Abstract

An exchange between Christopher Tollefsen and Steven Jensen highlights the contrast between a theory of natural law that relies purely first-person account of intention and one that relies more on elements from the physical world. Tollefsen, a proponent of New Natural Law theory, argues that the fetus’s death in the Phoenix case was an unintended side effect of saving the mother’s life. Jensen criticizes NNL generally and particularly for this conclusion. He argues that facts outside the agent make this procedure immoral. This essay provides a more neutral perspective on the debate by laying out each argument clearly and identifying the fundamental issues present in the discussion. A fundamental and probably irreconcilable difference involves whether certain intentions should be included in the species of an action or characterized as fairly or unfairly accepted side effects. Nevertheless, the differences between these two accounts are not as great as they initially appear.