Intention and wrongdoing: in defense of double effect
According to the principle of double effect, there is a strict moral constraint against bringing about serious harm to the innocent intentionally, but it is permissible in a wider range of circumstances to act in a way that brings about harm as a foreseen but non-intended side effect. This idea play...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Book |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Cambridge ; New York ; Port Melbourne ; New Delhi ; Singapore
Cambridge University Press
[2022]
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | Inhaltsverzeichnis |
| Summary: | According to the principle of double effect, there is a strict moral constraint against bringing about serious harm to the innocent intentionally, but it is permissible in a wider range of circumstances to act in a way that brings about harm as a foreseen but non-intended side effect. This idea plays an important role in just war theory and international law, and in the twentieth century Elizabeth Anscombe and Philippa Foot invoked it as a way of resisting consequentialism. However, many moral philosophers now regard the principle with hostility or suspicion. Challenging the philosophical orthodoxy, Joshua Stuchlik defends the principle of double effect, situating it within a moral framework of human solidarity and responding to philosophical objections to it. His study uncovers links between ethics, philosophy of action, and moral psychology, and will be of interest to anyone seeking to understand the moral relevance of intention |
| Physical Description: | xiv, 207 Seiten |
| ISBN: | 9781316516522 |
Staff View
MARC
| LEADER | 00000nam a2200000zc 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | BV047840048 | ||
| 003 | DE-604 | ||
| 005 | 20230807 | ||
| 007 | t | ||
| 008 | 220216s2022 |||| 00||| eng d | ||
| 020 | |a 9781316516522 |c hbk |9 978-1-316-51652-2 | ||
| 035 | |a (OCoLC)1314905805 | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-599)BVBBV047840048 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-604 |b ger |e rda | ||
| 041 | 0 | |a eng | |
| 049 | |a DE-20 |a DE-12 | ||
| 082 | 0 | |a 170 | |
| 100 | 1 | |a Stuchlik, Joshua |d ca. 20./21. Jh. |e Verfasser |0 (DE-588)1249930200 |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Intention and wrongdoing |b in defense of double effect |c Joshua Stuchlik (University of St. Thomas) |
| 264 | 1 | |a Cambridge ; New York ; Port Melbourne ; New Delhi ; Singapore |b Cambridge University Press |c [2022] | |
| 300 | |a xiv, 207 Seiten | ||
| 336 | |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |b n |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |b nc |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 520 | |a According to the principle of double effect, there is a strict moral constraint against bringing about serious harm to the innocent intentionally, but it is permissible in a wider range of circumstances to act in a way that brings about harm as a foreseen but non-intended side effect. This idea plays an important role in just war theory and international law, and in the twentieth century Elizabeth Anscombe and Philippa Foot invoked it as a way of resisting consequentialism. However, many moral philosophers now regard the principle with hostility or suspicion. Challenging the philosophical orthodoxy, Joshua Stuchlik defends the principle of double effect, situating it within a moral framework of human solidarity and responding to philosophical objections to it. His study uncovers links between ethics, philosophy of action, and moral psychology, and will be of interest to anyone seeking to understand the moral relevance of intention | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Double effect (Ethics) | |
| 650 | 0 | 7 | |a Ethik |0 (DE-588)4015602-3 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf |
| 650 | 0 | 7 | |a Doppelwirkung |0 (DE-588)4503156-3 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf |
| 689 | 0 | 0 | |a Doppelwirkung |0 (DE-588)4503156-3 |D s |
| 689 | 0 | 1 | |a Ethik |0 (DE-588)4015602-3 |D s |
| 689 | 0 | |5 DE-604 | |
| 776 | 0 | 8 | |i Erscheint auch als |n Online-Ausgabe |z 978-1-00-903041-0 |
| 856 | 4 | 2 | |m Digitalisierung BSB München - ADAM Catalogue Enrichment |q application/pdf |u http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=033223142&sequence=000001&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA |3 Inhaltsverzeichnis |
| 999 | |a oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-033223142 | ||
Record in the Search Index
