David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophical Studies 146 (2):223 - 231 (2009)
Judith Jarvis Thomson’s Loop Case is particularly significant in normative ethics because it questions the validity of the intuitively plausible Doctrine of Double Effect, according to which there is a significant difference between harm that is intended and harm that is merely foreseen and not intended. Recently, Frances Kamm has argued that what she calls the Doctrine of Triple Effect (DTE), which draws a distinction between acting because-of and acting in-order-to, can account for our judgment about the Loop Case. In this paper, I first argue that even if the distinction drawn by DTE can be sustained, it does not seem to apply to the Loop Case. Moreover, I question whether this distinction has any normative significance. The upshot is that I am skeptical that DTE can explain our judgment about the Loop Case.
|Keywords||Doctrine of Double Effect Doctrine of Triple Effect The Loop Case Trolley cases Frances Kamm’s ethics Intuitions|
|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
F. M. Kamm (2007/2008). Intricate Ethics: Rights, Responsibilities, and Permissible Harm. New York ;Oxford University Press.
Alastair Norcross (2008). Off Her Trolley? Frances Kamm and the Metaphysics of Morality. Utilitas 20 (1):65-80.
Michael Otsuka (2008). Double Effect, Triple Effect and the Trolley Problem: Squaring the Circle in Looping Cases. Utilitas 20 (1):92-110.
Warren S. Quinn (1989). Actions, Intentions, and Consequences: The Doctrine of Double Effect. Philosophy and Public Affairs 18 (4):334-351.
Warren S. Quinn (1989). Actions, Intentions, and Consequences: The Doctrine of Doing and Allowing. Philosophical Review 98 (3):287-312.
Citations of this work BETA
Stijn Bruers & Johan Braeckman (2014). A Review and Systematization of the Trolley Problem. Philosophia 42 (2):251-269.
Similar books and articles
Donald B. Marquis (1991). Four Versions of Double Effect. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 16 (5):515-544.
Richard Hull (2000). Deconstructing the Doctrine of Double Effect. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 3 (2):195-207.
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 Roughley (2007). The Double Failure of 'Double Effect'. In Christoph Lumer & Sandro Nannini (eds.), Intentionality, Deliberation, and Autonomy. Ashgate.
Alison Hills (2007). Intentions, Foreseen Consequences and the Doctrine of Double Effect. Philosophical Studies 133 (2):257 - 283.
Jeff McMahan (1994). Revising the Doctrine of Double Effect. Journal of Applied Philosophy 11 (2):201-212.
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.
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.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads48 ( #38,376 of 1,139,819 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #99,928 of 1,139,819 )
How can I increase my downloads?