Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Doctrine of Double Effect, as developed by Aquinas and refined by Foot and Thomson, already separates foreseen-but-unintended consequences from intended ones without requiring action.

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.The intention/foresight distinction is psychologically unstable; agents routinely rationalize foreseen harms as merely incidental when intentions align with their interests.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.DDE permits morally troubling outcomes (accepting civilian deaths as foreseen-but-unintended) that seem indistinguishable from intending harm in their practical effects.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Without requiring action or proportionality constraints, DDE allows harmful foreseen consequences merely by mental categorization rather than genuine moral justification.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Moral agency requires distinguishing intended effects from merely foreseen harms; DDE preserves this crucial distinction without collapsing all consequences into intentionality.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.DDE explains our intuition that a surgeon performing necessary amputation differs morally from an aggressor causing identical injury, despite identical physical outcomes.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The doctrine provides actionable moral guidance by clarifying when agents bear direct responsibility versus indirect causal involvement in harmful outcomes.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.