Advertisement

Ethical Theory and Moral Practice

, Volume 9, Issue 2, pp 231–236 | Cite as

Yet Another Revised DDE? A Note on David K. Chan's DDEd

  • Uwe Steinhoff
Article

Abstract

David K. Chan wants to save the DDE from the considerable criticism levelled against it, by making the moral distinction it refers to rest on a difference in desire instead of in intention. I argue that the revised version, too, is counter-intuitive and confuses the blameworthiness of an actor with the wrongness of the act. It also invites abuse instead of preventing it. Besides, Chan's DDE omits three of the four criteria of the traditional DDE, and it is couched in terms of lesser objectionability, while the traditional DDE is couched in terms of permission. Therefore, Chan's DDE has so little in common with the traditional DDE that it should not even count as a revised version of it.

Keywords

blameworthiness craniotomy desire Doctrine of Double Effect hysterectomy intention permission tactical bomber terror bomber 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bennett, J., Morality and Consequences, in St. M. McMurrin (ed.), The Tanner Lectures on Human Values, Vol. II. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1980, pp. 45–116.Google Scholar
  2. Chan, D.K., Intention and Responsibility in Double Effect Cases, Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 3 (2000), pp. 405–435.Google Scholar
  3. Thomson, J.J., Self-Defense, Philosophy & Public Affairs 20 (1991), pp. 283–310.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Oxford Leverhulme Programme on the Changing Character of War, Department of Politics and International RelationsUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations