Abstract
Philosophers from Hart to Lewis, Johnston and Bennett have expressed various degrees of reservation concerning the doctrine of double effect. A common concern is that, with regard to many activities that double effect is traditionally thought to prohibit, what might at first look to be a directly intended bad effect is really, on closer examination, a directly intended neutral effect that is closely connected to a foreseen bad effect. This essay examines the extent to which the commonsense concept of intention supports a reasonably consistent and coherent application of double effect. Two important conclusions are these: (1) a number of traditionally proscribed activities involve a kind of “targeting” of innocents that can be taken to exhibit a direct intention to harm them; (2) a direct intention to harm need not involve a desire to harm in any ordinary sense of the latter expression.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Anscombe G.E.M. (2001). Medalist’s Address: Action, Intention and ‘Double Effect’, reprinted. In: Woodward, P.A. (eds) The Doctrine of Double Effect, pp 50–66. Notre Dame University Press, Notre Dame
Anscombe G.E.M. (2001). Intention. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Austin J.L. (1990). Three Ways of Spilling Ink. In: (eds) Philosophical Papers, pp. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Bennett Jonathan (1980). Morality and Consequences. In: McMurrin, S. (eds) Tanner Lectures on Human Values, pp. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City
Bennett Jonathan (1989). Events and their Names. Hackett Publishing Co, Indianapolis
Bennett Jonathan (1995). The Act Itself. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Bentham Jeremy (1948). Principles of Morals and Legislation. Hafner, New York
Boorse Christopher and Sorensen Roy (1988). Ducking Harm. Journal of Philosophy 85: 115–34
Bratman Michael (1999). Intention, Plans and Practical Reason. CSLI Publications, Stanford
Delaney Neil (2001). To Double Business Bound: Reflections on the Doctrine of Double Effect. American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 75(4): 561–583
Delaney, Neil (1997): Essays on Ethics and Action. Ph.D. Diss., Princeton University
Fischer, John Martin, Ravizza, Mark and Copp, David, ‘Quinn on Double Effect: The Problem of ‘Closeness’’, reprinted in Woodward, pp. 189–210
Fitzpatrick William J. (2003). Acts, Intentions and Moral Permissibility: in Defence of the Doctrine of Double Effect. analysis 63(4): 317–321
Foot Philippa (1967). The Problem of Abortion and the Doctrine of the Double Effect. Oxford Review 5: 5–15
Foot Philippa (2003). Morality, Action and Outcome, reprinted. In: (eds) Moral Dilemmas and Other Topics in Moral Philosophy, pp. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Harman Gilbert (1986). Change in View. MIT Press, Cambridge
Hart H.L.A. (1968). Intention and Punishment, reprinted. In: (eds) Punishment and Responsibility, pp. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Kagan Shelly (1989). The Limits of Morality. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Kamm Frances (1991). The Doctrine of Double Effect: Reflections on Theoretical and Practical Issues. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 16: 571–585
Kamm Frances (1992). Non-consequentialism, the Person as an End-in-Itself and the Significance of Status. Philosophy and Public Affairs 21: 354–389
McIntyre Alison (2001). Doing Away with Double Effect. Ethics 111: 219–255
Nozick Robert (1997). Socratic Puzzles. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Quinn Warren (1989). Actions, Intentions and Consequences: The Doctrine of Double Effect. Philosophy and Public Affairs 18: 334–351
Sellars Wilfrid (1966). Thought and Action. In: Lehrer, Keith (eds) Freedom and Determinism, pp 105–139. Random House, New York
Thomson J.J. (1999). Physician-assisted Suicide: Two Moral Arguments. Ethics 109: 497–518
Thomas, Wetzel (2003): ‘States of Affairs’, in Edward N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall Edition), URL=http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall 2003/entries/states-of-affairs/
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Thanks to Thomas Flint, Paul Benacerraf, Mark Johnston, Gilbert Harman, Tom Cavanaugh, Jorge Garcia, Robert Audi and an anonymous referee for useful discussion and written comments.