Search Climate Insights Directory

The paper examines the two functions of the doctrine of double effect (DDE): the permissive, which exculpates agents from negative consequences, and the restrictive, which assigns responsibility for foreseeable damages. The author contends that the common view of Thomas Aquinas as an advocate for the permissive version stems from a misreading of Summa theologiae (ST) II-II, q. 64, a. 7 (DH.7). By analyzing DH.7, the author suggests it is not about DDE but about distinguishing between instrumental harm for self-preservation and harm as a primary goal (such as punishment). The author further argues that other passages in the ST support a restrictive DDE, specifically through the concept of "closeness," where a side effect is evaluated as intended if its connection to the action is sufficiently close. This restrictive view implies that definite foresight of a negative consequence may disqualify the moral soundness of an action, contrasting with modern permissive interpretations.