Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T17:57:10.590Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

On a Purported Error About the Doctrine of Double Effect: A Reply to Sophie Botros

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2000

Abstract

In a recent edition of the journal Philosophy, Sophie Botros asserts that modern ethical theorists have badly misunderstood the role of the Doctrine of Double Effect, turning it into a device by which to prohibit actions which are deemed impermissible; whereas the true function of the Doctrine is rather one of justifying actions. In my reply, I argue that Dr Botros has misunderstood the Doctrine: that its ‘prohibitive’ and its ‘justificatory’ roles are merely two sides of the same coin, since its function is to decide for a given action whether it is permissible or impermissible. Furthermore, Dr Botros has misconstrued the essential contribution of the DDE is not the balancing of good results against bad ones, but the quite different position that the crucial moral distinction is between intended and merely foreseen results.

Type
Brief Report
Copyright
© The Royal Institute of Philosophy 2000

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)