The following text discusses ethics.
The doctrine of double effect, developed in medieval moral philosophy, distinguishes between intended and foreseen consequences. Under this doctrine, an action with harmful side effects may be permissible if the harm is not intended but merely foreseen, and the good intended outweighs the foreseen evil. A surgeon, for instance, might administer pain relief knowing it will hasten death but intending only to relieve suffering. Critics question whether the intended/foreseen distinction can bear the moral weight placed upon it, but the doctrine remains influential in medical and military ethics.
What is the central distinction in the doctrine of double effect?
Between actions done in public versus private
Between harm that is intended versus harm that is foreseen but not intended
Between medical and military contexts
Between consequences that occur immediately versus later
Correct Answer: B
Choice B is the correct answer. The doctrine "distinguishes between intended and foreseen consequences"—harm may be permissible if "not intended but merely foreseen."
- Evidence: Intended vs. foreseen consequences is the core distinction.
- Reasoning: Intention determines permissibility, not just outcome.
- Conclusion: The intended/foreseen distinction is central.
Choice A is incorrect because public/private isn't mentioned. Choice C is incorrect because these are application contexts, not the distinction itself. Choice D is incorrect because timing isn't the relevant factor.