David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 9 (4):441 - 460 (2006)
There are two perspectives available from which to understand an agent's intention in acting. The first is the perspective of the acting agent: what did she take to be her end, and the means necessary to achieve that end? The other is a third person perspective that is attentive to causal or conceptual relations: was some causal outcome of the agent's action sufficiently close, or so conceptually related, to what the agent did that it should be considered part of her intention? Recent goods based views in ethics are divided as to whether only the first person perspective, or a mix of both perspectives, are necessary to understand intention and action. But resolution of the issue is necessary if goods based views are to be able to deploy to principle of double effect; for that principle requires an account of how to distinguish what is genuinely a matter of intention in human action from what is not. I argue that the pure first person account is better than the mixed account.
|Keywords||action basic goods double effect intention natural law|
|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
Thomas Nagel (1979). Mortal Questions. Cambridge University Press.
Michael Bratman (1987). Intention, Plans, and Practical Reason. Center for the Study of Language and Information.
Immanuel Kant (1785/2002). Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals. Oxford University Press.
Henry Sidgwick (1907). The Methods of Ethics. Thoemmes Press.
Alan Donagan (1977). The Theory of Morality. University of Chicago Press.
Citations of this work BETA
C. Tollefsen (2008). Intending Damage to Basic Goods. Christian Bioethics 14 (3):272-282.
Similar books and articles
Anfinn Stigen (1970). The Concept of a Human Action. Inquiry 13 (1-4):1 – 31.
Michelle Ciurria (2012). A New Mixed View of Virtue Ethics, Based on Daniel Doviak's New Virtue Calculus. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 15 (2):259-269.
Helen Frowe (2010). A Practical Account of Self-Defence. Law and Philosophy 29 (3):245-272.
John R. Searle (1979). The Intentionality of Intention and Action. Inquiry 22 (1-4):253 – 280.
Lynne Rudder Baker (2011). First-Personal Aspects of Agency. Metaphilosophy 42 (1-2):1-16.
Hugh McCann (1995). Intention and Motivational Strength. Journal of Philosophical Research 20:571-583.
Liezl van Zyl (2011). Right Action and the Non-Virtuous Agent. Journal of Applied Philosophy 28 (1):80-92.
Timothy O'Connor & John Ross Churchill (2004). Reasons Explanation and Agent Control: In Search of an Integrated Account. Philosophical Topics 32 (1):241.
Raimo Tuomela & Kaarlo Miller (1992). We-Intentions, Free-Riding, and Being in Reserve. Erkenntnis 36 (1):25 - 52.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads35 ( #119,097 of 1,911,733 )
Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #180,473 of 1,911,733 )
How can I increase my downloads?