Philosophical Studies 133 (2):257 - 283 (2007)

Authors
Alison Hills
Oxford University
Abstract
The difficulty of distinguishing between the intended and the merely foreseen consequences of actions seems to many to be the most serious problem for the doctrine of double effect. It has led some to reject the doctrine altogether, and has left some of its defenders recasting it in entirely different terms. I argue that these responses are unnecessary. Using Bratman’s conception of intention, I distinguish the intended consequences of an action from the merely foreseen in a way that can be used to support the doctrine of double effect.
Keywords Philosophy   Philosophy of Religion   Philosophy of Mind   Epistemology   Logic   Philosophy
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/s11098-005-4603-4
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: 62,401
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

Intention.G. E. M. Anscombe - 1957 - Harvard University Press.
Punishment and Responsibility.H. L. A. Hart - 1968 - Philosophy 45 (172):162-162.

View all 32 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Three Cheers for Double Effect.Dana Kay Nelkin & Samuel C. Rickless - 2014 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 89 (1):125-158.

View all 13 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

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.
Who is Entitled to Double Effect?Joseph Boyle - 1991 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 16 (5):475-494.
Revising the Doctrine of Double Effect.Jeff McMahan - 1994 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 11 (2):201-212.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2009-01-28

Total views
250 ( #38,125 of 2,445,570 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
2 ( #310,703 of 2,445,570 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes