The Principle of Objectified Circumstances : Clarifying the Proximate End

Heythrop Journal 56 (4):570-583 (2015)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

This paper seeks to clarify the proximate end. A distinction is made between the definition of an act and the identification of an act. The principle of objectified circumstances is postulated which, without expanding beyond the proximate end, gives due weight to both the perspective of the acting person and the context within which an act occurs. POC is used to help discern the object contained within the proximate end. It is applied to the issues of euthanasia, lying, mutilation, and the controversy between Martin Rhonheimer and Janet Smith concerning the use of condoms for HIV protection. The challenge of angelism is addressed. The paper argues that the object, located exclusively in the proximate end, can be understood in a way that is sensitive to both traditionalist and proportionalist schools of thought. POC opens up an avenue of thought for fresh dialogue concerning the identification of the moral object

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,628

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Causes, proximate and ultimate.Richard C. Francis - 1990 - Biology and Philosophy 5 (4):401-415.
The Wason task(s) and the paradox of confirmation.Branden Fitelson - 2010 - Philosophical Perspectives 24 (1):207-241.
Moral heuristics and the means/end distinction.Barbara H. Fried - 2005 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (4):549-550.
The phylogeny fallacy and the ontogeny fallacy.Adam Hochman - 2013 - Biology and Philosophy 28 (4):593-612.

Analytics

Added to PP
2013-06-09

Downloads
24 (#652,803)

6 months
2 (#1,187,206)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Health care ethics: a theological analysis.Benedict M. Ashley - 1997 - Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. Edited by Kevin D. O'Rourke.
Where Have All the Proportionalists Gone?Aline H. Kalbian - 2002 - Journal of Religious Ethics 30 (1):3 - 22.

View all 15 references / Add more references