Nancy Davis and the Means-End Relation: Toward a Defense of the Doctrine of Double Effect


Abstract
In her paper, “The Doctrine of Double Effect: Problems of Interpretation,” Nancy Davis attempts to find an interpretation of the means-end relationship that would provide a foundation for the Doctrine of Double Effect and its reliance on the distinction between what an agent intends or brings about intentionally and what that agent merely foresees will result from his/her action, but does not intend. Davis’s inability to find such an interpretation lessens the plausibility of the view that theDDE is an acceptable moral doctrine. In the present paper, it is suggested that Davis’s inability to find an interpretation of the means-end relationship that will support the DDE results from her assumption that an agent must intend to produce whatever he/she produces intentionally. Borrowing an argument from Michael Bratman, this article shows that Davis’s assumption is false. Thatrealization paves the way toward a defense of the DDE.
Keywords Catholic Tradition  Contemporary Philosophy  History of Philosophy  Philosophy and Religion
Categories (categorize this paper)
ISBN(s) 1051-3558
DOI acpq200377322
Options
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: 47,395
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

Doctrine of Double Effect.Alison McIntyre - 2008 - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Intention in Ethics.Joseph Shaw - 2006 - Canadian Journal of Philosophy 36 (2):187-223.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

The Doctrine of Double Effect: Problems of Interpretation.Nancy Davis - 1984 - Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 65 (2):107.
Revising the Doctrine of Double Effect.Jeff McMahan - 1994 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 11 (2):201-212.
Intentions, Motives and the Doctrine of Double Effect.Lawrence Masek - 2010 - Philosophical Quarterly 60 (240):567-585.
Aristotle and Double Effect.Ezio Di Nucci - 2014 - Journal of Ancient Philosophy 8 (1):20.
Deconstructing the Doctrine of Double Effect.Richard Hull - 2000 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 3 (2):195-207.
The Theoretical Tenability of the Doctrine of Double Effect.T. J. Bole - 1991 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 16 (5):467-473.
Intending, Foreseeing and the Doctrine of Double Effect.Ann Bumpus - 1995 - Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Four Versions of Double Effect.Donald B. Marquis - 1991 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 16 (5):515-544.
Double Effect and the Criminal Law.Alexander Sarch - 2017 - Criminal Law and Philosophy 11 (3):453-479.
The Psychological Origins of the Doctrine of Double Effect.Fiery Cushman - 2016 - Criminal Law and Philosophy 10 (4):763-776.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2011-02-22

Total views
42 ( #216,485 of 2,291,332 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
3 ( #398,154 of 2,291,332 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes

Sign in to use this feature