Wild Goose Chase: Still No Rationales for the Doctrine of Double Effect and Related Principles

Criminal Law and Philosophy 13 (1):1-25 (2019)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

I focus on the question as to what rationale could possibly underlie the doctrine of double effect or related principles. I first briefly review the correct critiques of the claim that people who intend some evil as a means to a good must be “guided by evil,” and that this is allegedly always wrong. I then argue that Quinn’s claim that violations of the DDE express certain negative attitudes of the agent and that agents violating the DDE must make an additional morally problematic presumption regarding their victims is mistaken. Tadros claims that an agent violating the means principle must force his victims to adopt his goals. I demonstrate that the difference Tadros tries to construe between an agent inflicting intended harm and an agent inflicting merely foreseen harm is non-existent. Sarch’s official rationale for the DDE also fails to distinguish harming as a means from side-effect harming, and reformulations of his rationale that suggest themselves run into severe problems. Walen’s defense of the means principle in terms of the “restricting claims principle” and Øverland’s appeal to “moral obstacles” are susceptible to counter-examples and appear to be question-begging. Recently, Walen has offered a revised formulation of his Restricting Claims Principle, claiming that it overcomes counter-examples and explains the means principle. I will argue that it contradicts the means principle and does not overcome the counter-examples. Thus I conclude that so far we are still left without a reasonable rationale for the DDE or related principles.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 76,264

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

Revising the Doctrine of Double Effect.Jeff McMahan - 1994 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 11 (2):201-212.
Three Cheers for Double Effect.Dana Kay Nelkin & Samuel C. Rickless - 2014 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 89 (1):125-158.
Transcending the Means Principle.Alec Walen - 2014 - Law and Philosophy 33 (4):427-464.
The Doctrine of the Double Effect.Sanford Scott Levy - 1982 - Dissertation, University of Michigan
Double Effect and the Criminal Law.Alexander Sarch - 2017 - Criminal Law and Philosophy 11 (3):453-479.
The Double Failure of 'Double Effect'.Neil Roughley - 2007 - In Christoph Lumer & Sandro Nannini (eds.), Intentionality, Deliberation, and Autonomy. Ashgate.
Intending, Foreseeing and the Doctrine of Double Effect.Ann Bumpus - 1995 - Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
The Psychological Origins of the Doctrine of Double Effect.Fiery Cushman - 2016 - Criminal Law and Philosophy 10 (4):763-776.

Analytics

Added to PP
2018-02-24

Downloads
90 (#138,275)

6 months
14 (#69,814)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Uwe Steinhoff
University of Hong Kong

References found in this work

Slaves of the Passions.Mark Schroeder - 2007 - Oxford University Press.
The Ends of Harm: The Moral Foundations of Criminal Law.Victor Tadros - 2011 - Oxford United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.

View all 21 references / Add more references