Is the Appeal of the Doctrine of Double Effect Illusory?

Philosophia 41 (2):349-359 (2013)

Danny Marrero
The Colombian Office of The Attorney General
Scanlon (2008) has argued that his theory of permissibility (STP) has more explanatory power than the Doctrine of Double Effect (DDE). I believe this claim is wrong. Borrowing Michael Walzer’s method of inquiry, I will evaluate the explanatory virtue of these accounts by their understanding of actual moral intuitions originated in historical cases. Practically, I will evaluate these accounts as they explain cases of hostage crises. The main question in this context is: is it permissible that nation-states act with military force in order to liberate hostages, even if those actions put the lives of the hostages at risk? The first part of this paper has an operative reconstruction of the relevant theories. In the second section, two cases of hostage crises will be considered: the Moscow theater hostage crisis of 2002, and the Jaque Operation, which occurred in Colombia in 2008. Additionally, it will be shown that DDE explains these cases better than STP. Finally, this paper offers a critical analysis of Scanlon’s account of the explanatory power of both STP and DDE
Keywords Double Effect  Permissibility  Philosophy of War  Hostage Crises  Thomas Scanlon
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/s11406-013-9436-3
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 43,049
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Moral Dimensions: Permissibility, Meaning, Blame.Thomas Scanlon - 2008 - Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Intention, Plans, and Practical Reason.Michael Bratman - 1987 - Center for the Study of Language and Information.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Scanlon on Permissibility and Double Effect.Jakob Elster - 2012 - Journal of Moral Philosophy 9 (1):75-102.
Scanlon on the Doctrine of Double Effect.Kasper Lippert-Rasmussen - 2010 - Social Theory and Practice 36 (4):541-564.
Scanlon on Double Effect. [REVIEW]Ralph Wedgwood - 2011 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 83 (2):464-472.
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.
Neuroethics: A New Way of Doing Ethics.Neil Levy - 2011 - American Journal of Bioethics Neuroscience 2 (2):3-9.
A Critique of Scanlon on Double Effect.Joshua Stuchlik - 2012 - Journal of Moral Philosophy 9 (2):178-199.
Defending Double Effect.Ralph Wedgwood - 2011 - Ratio 24 (4):384-401.
Revising the Doctrine of Double Effect.Jeff McMahan - 1994 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 11 (2):201-212.
A Problem for the Doctrine of Double Effect.Sophia Reibetanz - 1998 - Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 98 (2):217–223.
Moral Dimensions: Permissibility, Meaning, Blame.Thomas Scanlon - 2008 - Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Who is Entitled to Double Effect?Joseph Boyle - 1991 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 16 (5):475-494.


Added to PP index

Total views
44 ( #186,666 of 2,260,175 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #905,492 of 2,260,175 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes

Sign in to use this feature