Abstract

When moral rules are formulated in terms of intentions, agents are forbidden to countenance harms that are out of proportion with the good they are intending to achieve. Shelly Kagan has argued that if resources are not used for the most value-producing purpose, the agent will be allowing a harm or loss greater than the good intended. I argue that this understanding of proportionality is incorrect, since it displaces the common-sense understanding of the duty of aid, which varies in stringency according to the agent’s relationship with the person in need, and other factors. I suggest that proportionality should be understood in terms of the duty of aid. Even in pursuing an intended good, one must not infringe one’s duty of aid to others.