Graduate studies at Western
Christian Bioethics 3 (2):142-157 (1997)
|Abstract||The doctrine of double effect (DOE) has its origins in Roman Catholic thought and has been held to have widespread applications in bioethics. Its applications range over issues of maternal-fetal conflict, organ donation and transplant, euthanasia, and resource allocation, among other controversial issues. Recently, Joseph Boyle, the foremost proponent of the DOE over the past few decades, has argued that the DOE is required by the absolutist context of the Catholic tradition, and, further, that anyone who rejects this particular context is not entitled to use the doctrine. In this essay, I will focus exclusively on the intention condition of the DOE and its central distinction, i.e., intention/side effect. I will proceed by considering in turn (1) Boyle's argument that the absolutist moral framework of the Catholic tradition requires the intention/side effect distinction; (2) the ways in which that framework is made vulnerable by this requirement; and (3) just why the DOE should be viable even outside of the Catholic tradition if it turns out that a feature of (l) is correct and the challenges of (2) can be met|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Donald B. Marquis (1991). Four Versions of Double Effect. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 16 (5):515-544.
Alan Donagan (1991). Moral Absolutism and the Double-Effect Exception: Reflections on Joseph Boyle's Who is Entitled to Double-Effect? Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 16 (5):495-509.
Joseph Boyle (1991). Who is Entitled to Double Effect? Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 16 (5):475-494.
Colin Howson (2009). Sorites is No Threat to Modus Ponens: A Reply to Kochan. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 23 (2):209-212.
Lawrence Masek (2010). Intentions, Motives and the Doctrine of Double Effect. Philosophical Quarterly 60 (240):567-585.
Alison Hills (2007). Intentions, Foreseen Consequences and the Doctrine of Double Effect. Philosophical Studies 133 (2):257 - 283.
Joshua Schechter & David Enoch (2006). Meaning and Justification: The Case of Modus Ponens. Noûs 40 (4):687 - 715.
John Zeis (2004). Killing Innocents and the Doctrine of Double Effect. Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association 78:133-144.
Iii Get Checked Abstract Thomas J. Bole (1991). The Theoretical Tenability of the Doctrine of Double Effect. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 16 (5).
Frances M. Kamm (1991). The Doctrine of Double Effect: Reflections on Theoretical and Practical Issues. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 16 (5):571-585.
Lawrence Masek (2011). The Contralife Argument and the Principle of Double Effect. National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 11 (1):83-97.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2012-04-06
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?