What is a key requirement regarding the intention behind actions in the Doctrine of Double Effect?

In the Doctrine of Double Effect, one of the key requirements is that the good effect must be the primary aim of the action being undertaken. This principle is rooted in ethical reasoning, particularly in situations where a decision may result in both good and bad outcomes. For the doctrine to apply, it is essential that the intention behind the action is primarily to achieve the positive result, and any negative consequence is not the intended outcome but rather a foreseeable side effect.

This guideline is particularly relevant in fields such as healthcare, where practitioners may face decisions that could alleviate suffering (the good effect) but may also result in harm or death (the bad effect). By establishing that the good effect is the primary aim, the doctrine provides a moral framework that can justify the action, as long as the negative outcome is not meant to be achieved.

The incorrect options reflect misunderstandings of the Doctrine’s principles. Overlooking the bad effect or focusing solely on it would contradict the requirement of intention—it is about balancing the two, recognizing that while unintended, the bad effect is still significant and must be considered in ethical evaluations. Moreover, intending the bad effect outright would negate the basic premise of the doctrine, which seeks to differentiate between intended harm and unintended consequences.