The doctrine of double effect distinguishes between intending harm and foreseeing harm as a side effect. Bombing a munitions factory, foreseeing civilian deaths, may be permissible; directly targeting civilians is not—even if casualty numbers are identical. Critics argue the intention/foresight distinction is too fine to bear moral weight, or that terror bombers who don't 'intend' deaths but use them strategically can exploit the doctrine. Defenders maintain the distinction reflects genuine moral differences in an agent's relationship to harm.
The passage suggests that
all ethical frameworks completely ignore intentions
casualty numbers are the only relevant moral factor
moral doctrines may face challenges about where to draw distinctions and how to prevent manipulation
defenders of double effect believe intention is morally irrelevant
Correct Answer: C
Choice C is the best answer. Critics challenge the distinction's fineness and potential for exploitation.
- Context clues: Critics say distinction is too fine; terror bombers can exploit the doctrine.
- Meaning: Drawing moral lines faces questions about precision and abuse.
- Verify: The tension between the doctrine's value and its vulnerabilities shows these challenges.
💡 Strategy: When doctrines face "too fine" and "exploitable" criticisms, infer line-drawing and manipulation challenges.
Choice A is incorrect because double effect is specifically about intentions. Choice B is incorrect because the doctrine holds that identical casualties can differ morally based on intention. Choice D is incorrect because defenders argue intention "reflects genuine moral differences."