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
    Double Effect does not explain the permissibility of the ... — Carmelics
    Home/Moral Responsibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Double Effect does not explain the permissibility of the grenade soldier's action or cases of lethal self-defense using overwhelming force.

    Justice & PunishmentMoral Responsibility
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    2 reasons for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.In the grenade case, the soldier's death is not merely foreseen but structurally necessary to the protective effect, collapsing the means/side-effect distinction.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Warren Quinn's 'harmful action' taxonomy shows that when an agent's body is the instrument of harm, the harm is intended as a means, not a side effect.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Double Effect's condition requiring that harm not be intended as a means is therefore not satisfied, leaving the doctrine unable to supply the relevant moral justification.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Judith Jarvis Thomson's analysis of self-defense demonstrates that permissibility in cases of overwhelming lethal force tracks agent-relative prerogatives, not foresight distinctions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Agent-relative prerogatives, as developed by Samuel Scheffler, justify harming others to protect oneself in ways that cannot be reconstructed as merely foreseeing collateral harm.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Because Double Effect operates on the intended/foreseen axis rather than the agent-relative/agent-neutral axis, it lacks the conceptual resources to explain these permissions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.In these cases, death is caused as a means to a good end, not merely as a foreseen side effect.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Double Effect is silent about cases in which it is permissible to cause a death as a means to a good end.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If the harm is intended as a means, Double Effect does not apply.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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

    Topics

    Moral ResponsibilityJustice & Punishment

    Related

    Agent-relative prerogatives, as developed by Samuel Scheffler, justify harming o...Because Double Effect operates on the intended/foreseen axis rather than the age...Double Effect is silent about cases in which it is permissible to cause a death ...Double Effect's condition requiring that harm not be intended as a means is ther...
    +5 moreShow less
    If the harm is intended as a means, Double Effect does not apply.In the grenade case, the soldier's death is not merely foreseen but structurally...In these cases, death is caused as a means to a good end, not merely as a forese...Judith Jarvis Thomson's analysis of self-defense demonstrates that permissibilit...Warren Quinn's 'harmful action' taxonomy shows that when an agent's body is the ...

    Similar

    The soldier who throws himself on a grenade to shield fellow soldiers ...83%If Double Effect explains this permissibility, the soldier's death mus...78%The soldier's action is assumed to be permissible.76%Punishment (in particular deterrent punishment) is a species of societ...72%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: double-effect
    View source passageHide passage
    In contrast, Warren Quinn’s proposal to substitute the concept of direct agency for the concept of intending to cause harm to someone as a means (see Section 1) would effectively broaden the category of results that count as cases of causing intended harm. If the soldier who throws himself on the grenade in order to shield his fellow soldiers from the force of an explosion acts permissibly, and if the permissibility of his action is explained by Double Effect, then he must not intend to sacrific
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (2 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit