The doctrine of double effect says that the pursuit of good is not as acceptable if the harm that results is intended rather than merely foreseen (Lippert-Rasmussen, 2010). To some it is a nonabsolutist moral principle in which as long as significant good resulted from the action, it is allowable (Lippert-Ramussen, 2010). Scanlon believed that an act that leads to the death of an innocent person can never be justified by the good that results (Lippert-Ramussen, 2010). Scanlon’s beliefs will be the focus of this assignment.
- Read the article by Lippert-Ramussen, “Scanlon on the Doctrine of Double Effect.” After reading the article, respond to the questions listed below.
- Define the Doctrine of Double Effect.
- Provide a brief summary of Scanlon’s view on the doctrine.
- Discuss the scenario of either the drug shortage or organ shortage found in the article.
- What is the scenario?
- How does this demonstrate the Doctrine of Double Effect?
- Do you agree with the action taken? If not, what could have been done?
- What was Scanlon’s view on the scenario?
- You will be expected to provide a scholarly basis for your response.
- Your opinions must be justified with evidence from the literature.
- References should be cited properly in the text of your essay (either in parentheses or as footnotes), as well as at the end.
- Please support your discussions with scholarly support (3-5 references). Be sure to properly cite all references.
- Be sure to apply critical thinking skills to the assignment components stated above- especially #3.