David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 74 (1):21–39 (2000)
In this article I am concerned with whether it could be morally significant to distinguish between doing something 'in order to bring about an effect' as opposed to 'doing something because we will bring about an effect'. For example, the Doctrine of Double Effect (DDE) tells us that we should not act in order to bring about evil, but even if this is true is it perhaps permissible to act only because an evil will thus occur? I discuss these questions in connection with a version of the so-called Trolley Problem known as the Loop Case. I also consider how these questions may bear on whether a rational agent must aim at an event which he believes is causally necessary to achieve an end he pursues
|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
Regina A. Rini (2015). How Not to Test for Philosophical Expertise. Synthese 192 (2):431-452.
Ezio Di Nucci (2012). Self-Sacrifice and the Trolley Problem. Philosophical Psychology 26 (5):662-672.
Niko Kolodny (2007). How Does Coherence Matter? Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 107 (1pt3):229 - 263.
Alexander R. Pruss (2013). The Accomplishment of Plans: A New Version of the Principle of Double Effect. [REVIEW] Philosophical Studies 165 (1):49-69.
Anne Schwenkenbecher (2014). Collateral Damage and the Principle of Due Care. Journal of Military Ethics 13 (1):94-105.
Similar books and articles
Lawrence Masek (2010). Intentions, Motives and the Doctrine of Double Effect. Philosophical Quarterly 60 (240):567-585.
P. A. Woodward (2003). Nancy Davis and the Means-End Relation. American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 77 (3):437-457.
Jeff McMahan (1994). Revising the Doctrine of Double Effect. Journal of Applied Philosophy 11 (2):201-212.
S. Matthew Liao (2009). The Loop Case and Kamm's Doctrine of Triple Effect. Philosophical Studies 146 (2):223 - 231.
David K. Chan (2000). Intention and Responsibility in Double Effect Cases. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 3 (4):405-434.
Alison Hills (2003). Defending Double Effect. Philosophical Studies 116 (2):133-152.
Iii Get Checked Abstract Thomas J. Bole (1991). The Theoretical Tenability of the Doctrine of Double Effect. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 16 (5).
Ralph Wedgwood (2011). Defending Double Effect. Ratio 24 (4):384-401.
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.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads104 ( #43,608 of 1,902,892 )
Recent downloads (6 months)10 ( #90,949 of 1,902,892 )
How can I increase my downloads?