David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophia 41 (3):703-717 (2013)
Recently, a new problem has arisen for an Anscombean conception of intentional action. The claim is that the Anscombean’s emphasis on the formally causal character of practical knowledge precludes distinguishing between an aim and a merely foreseen side effect. I propose a solution to this problem: the difference between aim and side effect should be understood in terms of the familiar Anscombean distinction between acting intentionally and the intention with which one acts. I also argue that this solution has advantages over an alternative that has already been endorsed in the literature: it is a better fit for the Anscombean theory, and it naturally accommodates intuitions about the moral significance of aiming vs. merely foreseeing
|Keywords||Action Anscombe Deviant formal causation Double effect Intention Reasons|
|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
Maria Alvarez & John Hyman (1998). Agents and Their Actions. Philosophy 73 (2):219-245.
G. E. M. Anscombe (1982). Medalist's Address. Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association 56:12-25.
G. E. M. Anscombe (1958). Modern Moral Philosophy. Philosophy 33 (124):1 - 19.
Donald Davidson (2001). Essays on Actions and Events: Philosophical Essays Volume 1. Clarendon Press.
Hugh J. McCann (1974). Volition and Basic Action. Philosophical Review 83 (4):451-473.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Niels van Miltenburg (2012). Practical Knowledge and Foreseen Side Effects. Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy.
Sarah K. Paul (2011). Deviant Formal Causation. Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy 5 (3).
Alison Hills (2007). Intentions, Foreseen Consequences and the Doctrine of Double Effect. Philosophical Studies 133 (2):257 - 283.
Lawrence Masek (2010). Intentions, Motives and the Doctrine of Double Effect. Philosophical Quarterly 60 (240):567-585.
David K. Chan (2000). Intention and Responsibility in Double Effect Cases. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 3 (4):405-434.
John Gibbons (2009). Reason in Action. In Lucy O'Brien & Matthew Soteriou (eds.), Mental Actions. Oxford University Press. 72.
Stephen Mumford & Rani Lill Anjum (2009). Double Prevention and Powers. Journal of Critical Realism 8 (3):277-293.
Markus E. Schlosser (2007). Basic Deviance Reconsidered. Analysis 67 (295):186–194.
Robert K. Shope (1991). Non-Deviant Causal Chains. Journal of Philosophical Research 16:251-291.
John R. Searle (1979). The Intentionality of Intention and Action. Inquiry 22 (1-4):253 – 280.
Sophia Reibetanz (1998). A Problem for the Doctrine of Double Effect. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 98 (2):217–223.
Johannes Persson (2002). Cause, Effect, and Fake Causation. Synthese 131 (1):129 - 143.
Frank Hindriks (2014). Normativity in Action: How to Explain the Knobe Effect and its Relatives. Mind and Language 29 (1):51-72.
Markus E. Schlosser (2010). Bending It Like Beckham: Movement, Control and Deviant Causal Chains. Analysis 70 (2):299-303.
Added to index2012-10-10
Total downloads11 ( #137,127 of 1,101,678 )
Recent downloads (6 months)5 ( #59,534 of 1,101,678 )
How can I increase my downloads?