Deconstructing the Doctrine of Double Effect
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...
Главный автор: | |
---|---|
Формат: | Электронный ресурс Статья |
Язык: | Английский |
Проверить наличие: | HBZ Gateway |
Journals Online & Print: | |
Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
Опубликовано: |
Springer Science + Business Media B. V
2000
|
В: |
Ethical theory and moral practice
Год: 2000, Том: 3, Выпуск: 2, Страницы: 195-207 |
Другие ключевые слова: | B
Killing
B Намерение B Harm B Warren Quinn B doctrine of double effect B Foresight |
Online-ссылка: |
Volltext (JSTOR) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
Итог: | 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. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 1572-8447 |
Второстепенные работы: | Enthalten in: Ethical theory and moral practice
|
Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1023/A:1009997225961 |