| _version_ | 1804183396421730304 |
|---|---|
| adam_text | Contents page xi xiii Preface Acknowledgments Introduction i The Principle of Double Effect 1.1 i.z 1.3 1.4 i. 5 1.6 2 7 Introduction Terminology Absolutist vs. Nonabsolutist Versions of the PDE Incidental Harm The PDE in Just War Theory and International Law Plan of the Book The Grounding Challenge 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 2.10 3 I Double Effect and the Morality of Solidarity Introduction 3.2 3.3 Solidarity The Morality of Solidarity И 18 20 Introduction Intuitions Why Intuitions Are Insufficient The “Guided by Evil” Rationale The “Treating as a Mere Means” Rationale The “Agential Involvement” Rationale The “New Natural Law” Rationale Character-Based Rationales I Character-Based Rationales II Conclusion 3.1 7 8 11 12 20 21 25 3° 32 34 37 41 42 45 47 47 49 54 vii
Contents viii 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 The Precept of Beneficence The Constraint against Intentional Harm Incidental Harm: The Principles of Proportionality and Due Care The Normative Foundation of the Morality of Solidarity Conclusion 4 An Anscombian Account of Intentional Action 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 j The 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 Introduction The Teleological Order of Intentional Action The Calculative Order of Practical Reasoning The Intentional/Incidental Distinction Application to the Controversial Cases Conclusion Closeness Problem Introduction Origins of the Problem Doing without Closeness A Fine Challenge Failure to Transfer Clarifying the Constraint against Intentional Harm Conclusion 6 The Irrelevance Theory and More Objections 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 7 Introduction All in the Head? The Inconsistency Objection The Deliberative Perspective Objection Looking Inward? Responding to Agents with Bad Intentions Conclusion Has Cognitive Science Debunked Deontology? Double Effect and Greene’s Debunking Argument 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 Introduction The Dual-Process Theory of Moral Judgment Debunking Deontological Intuitions Debunking Deontological Theory: TheRationalization Argument 57 62 68 74 79 81 81 83 86 94 96 too 101 101 102 106 117 122 127 132 134 134 137 140 146 151 155 160 162 162 163 166 171
Contents 7.5 Why the Rationalization Argument Fails 7.6 7.7 A Miraculous Coincidence? Conclusion ix W 175 178 Conclusion 180 References Index 188 201
|
| adam_txt |
Contents page xi xiii Preface Acknowledgments Introduction i The Principle of Double Effect 1.1 i.z 1.3 1.4 i. 5 1.6 2 7 Introduction Terminology Absolutist vs. Nonabsolutist Versions of the PDE Incidental Harm The PDE in Just War Theory and International Law Plan of the Book The Grounding Challenge 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 2.10 3 I Double Effect and the Morality of Solidarity Introduction 3.2 3.3 Solidarity The Morality of Solidarity И 18 20 Introduction Intuitions Why Intuitions Are Insufficient The “Guided by Evil” Rationale The “Treating as a Mere Means” Rationale The “Agential Involvement” Rationale The “New Natural Law” Rationale Character-Based Rationales I Character-Based Rationales II Conclusion 3.1 7 8 11 12 20 21 25 3° 32 34 37 41 42 45 47 47 49 54 vii
Contents viii 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 The Precept of Beneficence The Constraint against Intentional Harm Incidental Harm: The Principles of Proportionality and Due Care The Normative Foundation of the Morality of Solidarity Conclusion 4 An Anscombian Account of Intentional Action 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 j The 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 Introduction The Teleological Order of Intentional Action The Calculative Order of Practical Reasoning The Intentional/Incidental Distinction Application to the Controversial Cases Conclusion Closeness Problem Introduction Origins of the Problem Doing without Closeness A Fine Challenge Failure to Transfer Clarifying the Constraint against Intentional Harm Conclusion 6 The Irrelevance Theory and More Objections 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 7 Introduction All in the Head? The Inconsistency Objection The Deliberative Perspective Objection Looking Inward? Responding to Agents with Bad Intentions Conclusion Has Cognitive Science Debunked Deontology? Double Effect and Greene’s Debunking Argument 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 Introduction The Dual-Process Theory of Moral Judgment Debunking Deontological Intuitions Debunking Deontological Theory: TheRationalization Argument 57 62 68 74 79 81 81 83 86 94 96 too 101 101 102 106 117 122 127 132 134 134 137 140 146 151 155 160 162 162 163 166 171
