Two Cheers for “Closeness”: Terror, Targeting and Double Effect

Philosophical Studies 137 (3):335-367 (2008)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Philosophers from Hart to Lewis, Johnston and Bennett have expressed various degrees of reservation concerning the doctrine of double effect. A common concern is that, with regard to many activities that double effect is traditionally thought to prohibit, what might at first look to be a directly intended bad effect is really, on closer examination, a directly intended neutral effect that is closely connected to a foreseen bad effect. This essay examines the extent to which the commonsense concept of intention supports a reasonably consistent and coherent application of double effect. Two important conclusions are these: (1) a number of traditionally proscribed activities involve a kind of “targeting” of innocents that can be taken to exhibit a direct intention to harm them; (2) a direct intention to harm need not involve a desire to harm in any ordinary sense of the latter expression.
(categorize this paper)
PhilPapers/Archive ID
Revision history
Archival date: 2015-09-26
View upload history
References found in this work BETA
Change in View.Harman, Gilbert
Intention.Anscombe, G. E. M.

View all 31 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

View all 17 citations / Add more citations

Added to PP index

Total views
259 ( #16,805 of 48,896 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
38 ( #18,385 of 48,896 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks to external links.