A Critique of Scanlon on Double Effect

Journal of Moral Philosophy 9 (2):178-199 (2012)
Abstract
According to the Principle of Double Effect (PDE), there are conditions under which it would be morally justifiable to cause some harm as a foreseen side-effect of one's action even though it would not be justifiable to form and execute the intention of causing the same harm. If we take the kind of justification in question to be that of moral permissibility, this principle correctly maps common intuitions about when it would be permissible to act in certain ways. T.M. Scanlon argues that the PDE so interpreted is problematic, as it returns implausible verdicts in other scenarios. Scanlon is unable to account for the common pattern of moral reasoning that we employ in the relevant cases. I argue that we can account for this pattern while avoiding implausible verdicts if we interpret the PDE as a principle about when it is licit to inflict harm rather than when it is permissible to do so, and if we connect the concept of the licit with that of the permissible in the right way
Keywords Aquinas   intention   moral permissibility   double effect   Scanlon
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1163/174552412X625763
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
Edit this record
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Mark as duplicate
Request removal from index
Revision history
Download options
Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 29,841
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

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

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.
A Defense of St. Thomas and the Principle of Double Effect.Daniel F. Montaldi - 1986 - Journal of Religious Ethics 14 (2):296 - 332.
Collateral Damage and the Principle of Due Care.Anne Schwenkenbecher - 2014 - Journal of Military Ethics 13 (1):94-105.
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.
Added to PP index
2012-04-03

Total downloads
35 ( #160,479 of 2,210,399 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
2 ( #225,618 of 2,210,399 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads
My notes
Sign in to use this feature