Contents 7.5 Why the Rationalization Argument Fails 7.6 7.7 A Miraculous Coincidence? Conclusion ix W 175 178 Conclusion 180 References Index 188 201 |
| any_adam_object | 1 |
| any_adam_object_boolean | 1 |
| author | Stuchlik, Joshua ca. 20./21. Jh |
| author_GND | (DE-588)1249930200 |
| author_facet | Stuchlik, Joshua ca. 20./21. Jh |
| author_role | aut |
| author_sort | Stuchlik, Joshua ca. 20./21. Jh |
| author_variant | j s js |
| building | Verbundindex |
| bvnumber | BV047840048 |
| ctrlnum | (OCoLC)1314905805 (DE-599)BVBBV047840048 |
| dewey-full | 170 |
| dewey-hundreds | 100 - Philosophy & psychology |
| dewey-ones | 170 - Ethics (Moral philosophy) |
| dewey-raw | 170 |
| dewey-search | 170 |
| dewey-sort | 3170 |
| dewey-tens | 170 - Ethics (Moral philosophy) |
| discipline | Philosophie |
| discipline_str_mv | Philosophie |
| format | Book |
| fullrecord | <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>02476nam a2200373zc 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">BV047840048</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-604</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230807 </controlfield><controlfield tag="007">t</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">220216s2022 |||| 00||| eng d</controlfield><datafield tag="020" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">9781316516522</subfield><subfield code="c">hbk</subfield><subfield code="9">978-1-316-51652-2</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(OCoLC)1314905805</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)BVBBV047840048</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-604</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="e">rda</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="049" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-20</subfield><subfield code="a">DE-12</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Stuchlik, Joshua</subfield><subfield code="d">ca. 20./21. Jh.</subfield><subfield code="e">Verfasser</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)1249930200</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Intention and wrongdoing</subfield><subfield code="b">in defense of double effect</subfield><subfield code="c">Joshua Stuchlik (University of St. Thomas)</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="a">Cambridge ; New York ; Port Melbourne ; New Delhi ; Singapore</subfield><subfield code="b">Cambridge University Press</subfield><subfield code="c">[2022]</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="300" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">xiv, 207 Seiten</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">n</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">nc</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">According to the principle of double effect, there is a strict moral constraint against bringing about serious harm to the innocent intentionally, but it is permissible in a wider range of circumstances to act in a way that brings about harm as a foreseen but non-intended side effect. This idea plays an important role in just war theory and international law, and in the twentieth century Elizabeth Anscombe and Philippa Foot invoked it as a way of resisting consequentialism. However, many moral philosophers now regard the principle with hostility or suspicion. Challenging the philosophical orthodoxy, Joshua Stuchlik defends the principle of double effect, situating it within a moral framework of human solidarity and responding to philosophical objections to it. His study uncovers links between ethics, philosophy of action, and moral psychology, and will be of interest to anyone seeking to understand the moral relevance of intention</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Double effect (Ethics)</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1="0" ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Ethik</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4015602-3</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1="0" ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Doppelwirkung</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4503156-3</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Doppelwirkung</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4503156-3</subfield><subfield code="D">s</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2="1"><subfield