TITLE

Deconstructing the Doctrine of Double Effect

AUTHOR(S)
Hull, Richard
PUB. DATE
June 2000
SOURCE
Ethical Theory & Moral Practice;Jun2000, Vol. 3 Issue 2, p195
SOURCE TYPE
Academic Journal
DOC. TYPE
Article
ABSTRACT
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 that harm will result. The ramifications of this are explored. The paper concludes with a moral evaluation of a variety of cases that have harmful outcomes. It is recommended both that we abandon the doctrine of double effect and that we cease to describe cases with harmful outcomes in a dishonest way.
ACCESSION #
9778894

 

Related Articles

  • Two Cheers for “Closeness”: Terror, Targeting and Double Effect. Delaney, Neil // Philosophical Studies;Feb2008, Vol. 137 Issue 3, p335 

    Philosophers from Hart to Lewis, Johnston and Bennett have expressed various degrees of reservation concerning the doctrine of double effect. A common concern is that, with regard to many activities that double effect is traditionally thought to prohibit, what might at first look to be a...

  • BOYLE AND THE PRINCIPLE OF DOUBLE EFFECT. Anderson, Robert // American Journal of Jurisprudence;2007, Vol. 52, p259 

    The article focuses on reformulation of Joseph Boyle's principle of double effect in 1980 where he provided clarity and precision to this principle in the Catholic moral tradition. According to the article, his work entails a formulation of the principle on the foundations of morality with...

  • The accomplishment of plans: a new version of the principle of double effect. Pruss, Alexander // Philosophical Studies;Aug2013, Vol. 165 Issue 1, p49 

    The classical principle of double effect offers permissibility conditions for actions foreseen to lead to evil outcomes. I shall argue that certain kinds of closeness cases, as well as general heuristic considerations about the order of explanation, lead us to replace the intensional concept of...

  • Intentions, foreseen consequences and the doctrine of double effect. Hills, Alison // Philosophical Studies;Mar2007, Vol. 133 Issue 2, p257 

    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...

  • PHILOSOPHICAL ABSTRACTS.  // Review of Metaphysics;Mar2015, Vol. 68 Issue 3, p689 

    The article presents abstracts of philosophy articles as of March 2015 on topics including the relation of phenomenology to Christian philosophy, the relation of the philosopher Aristotle to double-effect reasoning, and the notion of progress in philosophy.

  • Double Effect and the Ethical Significance of Distinct Volitional States. Cavanaugh, Thomas // Christian Bioethics: Non-ecumenical Studies in Medical Morality;Aug97, Vol. 3 Issue 2, p131 

    Argues in favor of the ethical relevance of the intended/foreseen distinction held by those who employ double-effect reasoning. Brief background on intended/foreseen distinction; Evaluation of a number of interpretations of its ethical relevance; Significance of double effect in contemporary...

  • Defending Double Effect. Hills, Alison // Philosophical Studies;Nov2003, Vol. 116 Issue 2, p133 

    According to the doctrine of double effect (DDE), there is a morally significant difference between harm that is intended and harm that is merely foreseen and not intended. It is not difficult to explain why it is bad to intend harm as an end (you have a ``bad attitude'' toward that harm) but it...

  • Defending Double Effect. Hills, Alison // Philosophical Studies;Nov2003, Vol. 116 Issue 2, p133 

    According to the doctrine of double effect (DDE), there is a morally significant difference between harm that is intended and harm that is merely foreseen and not intended. It is not difficult to explain why it is bad to intend harm as an end (you have a ``bad attitude'' toward that harm) but it...

  • Defending Double Effect. Hills, Alison // Philosophical Studies;Nov2003, Vol. 116 Issue 2, p133 

    According to the doctrine of double effect (DDE), there is a morally significant difference between harm that is intended and harm that is merely foreseen and not intended. It is not difficult to explain why it is bad to intend harm as an end (you have a ``bad attitude'' toward that harm) but it...

Share

Read the Article

Courtesy of THE LIBRARY OF VIRGINIA

Sorry, but this item is not currently available from your library.

Try another library?
Sign out of this library

Other Topics