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
    The soldier who throws himself on a grenade to shield fel... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Moral Responsibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    The soldier who throws himself on a grenade to shield fellow soldiers does not intend his own death as a means, but merely foresees it as a side effect, if Double Effect explains the permissibility of his action.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Double Effect permits an action only if harmful results are foreseen but not intended.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The soldier's action is assumed to be permissible.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If Double Effect explains this permissibility, the soldier's death must be a foreseen side effect, not an intended means.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.An agent who deliberately positions their body as a physical shield makes their body's absorptive function causally essential to the protective outcome.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.When one's death is causally essential to achieving the intended good effect, that death functions as a means regardless of the agent's psychological attitude toward it.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, the soldier's death cannot be categorized as a mere foreseen side effect under a causally rigorous reading of Double Effect.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Warren Quinn's distinction between direct and indirect agency holds that direct harm involves using a victim's condition as part of one's agency, not merely psychological intention.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The soldier's act is structured such that the physical fact of his dying body stopping the blast is the operative mechanism of protection, not a separable consequence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.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.
      ?

      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 ResponsibilityBioethics

    Key Terms

    Double Effect(Used to evaluate the permissibility of actions like the grenade case and lethal self-defense.)
    A principle that permits an action with harmful results when the harm is foreseen but not intended as a means or end, and the good effect justifies tolerating the foreseen harm.
    foresees(as used in ethics)
    To predict or know in advance that something will probably happen, even if you're not trying to make it happen.
    intend(as used in ethics)
    To consciously aim for or want something as your direct purpose, rather than just accepting it as a consequence.
    permissibility(deontic logic)
    The dual of deontic necessity ('ought'); what 'can' expresses in deontic contexts

    Related

    An agent who deliberately positions their body as a physical shield makes their ...Double Effect permits an action only if harmful results are foreseen but not int...If Double Effect explains this permissibility, the soldier's death must be a for...On Quinn's reformulation, this structural feature—not subjective intent—determin...
    +5 moreShow less
    The soldier's act is structured such that the physical fact of his dying body st...The soldier's action is assumed to be permissible.

    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

    Therefore, the soldier's death cannot be categorized as a mere foreseen side eff...
    Warren Quinn's distinction between direct and indirect agency holds that direct ...
    When one's death is causally essential to achieving the intended good effect, th...

    Similar

    If Double Effect explains this permissibility, the soldier's death mus...86%Double Effect does not explain the permissibility of the grenade soldi...83%The soldier's action is assumed to be permissible.76%We can explain why Othello kills Desdemona by citing his mental states...70%
    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit