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 On Quinn's reformulation, this structural feature—not subjective intent—determines whether harm is direct, undermining the claim that Double Effect cleanly vindicates the soldier's action.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Moral significance of actions partly depends on what agents aim at; pure structural analysis ignores why distinction between intended and foreseen matters.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Determining 'directness' structurally requires controversial judgments about causal pathways that may be equally subjective as assessing intent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Double Effect's core insight—that intended versus foreseen harm differ morally—remains valid even if implementation requires both intent and structure.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Intent is unreliable for moral distinction; structural causation provides objective, verifiable criteria independent of agent psychology.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If Double Effect relies on intent, soldiers could rationalize any collateral harm as merely foreseen, making doctrine permissive and unstable.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Quinn's structural approach correctly identifies that harm through causal mechanism differs morally from harm as side-effect, regardless of mental states.
      ?

      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.