The Doctrine of Double Effect - Explained & Debated
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 17 ต.ค. 2023
- Join George and John as they discuss and debate different philosophical ideas, in this video they will be looking into the Doctrine of Double Effect.
When facing ethical dilemmas where specific harm to people is foreseen, ethicists struggle to determine what is the morally good action. The doctrine of double effect can be used to as a guiding principle during ethical dilemmas. Watch as the doctrine is explained and debated.
The script to this video is part of the Philosophy Vibe “Ethics” eBook, available on amazon:
US: www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B088Q85GPK
UK: www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B088Q85GPK
Canada: www.amazon.ca/dp/B088Q85GPK
India: www.amazon.in/dp/B088Q85GPK
Australia: www.amazon.com.au/dp/B088Q85GPK
Germany: www.amazon.de/dp/B088Q85GPK
US: www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B088Q85GPK
UK: www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B088Q85GPK
Canada: www.amazon.ca/dp/B088Q85GPK
India: www.amazon.in/dp/B088Q85GPK
Australia: www.amazon.com.au/dp/B088Q85GPK
Germany: www.amazon.de/dp/B088Q85GPK
One of the best channels on yt . Keep up the good work
For example, many might be quick to say that runaway trolley should be diverted to kill one person instead of five, but if asked would they be that one person killed by the trolley, maybe not? Or if that one person was someone admired or loved versus five strangers, maybe not?
Exactly. It's an entirely emotional and subjective doctrine
Thank you so much for all of the philosophy content you put out. It's been truly life changing in my journey to study bioethics!
You're very welcome, so glad we could help.
Yes a new video! Love this channel
Hey George, can I ask, have you already reached out to Alex o' Connor (CosmicSkeptic) and arranged a philosophical discussion for the Within Reason podcast?.
Yeah 🤟
Two thumbs up for a guest speaker.
Finally, someone putting my objections into clear words for me! I was getting tired of everyone just giving the principle without steel-manning the criticism that I knew instinctively was there. Great content.
Great video. I have learned that many more things are on a continuum than I was taught as a child. Harm is one of them. We harm people by taxing them to provide for government and government services. We harm children, and other people who require caregiving, when we take them to the dentist for a cleaning or the doctor for a shot. We harm criminals when we put them in prison (by stripping away some of the their liberties, dignity, time, future prospects, etc.). Child circumcision. Corporal punishment of children. The list goes on. The examples in this video were unlikely scenarios, but the pros and cons of the doctrine of double-effect are tested daily.
You're a wise individual.
K, what if a medication is produced unethically, but it could be produced otherwise. So it's not the mechanism of the drug that's wrong, but where they derived the cell lines (aborted babies let's say). Should we die to not use it?
@@auntieanna Good question. That brings up the classic philosophical question testing utilitarianism by asking if a doctor should kill the sickest person in the hospital so their organs can be used to save 5 others. It significantly improves the lives of 5 out of 6 people so it is a very utilitarian thing to do but, for obvious reasons, the means to achieve the end is abhorrent to most people. Your example of abortion is trickier because a significant number of people do not consider terminating an embryo in the first trimester the same as ending the life of a conscious person. To answer your question, in a civilized society, it would probably be considered uncouth to trade an unwilling life for a life (or even bring significant harm to an unwilling life), but in a survival situation, that answer would change. What do you think? Did your question have more nuance that I missed?
@AndyAlegria well, it can be more nuanced. This is real time for me.....
Biologic drugs are made using mammalian ovary antibodies and then "humanized", but the manufacturers won't disclose further info, though I can find evidence suggesting they are using embryonic material. I already almost died once because i wouldn't use it, but ended up on a sugeons table and am still here.
I'm hemmoraging again. The added mental block is that, as a very dedicated/transformed Christian, I believe our bodies to be the Temple of God, and even the mammalian cell line are "unclean" & "abominable".
I can try another surgery, with potentially serious complications instead.... though, even the drugs aren't with potential side effects, it's far less intrusive.
Six kids that I homeschool.
It's hard to find thinkers who donate their time & brain power. Thankyou.
@@auntieanna I agree with you that kids, on average, are not “thinkers” with “brain power”. :) Thank you for your service as a teacher. You said you have an aversion to the mammalian cell line in drugs. I assume you eat animal meat (lots of animal cells), get the flu shot (which often involves eggs), and use vitamins for you or your kids (many of which are extracted from animals, such as omega 3, B12, and D)? Unless you are vegan, you are already putting animal products into your body, so what is the difference between the products above and the animal-sourced drugs you are rejecting because they are “abominable” (leaving the embryonic material aside for now)?
Your main objection is the use of “embryonic material” (I’m assuming embryonic stem cells). If you believe that human life - that is worthy of protection by all laws regarding human life - begins at conception, the destruction of embryos (such as those at in vitro fertilization clinics) is murder, and you do not have the right to kill a protected human (embryo) without their consent to save your own life (or profit off their death caused by someone else), then you are logically justified in refusing the medicine because the argument is valid. I do not believe the argument is sound since I disagree with the first premise regarding full protection of embryos under law. If you have a question about your stance, I’m curious which of your premises YOU think might not be sound.
Thank you very much God bless u
Excellent work, amazing channel,
Thank you very much.
This is surreal
This is something I've always felt strongly about. I'm not killing anybody unjustly, even if it saved a billion kids. I'm only saving people without killing or I'm simply doing nothing.
Can you please talk about the evolutionary argument against naturalism ?
Sounds like a bigger version of the trolley debate.
Thx
Welcome
❤❤❤❤❤
Wow
Riiightttt😂😂
You guys are tremendous as well making the prejudice philosophy irrelevant
Thank you!
pure science is beyond good and evil
What do you mean?
@@beatleswithaz6246 according to science, even cockroaches have a lot more value in nature than mankind
cockroaches help trap nitrogen in the soil which is necessary for the growth of trees
nature with lesser trees means hell
if cockroaches were to extinct, it *would also* be lesser food for wasps, lesser wasps means more insects becuz wasps eat insects, too many insects would be nothing but trouble for everybody in nature
in summary, everybody in nature would miss cockroaches soo much
meanwhile if humans were to extinct in nature? everybody in nature ain't gonna miss em
in summary, mankind has no actual value in nature. humans are worth lesser than even cockroaches
Yeah, but Israel wouldn't care about this.
The Doctrine of Bakch0di
🐐