more on this theme
|
more from this text
Single Idea 23578
[filed under theme 20. Action / C. Motives for Action / 5. Action Dilemmas / b. Double Effect
]
Full Idea
Double effect is defensible, I want to argue, only when the two outcomes are the product of a double intention - that 'good' be achieved, and that the foreseeable evil be reduced as far as possible.
Gist of Idea
Double Effect needs a double intention - to achieve the good, and minimise the evil
Source
Michael Walzer (Just and Unjust Wars [1977], 09)
Book Ref
Walzer,Michael: 'Just and Unjust Wars' [Penguin 1984], p.155
A Reaction
A good proposal, I think. We have to accept evil side effects sometimes, but it is immoral to pursue some good 'whatever the cost'.
The
28 ideas
from Michael Walzer
23564
|
Deep ethical theory is very controversial, but we have to live with higher ethical practice
[Walzer]
|
23593
|
Jus ad bellum and Jus in bello are independent; unjust wars can be fought in a just way
[Walzer]
|
23568
|
If whole states possess rights, there can be social relations between states
[Walzer]
|
23567
|
Even non-violent intrusive acts between states count as aggression, if they justify resistance
[Walzer]
|
23570
|
The only good reason for fighting is in defence of rights
[Walzer]
|
23571
|
States can rightly pre-empt real and serious threats
[Walzer]
|
23572
|
Just wars are self-defence, or a rightful intercession in another's troubles
[Walzer]
|
23573
|
For moral reasons, a just war must be a limited war
[Walzer]
|
23577
|
Napoleon said 'I don't care about the deaths of a million men'
[Walzer]
|
23574
|
The duties and moral status of loyal and obedient soldiers is the same in defence and aggression
[Walzer]
|
23575
|
We can't blame soldiers for anything they do which clearly promotes victory
[Walzer]
|
23614
|
Even aggressor soldiers are not criminals, so they have equal rights with their opponents
[Walzer]
|
23578
|
Double Effect needs a double intention - to achieve the good, and minimise the evil
[Walzer]
|
23579
|
Soldiers will only protect civilians if they feel safe from them
[Walzer]
|
23580
|
States need not endure attacks passively, and successful reprisals are legitimate
[Walzer]
|
23581
|
The aim of reprisals is to enforce the rules of war
[Walzer]
|
23582
|
Reprisal is defensible, as an alternative to war
[Walzer]
|
23584
|
Rejecting Combatant Equality allows just soldiers to be harsher, even to the extreme
[Walzer]
|
23586
|
What matters in war is unacceptable targets, not unacceptable weapons
[Walzer]
|
23588
|
With nuclear weapons we have a permanent supreme emergency (which is unstable)
[Walzer]
|
23587
|
Nuclear bombs are not for normal war; they undermine the 'just war', with a new morality
[Walzer]
|
23589
|
Kidnapped sailors and volunteers have different obligations to the passengers
[Walzer]
|
23590
|
Criminal responsibility can be fully assigned to each member of a group
[Walzer]
|
23592
|
We can only lead war towards peace if we firmly enforce the rules of war
[Walzer]
|
23591
|
If the oppressor is cruel, nonviolence is either surrender, or a mere gesture
[Walzer]
|
20595
|
You can't distribute goods from behind a veil, because their social meaning is unclear
[Walzer, by Tuckness/Wolf]
|
20592
|
Complex equality restricts equalities from spilling over, like money influencing politics and law
[Walzer, by Tuckness/Wolf]
|
20549
|
Equality is complex, with different spheres of equality where different principles apply
[Walzer, by Swift]
|