This essay defends a version of the Doctrine of Double Effect (DDE) – the doctrine that there is normally a stronger reason against an act that has a bad state of affairs as one of its intended effects than against an otherwise similar act that has that bad state of affairs as an unintended effect. First, a precise account of this version of the DDE is given. Secondly, some suggestions are made about why we should believe the DDE, and about why it is true. Finally, a solution is developed to the so‐called ‘closeness problem’ that any version of the DDE must face.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ralph Wedgwood (2011) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: