Results for 'Doctrine of Double Effect'

1000+ found
Order:
See also
  1.  70
    The Doctrine of Double Effect and the Question of Constraints on Business Decisions.Patrick A. Tully - 2005 - Journal of Business Ethics 58 (1-3):51-63.
    . How does the doctrine of double effect apply to business decisions to sell products which may be harmful to consumers? Lawrence Masek believes that some authors have misapplied the doctrine to this type of decision and, as a consequence, have committed themselves to placing unwarranted constraints on businesses. Seeking to correct this mistake, Masek presents his account of how the doctrine applies here, an account which is rather permissive but which, he claims, nevertheless preserves (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  2. The Doctrine of Double Effect: Intention and Permissibility.William J. FitzPatrick - 2012 - Philosophy Compass 7 (3):183-196.
    The Doctrine of Double Effect (DDE) is an influential non-consequentialist principle positing a role for intention in affecting the moral permissibility of some actions. In particular, the DDE focuses on the intend/foresee distinction, the core claim being that it is sometimes permissible to bring about as a foreseen but unintended side-effect of one’s action some harm it would have been impermissible to aim at as a means or as an end, all else being equal. This article (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   15 citations  
  3. Doctrine of Double Effect.Alison McIntyre - 2008 - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
  4. The Doctrine of Double Effect: Reflections on Theoretical and Practical Issues.Frances M. Kamm - 1991 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 16 (5):571-585.
    The Doctrine of Double Effect and the Principle of Do No Harm raise important theoretical and practical issues, some of which are discussed by Boyle, Donagan, and Quinn. I argue that neither principle is correct, and some revisionist, and probably nonabsolutist, analysis of constraints on action and omission is necessary. In making these points, I examine several approaches to deflection of threat cases, discuss an argument for the permissibility of voluntary euthanasia, and present arguments relevant to medical (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   10 citations  
  5. The Doctrine of Double Effect: Problems of Interpretation.Nancy Davis - 1984 - Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 65 (2):107.
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   26 citations  
  6. The Doctrine of Double Effect: Philosophers Debate a Controversial Moral Principle.P. A. Woodward (ed.) - 2003 - University of Notre Dame Press.
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   15 citations  
  7.  28
    The Doctrine of Double Effect in U.S. Law.Michael E. Allsopp - 2011 - The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 11 (1):31-40.
    The doctrine of double effect has a firm, respected position within Roman Catholic medical ethics. Neil M. Gorsuch, a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, believes that this doctrine also enjoys a central place within U.S. law. This essay examines and assesses Gorsuch’s thesis. National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 11.1 : 31–40.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  8.  39
    The Doctrine of Double Effect, Deadly Drugs, and Business Ethics.Lawrence Masek - 2000 - Business Ethics Quarterly 10 (2):483-495.
    Manuel Velasquez and F. Neil Brady apply the doctrine of double effect to business ethics and conclude that the doctrine allows a pharmaceutical company to sell a drug with potentially fatal side effects only if it also has the good effect of saving lives. This forbidsthe sale of many common products, such as automobiles and alcohol. My account preserves the virtues of the doctrine of double effectwithout making it too restrictive. I apply the (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   13 citations  
  9.  15
    The Doctrine of Double Effect.Suzanne M. Uniacke - 1984 - The Thomist 48 (2):188-218.
  10. Revising the Doctrine of Double Effect.Jeff McMahan - 1994 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 11 (2):201-212.
    The Doctrine of Double Effect has been challenged by the claim that what an agent intends as a means may be limited to those effects that are precisely characterized by the descriptions under which the agent believes that they are minimally causally necessary for the production of other effects that the agent seeks to bring about. If based on so narrow a conception of an intended means, the traditional Doctrine of Double Effect becomes limitlessly (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   28 citations  
  11. The Doctrine of Double Effect: Philosophers Debate a Controversial Moral Principle.P. A. Woodward - 2003 - Philosophical Quarterly 53 (210):147-149.
    No categories
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   12 citations  
  12.  55
    A Problem for the Doctrine of Double Effect.Sophia Reibetanz - 1998 - Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 98 (2):217–223.
    The Doctrine of Double Effect has been defended not only as a test of character but also as a criterion of wrongness for action. This paper criticises one attempt to justify the doctrine in the latter capacity. The justification, first proposed by Warren Quinn, traces the wrongness of intending harm as a means to the objectionable features of certain reasons for making this our intention. As I argue, however, some of the actions which seem to us (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  13.  78
    The Doctrine of Double Effect and the Trolley Problem.Whitley Kaufman - 2016 - Journal of Value Inquiry 50 (1):21-31.
    It is widely held by moral philosophers that J.J. Thomson’s “Loop Variant,” a version of the Trolley Problem first presented by her in 1985, decisively refutes the Doctrine of Double Effect as the right explanation of our moral intuitions in the various trolley-type cases.See Bruers and Brackman, “A Review and Systematization of the Trolley Problem,” Philosophia 42:2 : 251–269; T. Scanlon, Moral Dimensions: Permissibility, Meaning, Blame ; Peter Singer, “Ethics and Intuitions,” Journal of Ethics 9:314 : 331–352, (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  14. Scanlon on the Doctrine of Double Effect.Kasper Lippert-Rasmussen - 2010 - Social Theory and Practice 36 (4):541-564.
    In recent work, T.M. Scanlon has unsuccessfully challenged the doctrine of double effect (DDE). First, comparing actions reflecting faulty moral deliberations and involving merely foreseen harm with actions reflecting less faulty moral deliberations involving intended harm suggests that proponents of DDE do not confuse the critical and the deliberative uses of moral principles. Second, Scanlon submits that it is odd to say to a deliberating agent that the permissibility of the actions she ponders depends on the intention (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  15.  10
    The Doctrine of Double Effect and the Ethics of Dual Use.Suzanne Uniacke - 2013 - In Michael Selgelid & Brian Rappert (eds.), On the Dual Uses of Science and Ethics. Canberra: Australian National University Press. pp. 153-163.
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  16. Deconstructing the Doctrine of Double Effect.Richard Hull - 2000 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 3 (2):195-207.
    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 (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  17. Intentions, Motives and the Doctrine of Double Effect.Lawrence Masek - 2010 - Philosophical Quarterly 60 (240):567-585.
    I defend the doctrine of double effect and a so-called ‘strict’ definition of intention: A intends an effect if and only if A has it as an end or believes that it is a state of affairs in the causal sequence that will result in A's end. Following Kamm's proposed ‘doctrine of triple effect’, I distinguish an intended effect from an effect that motivates an action, and show that this distinction is morally (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   10 citations  
  18.  52
    The Doctrine of Double Effect and End-of-Life Decisions.Lizzie Tuckey & Anne Slowther - 2009 - Clinical Ethics 4 (1):12-14.
  19. Is the Doctrine of Double Effect Irrelevant in End-of-Life Decision Making?Peter Allmark, Mark Cobb, B. Jane Liddle & Angela Mary Tod - 2010 - Nursing Philosophy 11 (3):170-177.
    In this paper, we consider three arguments for the irrelevance of the doctrine of double effect in end-of-life decision making. The third argument is our own and, to that extent, we seek to defend it. The first argument is that end-of-life decisions do not in fact shorten lives and that therefore there is no need for the doctrine in justification of these decisions. We reject this argument; some end-of-life decisions clearly shorten lives. The second is that (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  20.  5
    The Doctrine of Double Effect.Suzanne Uniacke - 2007 - In Richard Ashcroft (ed.), Principles of Health Care Ethics, second edition. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. pp. 263-268.
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  21.  42
    The Doctrine of Double Effect and Affirmative Action.Jeff Jordan - 1990 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 7 (2):213-216.
  22.  76
    The Psychological Origins of the Doctrine of Double Effect.Fiery Cushman - 2016 - Criminal Law and Philosophy 10 (4):763-776.
    The doctrine of double effect is a moral principle that distinguishes between harm we cause as a means to an end and harm that we cause as a side-effect. As a purely descriptive matter, the DDE is well established that it describes a consistent feature of human moral judgment. There are, however, several rival theories of its psychological cause. I review these theories and consider their advantages and disadvantages. Critically, most extant psychological theories of the DDE (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  23. Actions, Intentions, and Consequences: The Doctrine of Double Effect.Warren S. Quinn - 1989 - Philosophy and Public Affairs 18 (4):334-351.
    Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0048-3915%28198923%2918%3A4%3C334%3AAIACTD%3E2.0.CO%3B2-P..
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   142 citations  
  24. Lifespan Extension and the Doctrine of Double Effect.Laura Capitaine, Katrien Devolder & Guido Pennings - 2013 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 34 (3):207-226.
    Recent developments in biogerontology—the study of the biology of ageing—suggest that it may eventually be possible to intervene in the human ageing process. This, in turn, offers the prospect of significantly postponing the onset of age-related diseases. The biogerontological project, however, has met with strong resistance, especially by deontologists. They consider the act of intervening in the ageing process impermissible on the grounds that it would (most probably) bring about an extended maximum lifespan—a state of affairs that they deem intrinsically (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  25.  61
    Killing Innocents and the Doctrine of Double Effect.John Zeis - 2004 - Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association 78:133-144.
    Catholic moral philosophy requires an absolute prohibition against the direct killing of innocents. In this paper I consider some examples of justified actionswhich involve the killing of innocent persons and will present them as cases about which I am confident many others will share the same intuitions. I willthen try to show what conditions apply in such cases that justify those intuitions. I will argue that their justification is in accordance with a modified version of theFinnis, Grisez, Boyle interpretation of (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  26.  68
    Some Aspects to the Doctrine of Double Effect.R. G. Frey - 1975 - Canadian Journal of Philosophy 5 (2):259 - 283.
    My interest is in two of the four conditions which must be satisfied if the doctrine of double effect is to be successfully employed. One of these involves the distinction between direct and oblique intention, And I deny that this distinction is the index of character or goodness adherents to the doctrine take it to be. Rather, I emphasize the notion of "control responsibility", In considering several cases around which discussion of the doctrine has focused. (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  27.  5
    Killing Innocents and the Doctrine of Double Effect.John Zeis - 2004 - Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association 78:133-144.
    Catholic moral philosophy requires an absolute prohibition against the direct killing of innocents. In this paper I consider some examples of justified actionswhich involve the killing of innocent persons and will present them as cases about which I am confident many others will share the same intuitions. I willthen try to show what conditions apply in such cases that justify those intuitions. I will argue that their justification is in accordance with a modified version of theFinnis, Grisez, Boyle interpretation of (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  28.  95
    The Closeness Problem and the Doctrine of Double Effect: A Way Forward.S. Matthew Liao - 2016 - Criminal Law and Philosophy 10 (4):849-863.
    A major challenge to the Doctrine of Double Effect is the concern that an agent’s intention can be identified in such a fine-grained way as to eliminate an intention to harm from a putative example of an intended harm, and yet, the resulting case appears to be a case of impermissibility. This is the so-called “closeness problem.” Many people believe that one can address the closeness problem by adopting Warren Quinn’s version of the DDE, call it DDE*, (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  29.  63
    How Important is the Doctrine of Double Effect for Moral Theology? Contextualizing the Controversy.J. Berkman - 1997 - Christian Bioethics 3 (2):89-114.
    One's conception of the conditions and applicability of the principle of double effect derive from one's broader convictions about moral methodology. Developed in a Catholic context which presumed the existence of moral absolutes, the principle of double effect was originally a conceptual tool to aid priests in being skilled confessors. In recent decades, as the practice of moral theology has become less connected with its earlier ecclesial and sacramental context, the principle of double effect (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  30. So Close, Yet So Far: Why Solutions to the Closeness Problem for the Doctrine of Double Effect Fall Short.Dana Kay Nelkin & Samuel C. Rickless - 2015 - Noûs 49 (2):376-409.
    According to the classical Doctrine of Double Effect, there is a morally significant difference between intending harm and merely foreseeing harm. Versions of DDE have been defended in a variety of creative ways, but there is one difficulty, the so-called “closeness problem”, that continues to bedevil all of them. The problem is that an agent's intention can always be identified in such a fine-grained way as to eliminate an intention to harm from almost any situation, including those (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   16 citations  
  31.  71
    Wild Goose Chase: Still No Rationales for the Doctrine of Double Effect and Related Principles.Uwe Steinhoff - 2019 - Criminal Law and Philosophy 13 (1):1-25.
    I focus on the question as to what rationale could possibly underlie the doctrine of double effect or related principles. I first briefly review the correct critiques of the claim that people who intend some evil as a means to a good must be “guided by evil,” and that this is allegedly always wrong. I then argue that Quinn’s claim that violations of the DDE express certain negative attitudes of the agent and that agents violating the DDE (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  32.  22
    The Doctrine of Double Effect and Killing Animals for Food.Lukas Tank & Stefanie Thiele - 2019 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 32 (2):239-253.
    Producing food on a large scale without killing any animals seems currently impossible. This poses a challenge for deontological positions that involve a prohibition against killing sentient creatures: it seems that according to these positions omnivorous, vegetarian and vegan diets all rely on food produced in impermissible ways. In order to meet this challenge, deontologists might introduce consequentialist considerations into their theories, for example some principles that effectively require to kill as few animals as possible. This is the kind of (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  33. War, Innocence, and the Doctrine of Double Effect.Judith Lichtenberg - 1994 - Philosophical Studies 74 (3):347 - 368.
  34. Physician‐Assisted Suicide, the Doctrine of Double Effect, and the Ground of Value.F. M. Kamm - 1999 - Ethics 109 (3):586-605.
    In this article, I shall present three arguments for thc pcrmissibility 0f physician-assisted suicide (PAS), and then examine several objections 0f 21 "K21nti2m" and non-Kantian nature against them. These are really 0bjcctions against certain types of suicide. I shall focus 0n active PAS (eg., when 21 patient takes 21 lethal drug given by E1 physician, in which case both thc physician and patient are active). I shall assume the patient is 21 competent, responsible, rational agent, who gives his being in (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  35.  68
    Revising the Doctrine of Double Effect.David R. Mapel - 2001 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 18 (3):257–272.
  36.  89
    An Error About the Doctrine of Double Effect.Sophie Botros - 1999 - Philosophy 74 (1):71-83.
    This paper claims as erroneous the current widespread representation of the Doctrine of Double Effect (DDE) as primarily condemning as intrinsically bad actions involving intentional harm. The DDE's Four Conditions are in fact used solely for justifying certain intrinsically good actions with both intended good and unintended bad effects. Though contemporary writers assign a minor justificatory role to the DDE this is incompatible with their attribution to it of a primary prohibitive role. Not only is the conduct (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  37.  63
    Deadly Drugs and the Doctrine of Double Effect: A Reply to Tully.Lawrence Masek - 2006 - Journal of Business Ethics 68 (2):143-151.
    In a recent contribution to this journal, Patrick Tully criticizes my view that the doctrine of double effect does not prohibit a pharmaceutical company from selling a drug that has potentially fatal side-effects and that does not treat a life-threatening condition. Tully alleges my account is too permissive and makes the doctrine irrelevant to decisions about selling harmful products. In the following paper, I respond to Tully’s objections and show that he misinterprets my position and misstates (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  38.  69
    Moral Obstacles: An Alternative to the Doctrine of Double Effect.Gerhard Øverland - 2014 - Ethics 124 (3):481-506.
    The constraint against harming people in order to save yourself and others seems stronger than the constraint against harming people as a consequence of saving yourself and others. The reduced constraint against acting in one type of case is often justified with reference to the intentions of the agent or to the fact that she does not use the people she harms as a means. In this article I offer a victim-centered account. I argue that the circumstances in which the (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   11 citations  
  39. Intentions, Foreseen Consequences and the Doctrine of Double Effect.Alison Hills - 2007 - Philosophical Studies 133 (2):257 - 283.
    The difficulty of distinguishing between the intended and the merely foreseen consequences of actions seems to many to be the most serious problem for the doctrine of double effect. It has led some to reject the doctrine altogether, and has left some of its defenders recasting it in entirely different terms. I argue that these responses are unnecessary. Using Bratman’s conception of intention, I distinguish the intended consequences of an action from the merely foreseen in a (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   14 citations  
  40. The Doctrine of Double Effect.Neil Delaney - 2015 - American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 89 (3):397-406.
    Abstract: This essay consists of some clarifying remarks on the doctrine of double effect (DDE). After providing a contemporary formulation of the doctrine we put special emphasis on the distinction between those aspects of an action plan that are intended and those that are merely foreseen (the I/F distinction). Making use of this distinction is often made difficult in practice because salient aspects of the action plan exhibit a felt “closeness” to one another that is difficult (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  41. The Doctrine of Double Effect and the Domains of Moral Responsibility.Denis F. Sullivan - 2000 - The Thomist 64 (3):423-448.
