David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association 83:279-292 (2009)
The principles whereby the reason operates in ethically complicated situations has been subject to long-standing debates in Catholic Philosophy. A classic text which exemplifies this is Aquinas’s consideration of self-defensive killing. In this paper I clarify two central issues in double-effect reasoning debates surrounding this text. Both issues are connected to the seemingly simple but actually complex task of accounting for the “chosen means” of self-defense. The first issue is whether the “chosen means” are also able to be considered a “proximate end,” to which the intention is directed. The second is determining whether the assailant’s death is related to the “chosen means” per se and therefore to the rest of the moral action. Resolving these issues will provide grounds for answering the broader question implicit in the situation of self-defensive killing: what is to be done when human actions would inevitably entail that some evil is instrumentally tied to realizing some good?
|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
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
T. A. Cavanaugh (2006). Double-Effect Reasoning: Doing Good and Avoiding Evil. Oxford University Press.
Joseph Boyle (1991). Who is Entitled to Double Effect? Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 16 (5):475-494.
Whitley R. P. Kaufman (2009). The Paradox of Self-Defense: Saving Oneself by Harming Another. Lexington Books.
Patricia A. Ross (2005). Sorting Out the Concept Disorder. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 26 (2):115-140.
Lawrence Masek (2011). The Contralife Argument and the Principle of Double Effect. National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 11 (1):83-97.
Lawrence Masek (2010). Intentions, Motives and the Doctrine of Double Effect. Philosophical Quarterly 60 (240):567-585.
Jeff McMahan (1994). Revising the Doctrine of Double Effect. Journal of Applied Philosophy 11 (2):201-212.
John Zeis (2004). Killing Innocents and the Doctrine of Double Effect. Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association 78:133-144.
Frances M. Kamm (1991). The Doctrine of Double Effect: Reflections on Theoretical and Practical Issues. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 16 (5):571-585.
Neil Levy (2011). Neuroethics: A New Way of Doing Ethics. AJOB Neuroscience 2 (2):3-9.
Robert J. Stainton (ed.) (2006). Contemporary Debates in Cognitive Science. Malden MA: Blackwell Publishing.
David K. Chan (2000). Intention and Responsibility in Double Effect Cases. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 3 (4):405-434.
Simon Blackburn & Keith Simmons (eds.) (1999). Truth. Oxford University Press.
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.
Added to index2011-12-01
Total downloads9 ( #157,284 of 1,100,913 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #177,300 of 1,100,913 )
How can I increase my downloads?