more on this theme | more from this thinker
Full Idea
Supporters of double effect say that sometimes it makes a difference to the permissibility of an action involving harm to others that this harm, although foreseen, is not part of the agent's intention.
Gist of Idea
The doctrine of double effect can excuse an outcome because it wasn't directly intended
Source
Philippa Foot (Abortion and the Doctrine of Double Effect [1967], p.22)
Book Ref
Foot,Philippa: 'Virtues and Vices' [Blackwell 1981], p.22
A Reaction
The obvious major case is the direction of wartime bombing raids. Controversial, because how can someone foresee a side effect and yet claim to have no intention to cause it? Isn't it wickedly self-deluding?
Related Idea
Idea 22384 A 'double effect' is a foreseen but not desired side-effect, which may be forgivable [Foot]
| 22383 | Abortion is puzzling because we do and don't want the unborn child to have rights [Foot] |
| 22384 | A 'double effect' is a foreseen but not desired side-effect, which may be forgivable [Foot] |
| 22385 | The doctrine of double effect can excuse an outcome because it wasn't directly intended [Foot] |
| 22386 | Double effect says foreseeing you will kill someone is not the same as intending it [Foot] |
| 22387 | Without double effect, bad men can make us do evil by threatening something worse [Foot] |
| 22388 | Double effect seems to rely on a distinction between what we do and what we allow [Foot] |