The Doctrine of Double Effect
Intention and Permissibility
Datos Bibliográficos
| ID | 4767604 |
|---|---|
| Autores | W J Fitzpatrick (0000-0002-6922-1181, autor de correspondencia) |
| Año | 2012 |
| Volumen | 7 |
| Número | 3 |
| Páginas | 183-196 |
| Fecha de publicación | 2012-03-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Sí |
| Open Access | Sí |
| Tipo | ARTICLE |
| Revista | Philosophy Compass (JOURNAL) |
| Identificadores de la revista | ISSN: 1747-9991 • E-ISSN: 1747-9991 |
| Editorial | Wiley (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1111/j.1747-9991.2011.00474.x |
| OpenAlex | W1944217901 |
| Idioma | EN |
| Citas recibidas | 11 |
| Referencias citadas | 18 |
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 explores the meaning and application of the DDE along with current debates over the nature of the intend/foresee distinction and its moral significance. How is the line between intended effects and merely foreseen but unintended side-effects to be drawn, and how are problem cases best handled? What is an appropriate methodology for debating the tenability of the DDE? How might the DDE interact with other non-consequentialist principles, and how might it be modified to capture other related factors (resulting perhaps in a Doctrine of Triple Effect) or to avoid certain problem cases? Does the DDE make permissibility turn on the actual intentions of particular agents, as critics such as Thomson and Scanlon assume, or is the role of intention more abstract
Doctrine · Economics · Epistemology · Harm · Law and economics · Political science · Positive economics · Principle of double effect · Sociology · Unintended consequences · Free Will and Agency · Law · Neuroethics, Human Enhancement, Biomedical Innovations · Philosophy · Psychology · Social Psychology · War, Ethics, and Justification
Punishment's Burdens on the Innocent
Camouflaged liability
The Loop trolley case strikes again! A threat to the Doctrine of Double Effect and the Mere Means Principle
Doing, Allowing, and Occasionalism
Deontology
Risk, double effect and the social benefit requirement
Against Consequentialist Interpretations of Deontological Principles
Possible intentions and the doctrine of double effect
No Disrespect—But That Account Does Not Explain What Is Morally Bad About Discrimination
Moral Judgment and Deontology
Fatphobia in sacrificial moral decision-making dilemmas
Active and Passive Euthanasia
The Trolley Problem
“Direct” and “Indirect”
Intention, Permissibility, Terrorism, and War
Double Effect, Triple Effect and the Trolley Problem
Scanlon on Double Effect
Moral Dimensions
The Doctrine of Illicit Intentions
Intricate Ethics
Intentions, Motives and the Doctrine of Double Effect
| Obras citantes distintas | 11 |
|---|---|
| Citas por año | 0,92 |
| Intervalo de citas | 2014 - 2025 (12) |
| Velocidad de citación | recent |
| Altamente citado | No |
| Tipos de cita | Neutras: 8 |