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

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 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

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 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 against 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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