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):301–317 (2000)
[T. M. Scanlon] It is clearly impermissible to kill one person because his organs can be used to save five others who are in need of transplants. It has seemed to many that the explanation for this lies in the fact that in such cases we would be intending the death of the person whom we killed, or failed to save. What makes these actions impermissible, however, is not the agent's intention but rather the fact that the benefit envisaged does not justify an exception to the prohibition against killing or the requirement to give aid. The difference between this explanation and one appealing to intention is easily overlooked if one fails to distinguish between the prospective use of a moral principle to guide action and its retrospective use to appraise the way an agent governed him or herself. Even if this explanation is accepted, however, it remains an open question whether and how an agent's intention may be relevant to the permissibility of actions in other cases. \\\ [Jonathan Dancy] My first four sections concentrate on the second section of Professor Scanlon's contribution, where he lays out his conception of moral principles and of the role they play in theory and practice. I will raise questions on the following issues: 1. Scanlon's initial introduction of the notion of a principle. 2. His rejection of the standard view that principles are concerned with the forbidding, permitting and requiring of actions. 3. His rejection of pro tanto conceptions of principles in favour of a conception of them as conclusive. 4. The resulting account of what it is for a principle to face and survive exceptions. Scanlon's discussion of these matters here both appeals to and is in some respects more detailed than the relevant section of his recent What We Owe to Each Other. The topic is interesting both for the role played by principles in Scanlon's present discussion of intention and permissibility, and more generally because of his account of wrongness: an act is wrong iff it is ruled out by principles that nobody could reasonably reject. The remainder of my contribution is concerned with the ostensible focus of IP, namely the relevance of agent-intentions to the permissibility of what is done
|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
Frances M. Kamm (2005). Is There a Problem with Enhancement? American Journal of Bioethics 5 (3):5 – 14.
Anne Schwenkenbecher (2014). Collateral Damage and the Principle of Due Care. Journal of Military Ethics 13 (1):94-105.
José Juan Moreso (2012). Ways of Solving Conflicts of Constitutional Rights: Proportionalism and Specificationism. Ratio Juris 25 (1):31-46.
Barbara H. Fried (2012). Can Contractualism Save Us From Aggregation? Journal of Ethics 16 (1):39-66.
By Joseph Shaw (2006). Intentions and Trolleys. Philosophical Quarterly 56 (222):63–83.
Similar books and articles
Ralph Wedgwood (2011). Scanlon on Double Effect. [REVIEW] Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 83 (2):464-472.
Christopher Tollefsen (2006). Is a Purely First Person Account of Human Action Defensible? Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 9 (4):441 - 460.
Brad Hooker (2002). Contractualism, Spare Wheel, Aggregation. In Matt Matravers (ed.), Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy. Frank Cass 53-76.
Hallvard Lillehammer (2010). Scanlon on Intention and Permissibility. Analysis 70 (3):578-585.
Philip Stratton-Lake (2003). Scanlon, Permissions, and Redundancy: Response to McNaughton and Rawling. Analysis 63 (4):332–337.
Hallvard Lillehammer (2010). Scanlon on Intention and Permissibility. Analysis 70 (3):578 - 585.
David McNaughton & Piers Rawling (2003). Can Scanlon Avoid Redundancy by Passing the Buck? Analysis 63 (4):328–331.
Amir Saemi (2009). Intention and Permissibility. Ethical Perspectives 16 (1):81-101.
Jonathan Dancy (2000). Intention and Permissibility, II. Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 74 (1):319–338.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads87 ( #51,922 of 2,245,407 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #293,948 of 2,245,407 )
How can I increase my downloads?