Authors
Thomas Cavanaugh
University of San Francisco
Abstract
In “Modern Moral Philosophy” Anscombe argues that the distinction between intention of an end or means and foresight of a consequentially comparable outcome proves crucial in act-evaluation. The deontologist J. J. Thomson disagrees. She asserts that Anscombe mistakes the distinction’s moral import; it bears on agent-evaluation, not act-evaluation. I map out the contours of this dispute. I show that it implicates other disagreements, some to be expected and others not to be expected. Amongst the expected, one finds the ethicists’ accounts of action and understanding of how agent-assessment relates to act-assessment. Amongst the unexpected, one finds the moralists’ views about the possibility of self-imposed moral dilemmas and allied positions concerning temporal aspects of “ought implies can.” Anscombe’s employment of the distinction in act-evaluation withstands close scrutiny; Thomson’s denial of it does not.
Keywords Catholic Tradition  Contemporary Philosophy  History of Philosophy  Philosophy and Religion
Categories (categorize this paper)
ISBN(s) 1051-3558
DOI 10.5840/acpq201622479
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 53,742
External links

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.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Anscombe, Thomson, and Double Effect in Advance.T. A. Cavanaugh - forthcoming - American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly.
Intentions, Motives and the Doctrine of Double Effect.Lawrence Masek - 2010 - Philosophical Quarterly 60 (240):567-585.
The Danger of Double Effect.P. A. Reed - 2012 - Christian Bioethics 18 (3):287-300.
Elizabeth Anscombe and the New Natural Lawyers on Intentional Action.Matthew B. O'Brien - 2013 - National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly (1):47-56.
Who is Entitled to Double Effect?Joseph Boyle - 1991 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 16 (5):475-494.
The Doctrine of Double Effect.Neil Delaney - 2015 - American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 89 (3):397-406.
Some Light on Double Effect.James G. Hanink - 1975 - Analysis 35 (5):147 - 151.
Aristotle and Double Effect.Ezio Di Nucci - 2014 - Journal of Ancient Philosophy 8 (1):20.
The Contralife Argument and the Principle of Double Effect.Lawrence Masek - 2011 - National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 11 (1):83-97.
A Double Dose of Double Effect.C. E. Kendall - 2000 - Journal of Medical Ethics 26 (3):204-205.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2016-05-13

Total views
23 ( #434,354 of 2,349,895 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
2 ( #331,717 of 2,349,895 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes