In Intricate Ethics, Kamm questions the moral importance of some non-consequentialist distinctions and then introduces and argues for the moral importance of ...

Frances Kamm sets out to draw and make plausible distinctions that would show how and why it is, in some circumstances, permissible to kill some to save many more, but is not so in others. To do so she draws on a famous, and famously artificial, example of Judith Thomson, which illustrates the fact that people intutitively reject some instances of such killings but not others. The irrationality, implausibility and in many cases the self-defeating nature of such distinctions I had (...) attempted to expose in my 'The Survival Lottery' over 25 years ago. I still think these distinctions irrational and implausible and I will try, in this response, to show why this remains the case and why doctrines of additional effects, to however many powers they are taken, remain unhelpful in ethics. (shrink)

In this article I am concerned with whether it could be morally significant to distinguish between doing something 'in order to bring about an effect' as opposed to 'doing something because we will bring about an effect'. For example, the Doctrine of Double Effect tells us that we should not act in order to bring about evil, but even if this is true is it perhaps permissible to act only because an evil will thus occur? I discuss these questions in (...) connection with a version of the so-called Trolley Problem known as the Loop Case. I also consider how these questions may bear on whether a rational agent must aim at an event which he believes is causally necessary to achieve an end he pursues. (shrink)

Book reviewed in this article: Morality, Mortality: Death and Whom to Save from It. By Frances Kamm.

In this essay I respond to commentators on Ethics for Enemies, including Caspar Hare on torture and other harms imposed on an agent after his act, Suzanne Uniacke on conceptual issues related to terrorism, Thomas Hurka on right reason and proportionality conditions in the justice of going to war, Jeff McMahan on liability, proportionality, and harm in jus ad bellum, and Gabriella Blum and John Goldberg on the moral and legal status of action prompted by bad intentions.

In this essay, I summarize major points of my Ethics for Enemies. I first consider whether torture of a wrongdoer to save his victim could be permissible. In order to do this, I consider whether we may do comparable things to him while he is setting up a threat in order to stop his act, get him to stop it, or otherwise use him as he acts to stop harm to his victim. I also consider possible differences between harming the (...) wrongdoer as he acts and after his act in order to help his victim. I next describe my view that the intention to harm and terrorize civilians need not make an act be terrorism or be morally impermissible. I consider what makes terrorism distinctively morally wrong and whether it is always impermissible. Finally, I describe my views that having a right reason is not necessary in order for starting a war to be morally just and that goods that are not part of a just cause may weigh in a proportionality calculation needed to determine if a war is just. (shrink)

Can we ever truly answer the question, “Who am I?” Moderated by Alex Voorhoeve (London School of Economics), neuro-philosopher Elie During (University of Paris, Ouest Nanterre), cognitive scientist David Jopling (York University, Canada), social psychologist Timothy Wilson (University of Virginia),and ethicist Frances Kamm (Harvard University) examine the difficulty of achieving genuine self-knowledge and how the pursuit of self-knowledge plays a role in shaping the self.

An extended discussion with Frances Kamm about deontology and the methodology of ethical theorizing. (An extended and revised version appears in Alex Voorhoeve, Conversations on Ethics, OUP 2009).).

Is there an objective notion of disability and superability that can be employed in discussion of genetic alteration? In this article I suggest that there are such objective notions. Nevertheless, I point to factors which may distinguish between the morality of genetic therapy for disability and genetic enhancement policies. These factors include the importance of helping the worst off first, the reasonableness of risks relative to goals, and the importance of certain types of autonomy. Gibt es objektive Begriffe von Körperbehinderung (...) und körperlicher Überlegenheit, die in der Diskussion über genetische Veränderungen verwendet werden können? Der Beitrag behauptet, daß es solche objektiven Begriffe gibt. Trotzdem arbeitet die Autorin Gesichtspunkte heraus, die auf Unterschiede in der moralischen Beurteilung von gentherapeutischen Maßnahmen gegen Körperbehinderungen einerseits und von Verfahren zu genetischen Verbesserungen andererseits hinweisen. Zu diesen Gesichtspunkten gehören der Gedanke, daß den am schlimmsten Betroffenen zuerst geholfen werden muß, der Gedanke, daß zwischen den gesteckten Zielen und den Risiken, die zu ihrer Erreichung eingegangen werden, eine vernünftige Relation bestehen muß, und die Überlegung, daß bestimmten Arten von Autonomie eine sehr hohe Bedeutung zukommt. (shrink)

In The Gay Science, Friedrich Nietzsche argued that only a form of philosophizing that sprung from a deep commitment to the subject could ever hope for success. ‘All great problems,’ he wrote, ‘demand great love.’ He continued: It makes the most telling difference whether a thinker has a personal relationship to his problems and finds in them his destiny, his distress, and his greatest happiness, or an ‘impersonal’ one, meaning he is only able to touch them with the antennae of (...) cold, curious thought. In the latter case nothing will come of it, that much can be promised; for even if great problems should let themselves be grasped by them, they would not allow frogs and weaklings to hold on to them. Nietzsche went on to complain that, to his knowledge, no one had yet approached moral philosophy in this way: Why, then, have I never yet encountered anyone, not even in books, who approached morality in this personal way and who knew morality as a problem, and this problem as his own personal distress, torment, voluptuousness, and passion? Alex Voorhoeve run01.tex V1 - 07/29/2009 7:23am Page 16.. (shrink)