Final answer:
The doctrine is known as the Doctrine of Double Effect, which states it's morally permissible to perform an action that has both a good effect and a foreseen but unintended harmful outcome.
This contrasts with utilitarianism, which focuses solely on the consequences of actions.
Step-by-step explanation:
The doctrine you're referring to is known as the Doctrine of Double Effect (DDE). The DDE asserts that it is sometimes morally permissible to cause harm if the harm is a foreseen and unintended side effect of bringing about a good result.
The classic example involves a trolley problem, where a person may divert a trolley to a track where it will kill one person instead of five, with the death of the one being an unintended but foreseen consequence. The focus is on the intention behind the action, not merely the consequences, which distinguishes it from a purely consequentialist approach like utilitarianism.
Utilitarianism would focus solely on the outcomes, advocating for actions that maximize overall happiness or utility, even if some actions that produce good outcomes may go against conventional moral standards.
This moral reasoning is particularly significant in fields such as medicine, law, and ethics, where decisions can result in harm despite the intent to bring about an overall good, such as in clinical trials where there is a potential risk to subjects in the pursuit of beneficial medical treatments.
It's crucial to differentiate DDE from utilitarian views, especially since the latter places no intrinsic moral value on intentions or the character of the agent performing the action.