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
    The principle of double effect must provide principled gr... — Carmelics
    Home/Bioethics
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    The principle of double effect must provide principled grounds for distinguishing between grave harms intended as means and grave harms foreseen as side effects

    BioethicsJustice & Punishment
    ?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.Aquinas's act-description framework shows that the intentional structure of an act is constitutive of its moral species, not merely an epistemic label applied afterward.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Warren Quinn's 1989 analysis demonstrates that harmful use of persons as means involves a distinctive form of agency that treats victims as complicit tools, which side-effect harms do not.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.This agential difference grounds a morally relevant asymmetry: the perpetrator of intended harm makes the victim's suffering serve his purposes in a way that side-effect harm does not require.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Philippa Foot's trolley problem cases establish through reflective equilibrium that virtually all competent moral reasoners track the means/side-effect distinction even before articulating a principle.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The practical difficulty of drawing a distinction does not dissolve the metaphysical reality of that distinction, as cases like the Craniotomy versus Hysterectomy illustrate structural differences in causal chains.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Joseph Mangan's causal-proximity criterion provides a procedural test: if removing the harmful effect from the causal chain would prevent achievement of the intended good, the harm is a means, not a side effect.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Double effect implies that grave harms foreseen as side effects may be permissible even when grave harms intended as means are not
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The distinction between harms intended as means and harms foreseen as side effects is difficult to draw in practice
      ?

      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

    BioethicsJustice & Punishment

    Connections

    2 topics

    Consequentialism1 linkedMoral Responsibility1 linked

    Related

    Aquinas's act-description framework shows that the intentional structure of an a...Double effect implies that grave harms foreseen as side effects may be permissib...Joseph Mangan's causal-proximity criterion provides a procedural test: if removi...Philippa Foot's trolley problem cases establish through reflective equilibrium t...
    +4 moreShow less
    The distinction between harms intended as means and harms foreseen as side effec...The practical difficulty of drawing a distinction does not dissolve the metaphys...This agential difference grounds a morally relevant asymmetry: the perpetrator o...

    Similar

    The principle of double effect prohibits harms that are instrumentally...89%Double effect implies that grave harms foreseen as side effects may be...88%Cases traditionally cited as applications of the principle of double e...86%The principle of double effect does not permit a harmful act merely be...85%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: double-effect
    View source passageHide passage
    Nevertheless, many criticisms of the principle of double effect do not proceed from consequentialist assumptions or skepticism about the distinction between intended and merely foreseen consequences. Instead they ask whether the principle adequately codifies the moral intuitions at play in the cases that have been taken to be illustrations of it. One important line of criticism has focused on the difficulty of distinguishing between grave harms that are regretfully intended as part of the agent’
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

    Warren Quinn's 1989 analysis demonstrates that harmful use of persons as means i...
    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (2 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit