Why Double Effect and Proportionality are not Moral Principles for St. Thomas

Vera Lex 5 (1/2):25-42 (2004)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

This article has no associated abstract. (fix it)

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 92,197

External links

  • This entry has no external links. Add one.
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Who is entitled to double effect?Joseph Boyle - 1991 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 16 (5):475-494.
An Eye for an Eye: Proportionality and Surveillance.Kevin Macnish - 2015 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 18 (3):529-548.
Some Light on Double Effect.James G. Hanink - 1975 - Analysis 35 (5):147 - 151.
Absolute Principles and Double Effect.R. A. Duff - 1976 - Analysis 36 (2):68 - 80.
The Danger of Double Effect.Philip A. Reed - 2012 - Christian Bioethics 18 (3):287-300.
Intention and responsibility in double effect cases.David K. Chan - 2000 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 3 (4):405-434.
Killing Innocents and the Doctrine of Double Effect.John Zeis - 2004 - Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association 78:133-144.
Proportionality principles in American law: controlling excessive government actions.E. Thomas Sullivan - 2009 - New York: Oxford University Press. Edited by Richard S. Frase.
The Psychological Origins of the Doctrine of Double Effect.Fiery Cushman - 2016 - Criminal Law and Philosophy 10 (4):763-776.

Analytics

Added to PP
2015-01-31

Downloads
0

6 months
0

Historical graph of downloads

Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
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