doctrine of double effect
Collateral damage is ok, as long as it wasn’t the intended outcome of a moral action
This can collapse into consequentialism, but serves as a good load bearing argument
DDE says things are ok if:
- the act is ok, independent of its harmful effects
- The agent intends the good, and doesn’t intend the bad, either as a means or an end
- There is no way to do the good without doing the bad
- The harmful effects are not disproportionately large relative to the good being sought.
Sometimes I’m afraid of the DDE being used in normal conversation as a shield, even when people did secretly intend the collateral damage.
To what extent does intent matter? killing or letting die
