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 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.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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