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  42.  22
    Therapeutic Use Exemptions and the Doctrine of Double Effect.Jon Pike - 2018 - Journal of the Philosophy of Sport 45 (1):68-82.
    Without taking a position on the overall justification of anti-doping regulations, I analyse the possible justification of Therapeutic Use Exemptions from such rules. TUEs are a creative way to prevent the unfair exclusion of athletes with a chronic condition, and they have the potential to be the least bad option. But they cannot be competitively neutral. Their justification must rest, instead, on the relevance of intentions to permissibility. I illustrate this by means of a set of thought experiments in which (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  43.  47
    Affirmative Action and the Doctrine of Double Effect.William Cooney - 1989 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 6 (2):201-204.
    ABSTRACT This article attempts to show that affirmative action can be supported by the doctrine of double effect which recognises distinctions between desired and unintended effects such that the responsibility for acts falls on the side of the former rather than the latter. With this doctrine it may also be seen why affirmative action programmes cannot be simply equated with numerical quota systems, nor can they be called discriminatory, at least not under the definition of discrimination (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  44. The Doctrine of Double Effect.David Simon Oderberg - 2010 - In T. O'Connor & C. Sandis (eds.), A Companion to the Philosophy of Action. pp. 324-330.
    Few moral theorists would disagree that the fundamental principle of morality – perhaps of practical rationality itself – is “ Do good and avoid evil. ” Yet along with such an uncontroversial principle comes a major question: Can you fulfi l both halves satisfactorily across your life as a moral agent? We all have opportunities to perform acts that do good with no accompanying evil, but these are not as common as we might think. We can avoid evil by doing (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  45.  18
    Another Perspective on the Doctrine of Double Effect.Camillo C. Bica - 1999 - Public Affairs Quarterly 13 (2):131-139.
  46.  12
    The Doctrine of Double Effect.Anna Bogatyńska-Kucharska - 2020 - Forum Philosophicum: International Journal for Philosophy 25 (2):273-292.
    The aim of the article is to present some of the differences and similari- ties in various versions of the double effect principle. The following formulations will be analyzed: that of Thomas Aquinas and two contemporary ap- proaches, namely those of Mangan and Boyle. It will be shown that the presented modern versions vary significantly and the distinction between their intended and only predicted effects is far from clear. As a result, the different contemporary for- mulations of DDE (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  47.  57
    Plan B and the Doctrine of Double Effect.Rebecca Stangl - 2009 - Hastings Center Report 39 (4):21-25.
  48.  7
    Does the Doctrine of Double Effect Apply to the Prescription of Barbiturates? Syme Vs the Medical Board of Australia.Xavier Symons - 2017 - Journal of Medical Ethics:medethics-2017-104230.
    The doctrine of double effect is a principle of crucial importance in law and medicine. In medicine, the principle is generally accepted to apply in cases where the treatment necessary to relieve pain and physical suffering runs the risk of hastening the patient’s death. More controversially, it has also been used as a justification for withdrawal of treatment from living individuals and physician-assisted suicide. In this paper, I will critique the findings of the controversial Victorian Civil and (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  49. A Stronger Doctrine of Double Effect.Ben Bronner & Simon Goldstein - 2018 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 96 (4):793-805.
    Many believe that intended harms are more difficult to justify than are harms that result as a foreseen side effect of one's conduct. We describe cases of harming in which the harm is not intended, yet the harmful act nevertheless runs afoul of the intuitive moral constraint that governs intended harms. We note that these cases provide new and improved counterexamples to the so-called Simple View, according to which intentionally phi-ing requires intending to phi. We then give a new (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  50.  42
    To Double Business Bound: Reflections on the Doctrine of Double Effect.Neil Delaney - 2001 - American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 75 (4):561-583.
    This paper has two aims. First, I explore the scope and limitations of the doctrine of double effect by focusing specifically on the notion of "effect classification." Turning my attention to some hard cases, I argue that the DOE has to be supplemented by additional principles that specify how effects are to be discriminated from one another and how the various aspects of the relevant actions are to be classified as intended or simply foreseen. Secondly, I (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
1 — 50 / 1000