code="a">Ethik</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4015602-3</subfield><subfield code="D">s</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="5">DE-604</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="776" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Erscheint auch als</subfield><subfield code="n">Online-Ausgabe</subfield><subfield code="z">978-1-00-903041-0</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="m">Digitalisierung BSB München - ADAM Catalogue Enrichment</subfield><subfield code="q">application/pdf</subfield><subfield code="u">http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=033223142&sequence=000001&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA</subfield><subfield code="3">Inhaltsverzeichnis</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="999" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-033223142</subfield></datafield></record></collection> |
| id | DE-604.BV047840048 |
| illustrated | Not Illustrated |
| index_date | 2024-07-03T19:11:38Z |
| indexdate | 2024-07-10T09:22:47Z |
| institution | BVB |
| isbn | 9781316516522 |
| language | English |
| oai_aleph_id | oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-033223142 |
| oclc_num | 1314905805 |
| open_access_boolean | |
| owner | DE-20 DE-12 |
| owner_facet | DE-20 DE-12 |
| physical | xiv, 207 Seiten |
| publishDate | 2022 |
| publishDateSearch | 2022 |
| publishDateSort | 2022 |
| publisher | Cambridge University Press |
| record_format | marc |
| spelling | Stuchlik, Joshua ca. 20./21. Jh. Verfasser (DE-588)1249930200 aut Intention and wrongdoing in defense of double effect Joshua Stuchlik (University of St. Thomas) Cambridge ; New York ; Port Melbourne ; New Delhi ; Singapore Cambridge University Press [2022] xiv, 207 Seiten txt rdacontent n rdamedia nc rdacarrier According to the principle of double effect, there is a strict moral constraint against bringing about serious harm to the innocent intentionally, but it is permissible in a wider range of circumstances to act in a way that brings about harm as a foreseen but non-intended side effect. This idea plays an important role in just war theory and international law, and in the twentieth century Elizabeth Anscombe and Philippa Foot invoked it as a way of resisting consequentialism. However, many moral philosophers now regard the principle with hostility or suspicion. Challenging the philosophical orthodoxy, Joshua Stuchlik defends the principle of double effect, situating it within a moral framework of human solidarity and responding to philosophical objections to it. His study uncovers links between ethics, philosophy of action, and moral psychology, and will be of interest to anyone seeking to understand the moral relevance of intention Double effect (Ethics) Ethik (DE-588)4015602-3 gnd rswk-swf Doppelwirkung (DE-588)4503156-3 gnd rswk-swf Doppelwirkung (DE-588)4503156-3 s Ethik (DE-588)4015602-3 s DE-604 Erscheint auch als Online-Ausgabe 978-1-00-903041-0 Digitalisierung BSB München - ADAM Catalogue Enrichment application/pdf http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=033223142&sequence=000001&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA Inhaltsverzeichnis |
| spellingShingle | Stuchlik, Joshua ca. 20./21. Jh Intention and wrongdoing in defense of double effect Double effect (Ethics) Ethik (DE-588)4015602-3 gnd Doppelwirkung (DE-588)4503156-3 gnd |
| subject_GND | (DE-588)4015602-3 (DE-588)4503156-3 |
| title | Intention and wrongdoing in defense of double effect |
| title_auth | Intention and wrongdoing in defense of double effect |
| title_exact_search | Intention and wrongdoing in defense of double effect |
| title_exact_search_txtP | Intention and wrongdoing in defense of double effect |
| title_full | Intention and wrongdoing in defense of double effect Joshua Stuchlik (University of St. Thomas) |
| title_fullStr | Intention and wrongdoing in defense of double effect Joshua Stuchlik (University of St. Thomas) |
| title_full_unstemmed | Intention and wrongdoing in defense of double effect Joshua Stuchlik (University of St. Thomas) |
| title_short | Intention and wrongdoing |
| title_sort | intention and wrongdoing in defense of double effect |
| title_sub | in defense of double effect |
| topic | Double effect (Ethics) Ethik (DE-588)4015602-3 gnd Doppelwirkung (DE-588)4503156-3 gnd |
| topic_facet | Double effect (Ethics) Ethik Doppelwirkung |
| url | http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=033223142&sequence=000001&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT stuchlikjoshua intentionandwrongdoingindefenseofdoubleeffect |