Where a man foresaw that through its consequences his action would violate a law, is he for that reason to be judged responsible for the violation of the law? The principle that such a man is responsible, and thus that foresight is sufficient for responsibility, has long been accepted in both legal and moral theory. But in recent years anxieties about this principle have been expressed by both philosophers and lawyers. What one commonly finds in older books, both legal and (...) ethical, is the thesis that foresight is proof of intention. Given that intention is sufficient for responsibility, this thesis has as consequence the principle that foresight is sufficient for responsibility, but it is only required by that principle if one wants to keep the view that intention is also necessary for responsibility in all cases where negligence is not involved. Miss Anscombe made the extraordinary suggestion that this thesis that foresight is proof of intention originates with Sidgwick, and she took him severely to task on this account; indeed, she even implied that Sidgwick's introduction of this thesis is the source of the shallowness of ‘modern’ moral philosophy. While it is true that Sidgwick did endorse this thesis, in a somewhat qualified manner, he was only following an established tradition of utilitarian thought to which the thesis belongs . Thus this thesis occurs in John Austin's 1828 lectures on Jurisprudence and the best early discussion of it is to be found in Bentham's Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation . Bentham, it is true, introduces a distinction between ‘directly intentional consequences’ and ‘obliquely intentional consequences’ which we might describe as a distinction between consequences that are intended and those that are foreseen but not intended. But for Bentham, foresight is proof of intention, and thus for him obliquely intentional consequences are intended: ‘Advisedness with respect to the circumstances, if clear from the mis-supposal of any preventive circumstance, extends the intentionality from the act to its consequences’. (shrink)

Thomas E. Hill, Jr.; Servility and Self-Respect, The Monist, Volume 57, Issue 1, 1 January 1973, Pages 87–104, https://doi.org/10.5840/monist197357135.

Recent foundational work in feminist ethical theory reflects a wide range of methodological and substantive perspectives. A framework of nine aspects of ethical reflection enables us to situate the varied and at times conflicting contributions of feminist ethicists in relation to each other and the field of social ethics. One aspect, the analysis of the roots of oppression, figures prominently as a basis for divergence among feminist ethical theories. By implication, attention to this oft-unacknowledged aspect of ethical theory would serve (...) the discipline of social ethics in general. (shrink)