File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Yet another revised DDE? A note on David K. Chan's DDEd

TitleYet another revised DDE? A note on David K. Chan's DDEd
Authors
KeywordsBlameworthiness
Craniotomy
Desire
Doctrine Of Double Effect
Hysterectomy
Intention
Permission
Tactical Bomber
Terror Bomber
Issue Date2006
PublisherSpringer Verlag Dordrecht. The Journal's web site is located at http://springerlink.metapress.com/openurl.asp?genre=journal&issn=1386-2820
Citation
Ethical Theory And Moral Practice, 2006, v. 9 n. 2, p. 231-236 How to Cite?
AbstractDavid K. Chan wants to save the DDE from the considerable criticism levelled against it, by making the moral distinction it refers to rest on a difference in desire instead of in intention. I argue that the revised version, too, is counter-intuitive and confuses the blameworthiness of an actor with the wrongness of the act. It also invites abuse instead of preventing it. Besides, Chan's DDE omits three of the four criteria of the traditional DDE, and it is couched in terms of lesser objectionability, while the traditional DDE is couched in terms of permission. Therefore, Chan's DDE has so little in common with the traditional DDE that it should not even count as a revised version of it. © Springer 2006.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/171841
ISSN
2015 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.525
References

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorSteinhoff, Uen_US
dc.date.accessioned2012-10-30T06:17:45Z-
dc.date.available2012-10-30T06:17:45Z-
dc.date.issued2006en_US
dc.identifier.citationEthical Theory And Moral Practice, 2006, v. 9 n. 2, p. 231-236en_US
dc.identifier.issn1386-2820en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/171841-
dc.description.abstractDavid K. Chan wants to save the DDE from the considerable criticism levelled against it, by making the moral distinction it refers to rest on a difference in desire instead of in intention. I argue that the revised version, too, is counter-intuitive and confuses the blameworthiness of an actor with the wrongness of the act. It also invites abuse instead of preventing it. Besides, Chan's DDE omits three of the four criteria of the traditional DDE, and it is couched in terms of lesser objectionability, while the traditional DDE is couched in terms of permission. Therefore, Chan's DDE has so little in common with the traditional DDE that it should not even count as a revised version of it. © Springer 2006.en_US
dc.languageengen_US
dc.publisherSpringer Verlag Dordrecht. The Journal's web site is located at http://springerlink.metapress.com/openurl.asp?genre=journal&issn=1386-2820en_US
dc.relation.ispartofEthical Theory and Moral Practiceen_US
dc.subjectBlameworthinessen_US
dc.subjectCraniotomyen_US
dc.subjectDesireen_US
dc.subjectDoctrine Of Double Effecten_US
dc.subjectHysterectomyen_US
dc.subjectIntentionen_US
dc.subjectPermissionen_US
dc.subjectTactical Bomberen_US
dc.subjectTerror Bomberen_US
dc.titleYet another revised DDE? A note on David K. Chan's DDEden_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.emailSteinhoff, U:ustnhoff@hku.hken_US
dc.identifier.authoritySteinhoff, U=rp00610en_US
dc.description.naturelink_to_subscribed_fulltexten_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1007/s10677-005-9002-6en_US
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-33747490752en_US
dc.relation.referenceshttp://www.scopus.com/mlt/select.url?eid=2-s2.0-33747490752&selection=ref&src=s&origin=recordpageen_US
dc.identifier.volume9en_US
dc.identifier.issue2en_US
dc.identifier.spage231en_US
dc.identifier.epage236en_US
dc.publisher.placeNetherlandsen_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridSteinhoff, U=24167075300en_US

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats