File Download
Links for fulltext
(May Require Subscription)
- Publisher Website: 10.1007/s10892-018-9272-6
- Scopus: eid_2-s2.0-85048078523
- Find via
Supplementary
-
Citations:
- Scopus: 0
- Appears in Collections:
Article: The Secret to the Success of the Doctrine of Double Effect (and Related Principles): Biased Framing, Inadequate Methodology, and Clever Distractions
Title | The Secret to the Success of the Doctrine of Double Effect (and Related Principles): Biased Framing, Inadequate Methodology, and Clever Distractions |
---|---|
Authors | |
Keywords | Bias Closeness Doctrine of double effect Loop case Means principle Methodology |
Issue Date | 2018 |
Publisher | Springer Verlag Dordrecht. The Journal's web site is located at http://link.springer.com/journal/10892 |
Citation | The Journal of Ethics, 2018, v. 22 n. 3-4, p. 235-263 How to Cite? |
Abstract | There are different formulations of the doctrine of double effect (DDE), 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 (since they do not keep all else equal). 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 there is simply no sufficient intuitive support for the DDE or related principles. Instead of looking for their “rationales,” they should be abandoned. |
Persistent Identifier | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/260573 |
ISSN | 2023 Impact Factor: 0.9 2023 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.354 |
Grants |
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | Steinhoff, UB | - |
dc.date.accessioned | 2018-09-14T08:43:55Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2018-09-14T08:43:55Z | - |
dc.date.issued | 2018 | - |
dc.identifier.citation | The Journal of Ethics, 2018, v. 22 n. 3-4, p. 235-263 | - |
dc.identifier.issn | 1382-4554 | - |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/260573 | - |
dc.description.abstract | There are different formulations of the doctrine of double effect (DDE), 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 (since they do not keep all else equal). 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 there is simply no sufficient intuitive support for the DDE or related principles. Instead of looking for their “rationales,” they should be abandoned. | - |
dc.language | eng | - |
dc.publisher | Springer Verlag Dordrecht. The Journal's web site is located at http://link.springer.com/journal/10892 | - |
dc.relation.ispartof | The Journal of Ethics | - |
dc.rights | This is a post-peer-review, pre-copyedit version of an article published in The Journal of Ethics. The final authenticated version is available online at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10892-018-9272-6 | - |
dc.subject | Bias | - |
dc.subject | Closeness | - |
dc.subject | Doctrine of double effect | - |
dc.subject | Loop case | - |
dc.subject | Means principle | - |
dc.subject | Methodology | - |
dc.title | The Secret to the Success of the Doctrine of Double Effect (and Related Principles): Biased Framing, Inadequate Methodology, and Clever Distractions | - |
dc.type | Article | - |
dc.identifier.email | Steinhoff, UB: ustnhoff@hkucc.hku.hk | - |
dc.identifier.authority | Steinhoff, UB=rp00610 | - |
dc.description.nature | postprint | - |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1007/s10892-018-9272-6 | - |
dc.identifier.scopus | eid_2-s2.0-85048078523 | - |
dc.identifier.hkuros | 291221 | - |
dc.identifier.volume | 22 | - |
dc.identifier.issue | 3-4 | - |
dc.identifier.spage | 235 | - |
dc.identifier.epage | 263 | - |
dc.publisher.place | Netherlands | - |
dc.relation.project | Special Issues in the Ethics of War: Guerrillas, Warlords, Drones, Mercenaries, Preventive War, and Humanitarian Intervention | - |
dc.identifier.issnl | 1382-4554 | - |