Christian Bioethics 3 (2):89-114 (1997)
AbstractOne's conception of the conditions and applicability of the principle of double effect derive from one's broader convictions about moral methodology. Developed in a Catholic context which presumed the existence of moral absolutes, the principle of double effect was originally a conceptual tool to aid priests in being skilled confessors. In recent decades, as the practice of moral theology has become less connected with its earlier ecclesial and sacramental context, the principle of double effect has fallen into an epistemological crisis. Contemporary moral theological discussion of the principle of double effect usually operates in one of the following four contexts: interpretation of Aquinas; in relation to manualist casuistry; as understood within proportionalist methodology; as defended within the new natural law methodology. The essay argues that juridically-oriented methodologies do not adequately sustain the principle of double effect. To be sustained, it must be viewed as a theological achievement based upon the meaning of our redemption in Christ and the concomitant possibilities regarding our actions in pursuit of our true good and true end
Similar books and articles
Who is Entitled to Double Effect?Joseph Boyle - 1991 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 16 (5):475-494.
Intentions, Motives and the Doctrine of Double Effect.Lawrence Masek - 2010 - Philosophical Quarterly 60 (240):567-585.
Four Versions of Double Effect.Donald B. Marquis - 1991 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 16 (5):515-544.
The Paradox of Self-Defense: Saving Oneself by Harming Another.Whitley R. P. Kaufman - 2009 - Lexington Books.
An Historical Analysis of the Principle of Double Effect.Joseph Mangan - 1949 - Theological Studies 10:41-61.
Double Effect and Terror Bombing.Ezio Di Nucci - 2013 - In T. Spitzley, M. Hoeltje & W. Spohn (eds.), Was dürfen wir glauben? Was sollen wir tun? Sektionsbeiträge des achten internationalen Kongresses der Gesellschaft für Analytische Philosophie e.V. GAP.
Intentions, Foreseen Consequences and the Doctrine of Double Effect.Alison Hills - 2007 - Philosophical Studies 133 (2):257 - 283.
Deconstructing the Doctrine of Double Effect.Richard Hull - 2000 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 3 (2):195-207.
Intention and Responsibility in Double Effect Cases.David K. Chan - 2000 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 3 (4):405-434.
Scanlon on Double Effect. [REVIEW]Ralph Wedgwood - 2011 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 83 (2):464-472.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
Ethical Decision-Making: A Case for the Triple Font Theory.Surendra Arjoon - 2007 - Journal of Business Ethics 71 (4):395-410.
Knowing, Anticipating, Even Facilitating but Still Not Intending: Another Challenge to Double Effect Reasoning.S. Duckett - 2018 - Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 15 (1):33-37.
Defining the Scope of Casey and Salzman's Application of the Rule of Double Effect to the Therapeutic and Prophylactic Uses of Combined Oral Contraceptives.Patrick M. Clark - 2014 - American Journal of Bioethics 14 (7):35-38.
References found in this work
No references found.