The Moral Permissibility of Accepting Bad Side Effects

American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 83 (2):255-266 (2009)
  Copy   BIBTEX


How exactly is accepting the bad side effects of good choices morally defensible? The best defense to date is by Joseph Boyle, John Finnis, and Germain Grisez and relies on the claim that bad side effects are unavoidable. But are they? Three accounts of why bad side effects are unavoidable—one by John Zeis, a second by Boyle, Finnis, and Grisez jointly, and a third by Boyle independently—are examined and rejected. Next, an alternative proposal which suggests bad side effects are always avoidable is also examined and rejected. Finally, an adequate account of why bad side effects are unavoidable is presented and defended. This defense relies on certain facts about the goods which human agents ultimately find fulfilling and about human agents’ attempts to instantiate those goods through various projects.



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 92,038

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Knobe vs Machery: Testing the trade-off hypothesis.Ron Mallon - 2008 - Mind and Language 23 (2):247-255.
Unintentionally biasing the data: Reply to Knobe.Roblin R. Meeks - 2004 - Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology 24 (2):220-223.
Knobe, Side Effects, and the Morally Good Business.Andy Wible - 2008 - Journal of Business Ethics 85 (S1):173 - 178.
Intentional action and the praise-blame asymmetry.Frank Hindriks - 2008 - Philosophical Quarterly 58 (233):630-641.
Technology and prognostic predicaments.Don Ihde - 1999 - AI and Society 13 (1-2):44-51.


Added to PP

29 (#551,669)

6 months
2 (#1,201,619)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references