Book contents
- Intention and Wrongdoing
- Intention and Wrongdoing
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Preface
- Acknowledgments
- Introduction
- Chapter 1 The Principle of Double Effect
- Chapter 2 The Grounding Challenge
- Chapter 3 Double Effect and the Morality of Solidarity
- Chapter 4 An Anscombian Account of Intentional Action
- Chapter 5 The Closeness Problem
- Chapter 6 The Irrelevance Theory and More Objections
- Chapter 7 Has Cognitive Science Debunked Deontology?
- Conclusion
- References
- Index
Chapter 5 - The Closeness Problem
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 December 2021
- Intention and Wrongdoing
- Intention and Wrongdoing
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Preface
- Acknowledgments
- Introduction
- Chapter 1 The Principle of Double Effect
- Chapter 2 The Grounding Challenge
- Chapter 3 Double Effect and the Morality of Solidarity
- Chapter 4 An Anscombian Account of Intentional Action
- Chapter 5 The Closeness Problem
- Chapter 6 The Irrelevance Theory and More Objections
- Chapter 7 Has Cognitive Science Debunked Deontology?
- Conclusion
- References
- Index
Summary
The goal of Chapter 5 is to respond to a long-standing objection to the PDE known as the closeness problem. The problem is supposed to arise because intentions are sufficiently fine-grained that an agent need not intend harm in nearly any situation. The PDE therefore fails to rule out conduct that is intuitively objectionable in a host of cases unless it is supplemented with a criterion of excessive closeness, whose role is to identify things that are “too close” to harm to be considered incidental for purposes of double effect. However, it also proves extremely difficult to specify a criterion of closeness that is not arbitrary or subject to counterexamples. The closeness problem is often thought to be particularly acute for Anscombe-style accounts of intentional action, such as the one I presented in Chapter 4. I argue, however, that the magnitude of the closeness problem has been exaggerated and that the PDE does not need to be supplemented by a criterion of closeness.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Intention and WrongdoingIn Defense of Double Effect, pp. 101 - 133Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2021