself]

Can you please talk about the evolutionary argument against naturalism ?

[Bswahbcukjdsyvcz]

You guys are tremendous as well making the prejudice philosophy irrelevant

[muraya]

A tad off topic but humbly request you take a look at this. Dialogue is welcome.

Life is meaningless without God. In our existence, we each have experiences in our lives that though real; ultimately are only subjective and carry bias. Which means that our perception of truth in the world is skewed.

God alone however, provides objective truth that doesn't change since He is infinite and eternal, having created a finite and temporal creation that will one day pass away. At which point the King of Kings will reign in a new heaven and earth. JESUS CHRIST invites you to this reality and it all starts and ends with your faith in Him. Call on the name of the Lord. I'll see you in heaven.

[GottfriedLeibnizYT]

Yeah, but Israel wouldn't care about this.