Double Effect and Terror Bombing

Abstract

I argue against the Doctrine of Double Effect’s explanation of the moral difference between terror bombing and strategic bombing. I show that the standard thought-experiment of Terror Bomber and Strategic Bomber which dominates this debate is underdetermined in three crucial respects: (1) the non-psychological worlds of Terror Bomber and Strategic Bomber; (2) the psychologies of Terror Bomber and Strategic Bomber; and (3) the structure of the thought-experiment, especially in relation to its similarity with the Trolley Problem. (1) If the two worlds are not identical, then it may be these differences between the two worlds and not the Doctrine of Double Effect to explain the moral difference; (2a) if Terror Bomber and Strategic Bomber have the same causal beliefs, then why does Terror Bomber set out to kill the children? It may then be this unwarranted and immoral choice and not the Doctrine of Double Effect that explains the moral difference; (2b) if the two have different causal beliefs, then we can’t rule out the counterfactual that, had Strategic Bomber had the same beliefs as Terror Bomber, she would have also acted as Terror Bomber did. Finally, (3) the Strategic Bomber scenario could also be constructed so as to be structurally equivalent to the Fat Man scenario in the Trolley Problem: but then the Doctrine of Double Effect would give different answers to two symmetrical cases.

Download options

PhilArchive

External links

  • This entry has no external links. Add one.
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2012-12-11

Downloads
1,435 (#3,825)

6 months
131 (#4,497)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Ezio Di Nucci
University of Copenhagen

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work

Embryo Loss and Double Effect.Ezio Di Nucci - 2013 - Journal of Medical Ethics 39 (8):537-540.
Action, Deviance, and Guidance.Ezio Di Nucci - 2013 - Abstracta (2):41-59.
Aristotle and Double Effect.Ezio Di Nucci - 2014 - Journal of Ancient Philosophy 8 (1):20.
Trolleys and Double Effect in Experimental Ethics.Ezio Di Nucci - forthcoming - In Christoph Luetge, Hannes Rusch & Matthias Uhl (eds.), Experimental Ethics. Palgrave-Macmillan.
Contraception and Double Effect.Ezio Di Nucci - 2014 - American Journal of Bioethics 14 (7):42-43.

View all 7 citations / Add more citations

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.
Intention and Responsibility in Double Effect Cases.David K. Chan - 2000 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 3 (4):405-434.
Four Versions of Double Effect.Donald B. Marquis - 1991 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 16 (5):515-544.
The Double Failure of 'Double Effect'.Neil Roughley - 2007 - In Christoph Lumer & Sandro Nannini (eds.), Intentionality, Deliberation, and Autonomy. Ashgate.
Deconstructing the Doctrine of Double Effect.Richard Hull - 2000 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 3 (2):195-207.