Ethics 111 (2):219-255 (2001)
AbstractI will introduce six constraints that should guide the formulation and use of DE. One goal in listing them is to engage in dialectical fair play by ruling out criticisms of the doctrine that are directed at misformulations of DE or that result from misapplications of it. Each of these constraints should be acceptable to any proponent of DE. Yet when these constraints on the application of DE are respected, it becomes clear that many of the examples provided as illustrations of DE actually illustrate other, more interesting uses of the contrast between intention and foresight.
Similar books and articles
Double-Effect Reasoning: Doing Good and Avoiding Evil.T. A. Cavanaugh - 2006 - Oxford University Press.
Intentions, Motives and the Doctrine of Double Effect.Lawrence Masek - 2010 - Philosophical Quarterly 60 (240):567-585.
The Paradox of Self-Defense: Saving Oneself by Harming Another.Whitley R. P. Kaufman - 2009 - Lexington Books.
The Double Life of Double Effect.Allison McIntyre - 2004 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 25 (1):61-74.
Intentions, Foreseen Consequences and the Doctrine of Double Effect.Alison Hills - 2007 - Philosophical Studies 133 (2):257 - 283.
Four Versions of Double Effect.Donald B. Marquis - 1991 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 16 (5):515-544.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
The Means/Side-Effect Distinction in Moral Cognition: A Meta-Analysis.Adam Feltz & Joshua May - 2017 - Cognition 166 (C):314-327.
Self-Sacrifice and the Trolley Problem.Ezio Di Nucci - 2013 - Philosophical Psychology 26 (5):662-672.
Just War Theory: Revisionists Vs Traditionalists.Seth Lazar - 2017 - Annual Review of Political Science 20:37-54.
References found in this work
No references found.