The aim of this article is to present neuroethics as a new way of doing ethics. Naeuroethics offers an opportunity to refine the tools that are used. Ethicists often have to resort to intuitions triggered by the consideration of cases in order to assess the permissibility of types of actions. Data from the sciences of the mind provide one reason to believe that some of these intuitions are less reliable than others. This article focuses on the doctrine of double effect. The doctrine of double effect purports to show that there is a moral difference between effects that are caused intentionally and those that are merely anticipated. The data suggests that some effects are only treated as foreseen simply because it is considered acceptable to cause them. Therefore, an appeal to the doctrine of double effect cannot demonstrate the existence of such moral differences.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S089662731630798X