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 soldier's action is assumed to be permissible. — Carmelics
    Home/Moral Responsibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→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.

    The soldier's action is assumed to be permissible.

    BioethicsMoral Responsibility
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    Moral ResponsibilityBioethics

    Related

    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...The soldier who throws himself on a grenade to shield fellow soldiers does not i...

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Moral Responsibility
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.

    Similar

    If Double Effect explains this permissibility, the soldier's death mus...77%An action that requires violating a duty to oneself is morally impermi...76%Double Effect does not explain the permissibility of the grenade soldi...76%The soldier who throws himself on a grenade to shield fellow soldiers ...76%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    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

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective