Aquinas Double Effect

The principle of double effect still remains a doubtful and topical in modern Philosophy and Theology. The principle arouses a special interest of scholars and academics focused on the questions of ethics. For the first time the principle of double effect was introduced by Thomas Aquinas in his debate of the admissibility of self-defence (McIntyre,2014). The potential lack of understanding of term may be caused by difficulties and ambiguities int traditional formulations (Boyle,1980). To begin with, it is important to define the principle, give its main idea and characteristics. After doing that it will be sufficiently easier to understand why it raised serious disputes between thinkers before and left various questions which have not been

The principle could be implicitly understood centuries before the time of St. Thomas Aquinas, nonetheless there was no designation of a definitely formulated rule of the double effect (Mangan, 1949). Thomas Aquinas claims: ‘…Nothing hinders one act from having two effects,only one of which is intended, while the other is beside the intention. Now moral acts take their species according to what is intended, and not according to what is beside the intention…’ (Summa Theologica II-II, Q. 64, Art. 7). Aquinas believes that an individual may not intentionally murder an aggressor while he may intend self‐defence from which the assailant's death results praeter intentioned (what falls outside the intention) (Cavanaugh, 2006). McIntyre(2014) asserts that Aquinas observes the permissibility of self-defense as absolute, which legality relies on the fact ‘if a man in self-defence uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful, whereas, if he repel force with moderation, his defence will be lawful’ (Aquinas quoted in McIntyre, 2014). Factually, Aquinas states that intention, as far as it is for the good, can justify any consequence except the death of aggressor. The quandary lies in various different interpretations of original text and the proper understanding of what St. Thomas meant by his terms. If Aquinas, using the term intendere, when spoken of the will, allege only the ultimate end of an action, then in Summa Theologica he does not utter the principle of the double effect as we understand it today (Mangan, 1949). Apparently, his fundamental idea was shaped and evolved in future. It is significant to mention that the changes that double-effect reasoning has passed through time, one of which is that earlier formulations did not emerge under the term "the principle of double effect," terminology that does not appear until the 20th century (Kaczor, 1998). As Mangan(1949)