The doctrine double effect is a principle that illustrates the morality of harming or killing non-combatants in warfare. It states that it is unjustified to kill civilians who are not engaged in warfare. Additionally, killing non- combatants with the intent to commit acts of terrorism or killing non- combatants in order to win a war is also not justified. For instance, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki can be considered unjust by the doctrine double effect because thousands of people were killed in order for the U.S. to win the war. However, when non- combatants are unintentionally killed, it is justified. One instances to highlight time in which justification of killing non- combatants are when innocent civilians are inadvertently…show more content… Sidwick’s moral theory is called Utilitarianism. Utilitarianism does not respect civilian casualties to the same extent as the doctrine double effect. Utilitarianism is the belief in justification of casualties as it relates to the amount of lives lost, regardless of who the people are. In other words, the justification depends on the number of lives lost, and it does not matter if they are from a military or if they are non- combatants. If it is necessary for civilians to be killed in order to save a greater number of combatants, that scenario would be the greater rout to take in an act of warfare. In addition, it is necessary for civilians to be killed in order to serve the “greater cause”. During warfare, each side wants to win, and in order for that to happen, non- combatants are going to have to die because the war is desired to end quicker. Both sides need to use whatever means necessary in order for them to achieve that, including ones that result it many casualties. Without the casualties, the war would go on and more people would die as a result. Overall, people with the utilitarian point of view, such as Sidwick, want the greatest number of people to survive, even if it means killing a smaller group of
