David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 16 (5):475-494 (1991)
The doctrine of double effect continues to be an important tool in bioethical casuistry. Its role within the Catholic moral tradition continues, and there is considerable interest in it by contemporary moral philosophers. But problems of justification and correct application remain. I argue that if the traditional Catholic conviction that there are exceptionless norms prohibiting inflicting some kinds of harms on people is correct, then double effect is justified and necessary. The objection that double effect is superfluous is a rejection of that normative conviction, not a refutation of double effect itself. This justification suggests the correct way of applying double effect to controversial cases. But versions of double effect which dispense with the absolutism of the Catholic tradition lack justification and fall to the objection that double effect is an unnecessary complication. Keywords: double effect, intention, side effect CiteULike Connotea Del.icio.us What's this?
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Michael Huemer (2010). Lexical Priority and the Problem of Risk. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 91 (3):332-351.
Patrick A. Tully (2005). The Doctrine of Double Effect and the Question of Constraints on Business Decisions. Journal of Business Ethics 58 (1-3):51 - 63.
Lawrence Masek (2008). Treating Humanity as an Inviolable End. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 33 (1):1-16.
Bernard G. Prusak (2011). Double Effect, All Over Again: The Case of Sister Margaret McBride. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 32 (4):271-283.
Alec Walen (2006). The Doctrine of Illicit Intentions. Philosophy and Public Affairs 34 (1):39–67.
Similar books and articles
Neil Francis Delaney (2008). Two Cheers for “Closeness”: Terror, Targeting and Double Effect. Philosophical Studies 137 (3):335 - 367.
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.
Lawrence Masek (2011). The Contralife Argument and the Principle of Double Effect. National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 11 (1):83-97.
Iii Get Checked Abstract Thomas J. Bole (1991). The Theoretical Tenability of the Doctrine of Double Effect. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 16 (5).
David K. Chan (2000). Intention and Responsibility in Double Effect Cases. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 3 (4):405-434.
Whitley R. P. Kaufman (2009). The Paradox of Self-Defense: Saving Oneself by Harming Another. Lexington Books.
Lawrence Masek (2010). Intentions, Motives and the Doctrine of Double Effect. Philosophical Quarterly 60 (240):567-585.
T. A. Cavanaugh (2006). Double-Effect Reasoning: Doing Good and Avoiding Evil. Oxford University Press.
Donald B. Marquis (1991). Four Versions of Double Effect. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 16 (5):515-544.
Added to index2010-08-22
Total downloads90 ( #46,515 of 1,907,694 )
Recent downloads (6 months)9 ( #77,142 of 1,907,694 )
How can I increase my downloads?