Abstract

This paper analyzes the double effect criterion in situations of extreme need and cases of self-defense in criminal matters. It attempts to show, against what a sector o the classical moral tradition points out, that the principle justifies the occlusion o f innocents by collateral effect. The thesis defended in this study is the result of an investigation that presents the challenges of the theory of double effect, which requires differentiating between those actions in which it is intended directly to kill an innocent and those actions in which such death occurs as a side effect.