The Secret to the Success of the Doctrine of Double Effect : Biased Framing, Inadequate Methodology, and Clever Distractions

The Journal of Ethics 22 (3-4):235-263 (2018)
  Copy   BIBTEX


There are different formulations of the doctrine of double effect, and sometimes philosophers propose “revisions” or alternatives, like the means principle, for instance. To demonstrate that such principles are needed in the first place, one would have to compare cases in which all else is equal and show that the difference in intuitions, if any, can only be explained by the one remaining difference and thus by the principle in question. This is not the methodology defenders of the DDE and of related principles use, however. I will discuss how they actually proceed, focusing on their preferred four pairs of examples. While these examples might have rhetorical force, they are nevertheless philosophically and methodologically useless. As a corrective, I shall offer examples that do keep all else equal. These examples undermine the DDE and related principles. I then argue that while the Loop case and the “closeness” problem in the context of Jonathan Bennett’s Sophisticated Bomber example might once have been an embarrassment of sorts for defenders of the DDE, meanwhile their discussion serves as a convenient distraction from the many clear examples disproving the DDE and related principles. I conclude that the methodological mistakes found in defenses of the DDE – the biased framing, the rigged examples, the empirically unwarranted claims about how widely shared certain intuitions are, and the avoidance of the strongest counter-examples – can only be explained by systematic bias. There is simply no sufficient intuitive support for the DDE or related principles. Thus, instead of looking for their “rationales,” they should be abandoned.



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 86,412

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

Aristotle and Double Effect.Ezio Di Nucci - 2014 - Journal of Ancient Philosophy 8 (1):20.
The Double Failure of 'Double Effect'.Neil Roughley - 2007 - In Christoph Lumer & Sandro Nannini (eds.), Intentionality, Deliberation, and Autonomy. Ashgate.
To Double Business Bound.Neil Delaney - 2001 - American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 75 (4):561-583.
The Danger of Double Effect.Philip A. Reed - 2012 - Christian Bioethics 18 (3):287-300.
Intentions, motives and the doctrine of double effect.Lawrence Masek - 2010 - Philosophical Quarterly 60 (240):567-585.
Four versions of double effect.Donald B. Marquis - 1991 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 16 (5):515-544.
Killing Innocents and the Doctrine of Double Effect.John Zeis - 2004 - Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association 78:133-144.


Added to PP

129 (#120,304)

6 months
8 (#128,018)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Uwe Steinhoff
University of Hong Kong

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Moral dimensions: permissibility, meaning, blame.Thomas Scanlon - 2008 - Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Killing in war.Jeff McMahan - 2009 - New York: Oxford University Press.
Virtues and Vices: And Other Essays in Moral Philosophy.Philippa Foot - 1978 - Oxford, GB: Oxford University Press UK.

View all 54 references / Add more references