Noûs 36 (4):622–642 (2002)

Authors
David McCarthy
University of Hong Kong
Abstract
Theoretical defenses of the principle of double effect (pde) due to Quinn, Nagel and Foot are claimed to face severe difficulties. But this leaves those of us who see something in the case-based support for the pde without a way of accounting for our judgments. This article proposes a novel principle it calls the mismatch principle, and argues that the mismatch principle does better than the pde at accounting for our judgments about cases and is also theoretically defensible. However, where the pde makes claims about the permissibility of actions, the mismatch principle makes claims only about the evaluation of agents; and where the pde explains the cases in terms of intending harm, the mismatch principle explains them in terms of a quite different feature of the agent's will.
Keywords Principle of double effect  Doctrine of double effect  Deontology  Intentions  Will  Quinn  Nagel  Foot
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1111/1468-0068.00404
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 65,714
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Doctrine of Double Effect.Alison McIntyre - 2008 - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Three Cheers for Double Effect.Dana Kay Nelkin & Samuel C. Rickless - 2014 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 89 (1):125-158.
Defending Double Effect.Alison Hills - 2003 - Philosophical Studies 116 (2):133-152.

View all 11 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Identifying Harms.Shlomit Harrosh - 2012 - Bioethics 26 (9):493-498.
Defending Double Effect.Alison Hills - 2003 - Philosophical Studies 116 (2):133-152.
The Harm Principle.Nils Holtug - 2002 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 5 (4):357-389.
Mortal Harm.Steven Luper - 2007 - Philosophical Quarterly 57 (227):239–251.
Intentional Action and Intending: Recent Empirical Studies.Hugh J. McCann - 2005 - Philosophical Psychology 18 (6):737-748.
Rights Against Polluters.Andrew Kernohan - 1995 - Environmental Ethics 17 (3):245-257.
The Moral Status of Enabling Harm.Samuel C. Rickless - 2011 - Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 92 (1):66-86.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2009-01-28

Total views
78 ( #141,729 of 2,462,776 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
3 ( #223,431 of 2,462,776 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes