Graduate studies at Western
Social Theory and Practice 36 (4):541-564 (2010)
|Abstract||In recent work, T.M. Scanlon has unsuccessfully challenged the doctrine of double effect (DDE). First, comparing actions reflecting faulty moral deliberations and involving merely foreseen harm with actions reflecting less faulty moral deliberations involving intended harm suggests that proponents of DDE do not confuse the critical and the deliberative uses of moral principles. Second, Scanlon submits that it is odd to say to a deliberating agent that the permissibility of the actions she ponders depends on the intention with which she will act. I argue that this can be explained without appeal to the claim that intentions are irrelevant to permissibility|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Jakob Elster (2012). Scanlon on Permissibility and Double Effect. Journal of Moral Philosophy 9 (1):75-102.
Ralph Wedgwood (2011). Scanlon on Double Effect. [REVIEW] Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 83 (2):464-472.
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.
Joshua Stuchlik (2012). A Critique of Scanlon on Double Effect. Journal of Moral Philosophy 9 (2):178-199.
Alison Hills (2007). Intentions, Foreseen Consequences and the Doctrine of Double Effect. Philosophical Studies 133 (2):257 - 283.
Sophie Botros (1999). An Error About the Doctrine of Double Effect. Philosophy 74 (1):71-83.
Neil Francis Delaney (2007). A Note on Intention and the Doctrine of Double Effect. Philosophical Studies 134 (2):103 - 110.
Sophia Reibetanz (1998). A Problem for the Doctrine of Double Effect. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 98 (2):217–223.
David K. Chan (2000). Intention and Responsibility in Double Effect Cases. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 3 (4):405-434.
Ralph Wedgwood (2011). Defending Double Effect. Ratio 24 (4):384-401.
Sophie Botros (2001). An Error About the Doctrine of Double Effect: A Response to Kaufman's Reply to Botros. Philosophy 76 (2):304-311.
Iii Get Checked Abstract Thomas J. Bole (1991). The Theoretical Tenability of the Doctrine of Double Effect. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 16 (5).
Neil Levy (2011). Neuroethics: A New Way of Doing Ethics. AJOB Neuroscience 2 (2):3-9.
Donald B. Marquis (1991). Four Versions of Double Effect. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 16 (5):515-544.
Added to index2011-01-09
Total downloads18 ( #74,535 of 723,836 )
Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #20,425 of 723,836 )
How can I increase my downloads?