David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophical Studies 116 (2):133-152 (2003)
According to the doctrine of double effect(DDE), there is a morally significantdifference between harm that is intended andharm that is merely foreseen and not intended.It is not difficult to explain why it is bad tointend harm as an end (you have a ``badattitude'' toward that harm) but it is hard toexplain why it is bad to intend harm as a meansto some good end. If you intend harm as a meansto some good end, you need not have a ``badattitude'' toward it. I distinguish two ways inwhich you can treat something that is yourchosen means to your ends. You can pursue yourends directly, and treat X as a mere means thatyou pursue for the sake of your end. Or you canpursue your ends indirectly, and treat X as a``plan-relative end'' that you pursue for its ownsake. I argue that much of the time we pursueour ends indirectly, and treat our means asplan-relative ends. There are significantanalogies between intending harm as an end, andintending harm as a plan-relative end. So,under certain circumstances, it is morallyworse to intend harm as a means or an end thanto foresee bringing about the same amount of harm.
|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
Alison Hills (2007). Intentions, Foreseen Consequences and the Doctrine of Double Effect. Philosophical Studies 133 (2):257 - 283.
Brian Lawson (2013). Individual Complicity in Collective Wrongdoing. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 16 (2):227-243.
Stacy Elizabeth Stevenson & Lee Anne Peck (2011). “I Am Eating a Sandwich Now”: Intent and Foresight in the Twitter Age. Journal of Mass Media Ethics 26 (1):56-65.
Michael S. Moore (2012). Four Friendly Critics: A Response. Legal Theory 18 (4):491-542.
Similar books and articles
Lawrence Masek (2010). Intentions, Motives and the Doctrine of Double Effect. Philosophical Quarterly 60 (240):567-585.
Frances M. Kamm (2000). The Doctrine of Triple Effect and Why a Rational Agent Need Not Intend the Means to His End, I. Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 74 (1):21–39.
John Harris (2000). The Doctrine of Triple Effect and Why a Rational Agent Need Not Intend the Means to His End, II. Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 74 (1):41–57.
Samuel C. Rickless (2011). The Moral Status of Enabling Harm. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 92 (1):66-86.
William J. Fitzpatrick (2006). The Intend/Foresee Distinction and the Problem of “Closeness”. Philosophical Studies 128 (3):585 - 617.
P. A. Woodward (2003). Nancy Davis and the Means-End Relation. American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 77 (3):437-457.
Richard Hull (2000). Deconstructing the Doctrine of Double Effect. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 3 (2):195-207.
Neil Francis Delaney (2008). Two Cheers for “Closeness”: Terror, Targeting and Double Effect. Philosophical Studies 137 (3):335 - 367.
Jeff McMahan (1994). Revising the Doctrine of Double Effect. Journal of Applied Philosophy 11 (2):201-212.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads91 ( #15,518 of 1,140,270 )
Recent downloads (6 months)6 ( #32,080 of 1,140,270 )
How can I increase my downloads?