Disambiguations:
Heidi M. Giebel [3]Heidi Marie Giebel [1]
  1.  5
    Heidi M. Giebel (2015). On Why and How Intention Matters. American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 89 (3):369-395.
    While our common sense seems to tell us that intention matters to ethical evaluation, there is considerable disagreement among ethicists regarding why and how it matters. In this article I argue that intention matters to act evaluation in much the way that the principle of double effect implies. First, I identify five propositions—one epistemological and four ethical—that the proponent of PDE holds regarding the ethical relevance of intention. Second, I give two general arguments for the ethical relevance of intention. Third, (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  2.  12
    Heidi M. Giebel (2007). Forbidding Intentional Mutilation: Some Unintended Consequences? International Philosophical Quarterly 47 (4):467-476.
    In a recent IPQ article, Christopher Kaczor gave a promising argument in which he strove to reconcile the common belief that obstetric craniotomy (the crushing of nearlyborn fetuses’ heads) is immoral with his clear and intuitively attractive account of intention. One of Kaczor’s crucial assumptions is that intentional mutilation is morally impermissible. In this article I argue that Kaczor’s analysis has three potential problems: (1) the mutilating features of craniotomy do not appear to meet Kaczor’s criteria for being intended, so (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  3.  3
    Heidi M. Giebel (2007). Forbidding Intentional Mutilation. International Philosophical Quarterly 47 (4):467-476.
    In a recent IPQ article, Christopher Kaczor gave a promising argument in which he strove to reconcile the common belief that obstetric craniotomy is immoral with his clear and intuitively attractive account of intention. One of Kaczor’s crucial assumptions is that intentional mutilation is morally impermissible. In this article I argue that Kaczor’s analysis has three potential problems: the mutilating features of craniotomy do not appear to meet Kaczor’s criteria for being intended, so his account doesn’t show craniotomy to be (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography