Deconstructing the doctrine of double effect

Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 3 (2):195-207 (2000)
  Copy   BIBTEX


This paper examines the doctrine of double effect as it is typically applied. The difficulty of distinguishing between what we intend and what we foresee is highlighted. In particular, Warren Quinn's articulation of that distinction is examined and criticised. It is then proposed that the only credible way that we can be said to foresee that a harm will result and mean something other than that we intend it to result, is if we are not certain that that harm will result. The ramifications of this are explored. The paper concludes with a moral evaluation of a variety of cases that have harmful outcomes. It is recommended both that we abandon the doctrine of double effect and that we cease to describe cases with harmful outcomes in a dishonest way.



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,386

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Intentions, motives and the doctrine of double effect.Lawrence Masek - 2010 - Philosophical Quarterly 60 (240):567-585.
Revising the Doctrine of Double Effect.Jeff McMahan - 1994 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 11 (2):201-212.
Who is entitled to double effect?Joseph Boyle - 1991 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 16 (5):475-494.
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.


Added to PP

167 (#112,535)

6 months
14 (#170,561)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

References found in this work

The limits of morality.Shelly Kagan - 1989 - New York: Oxford University Press.
Punishment and Responsibility.H. L. A. Hart - 1968 - Philosophy 45 (172):162-162.

Add more references