Advertisement

Praeter Intentionem in Aquinas and Issues in Bioethics

  • E. Christian BruggerEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Philosophy and Medicine book series (PHME, volume 110)

Abstract

The two propositions in Aquinas from which the so-called doctrine of double-effect arises are (1) actions are morally specified (“receive their species”) according to what is intended (“id quod intenditur”) and not according to what falls outside the intention (“praeter intentionem”), and (2) a single act can have effects that fall within the agent’s intention and others that fall outside the intention (Aquinas, ST, II–II, Q. 64, a. 7).

Keywords

Fallopian Tube Ectopic Pregnancy Moral Object Civil Authority Intentional Killing 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Anscombe, G.E.M. 1957. Intention. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  2. Aquinas, T. 1999. In Octo Libros Physicorum Aristotelis Expositio, Commentary on Aristotle’s Physics. (Eng. trans: Blackwell, R., Spath, R., and Thirlkel, W.E. Notre Dame, IN: Dumb Ox Books.Google Scholar
  3. Aquinas, T. Quaestiones Disputatae de Malo (de Malo).Google Scholar
  4. Aquinas, T. Scriptum super Libros Sentiarum (In Sent.) I and II.Google Scholar
  5. Aquinas, T. Summa Theologiae (ST).Google Scholar
  6. Aquinas, T. Summa Contra Gentiles (SCG).Google Scholar
  7. Boyle, J.M. Jr. 1977. Double-effect and a certain type of embryotomy. Irish Theological Quarterly 44:303–318.Google Scholar
  8. Boyle, J.M. Jr. 1978. Praeter Intentionem In Aquinas, The Thomist 42:649–665.Google Scholar
  9. Boyle, J.M. Jr. 1991. Who is entitled to double effect? The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 16:475–494.Google Scholar
  10. Brock, S. 1998. Action and conduct: Thomas Aquinas and the theory of action. Edinburgh: T & T Clark.Google Scholar
  11. Brugger, E.C. 2003. Capital punishment and Roman Catholic moral tradition. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
  12. Brugger, E. C. 2004. Aquinas and capital punishment: The plausibility of the traditional argument. Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics & Public Policy 18:357–372.Google Scholar
  13. Brugger, E.C. 2005. Action, intention and self-determination. Vera Lex: Journal of the International Natural Law Society, New Series 6:79–106.Google Scholar
  14. Brugger, E.C. 2008. Rejecting the death penalty: Continuity and change in the tradition. The Heythrop Journal 49:388–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. (1997). Catechism of the Catholic Church: With Modifications from the Editio Typica, 2nd edition. Washington, DC: U.S. Catholic Conference.Google Scholar
  16. Cavanaugh, T.A. 1997. Aquinas’s account of double effect. The Thomist 61:107–121.Google Scholar
  17. Finnis, J.M. 1986. The act of a person. Persona Verità e Morale: Atti del Congresso Internazionale di Teologia Morale. Roma: Città Nuova Editrice, 159–175.Google Scholar
  18. Finnis, J.M. 1991. Intention and side-effects. In Liability and responsibility: Essays in law and morals, eds. R.G. Frey and C. W. Morris, 32–64. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Finnis, J.M. 1996. Intention in tort law. In Philosophical foundations of tort law, ed. D. G. Owen, 229–247. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  20. Finnis, J., Grisez, G., and J. Boyle. 2001. ‘Direct’ and ‘Indirect’: A reply critics of our action theory. The Thomist 65:1–44.Google Scholar
  21. Foot, P. 2001. The problem of abortion and the doctrine of the double effect. In The doctrine of double effect: Philosophers debate a controversial moral principle, ed. P.A. Woodward, 143–155. South Bend, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
  22. Gleeson, G. 1999. ‘Medical Management’ of ectopic pregnancy. In Issues for a Catholic bioethic, ed. L. Gormally, 353–370. London: The Linacre Centre.Google Scholar
  23. Hart, H.L.A. 1968. Intention in punishment. In Punishment and responsibility: Essays in the philosophy of law, 113–135. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  24. John Paul II. 1995. Evangelium vitae: Encyclical on the value and inviolability of human life. Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana.Google Scholar
  25. Kaczor, C. 1998. Is the ‘Medical Management’ of ectopic pregnancy by the administration of methotrexate morally acceptable? In Issues for a Catholic bioethics: Proceedings of the international conference to celebrate the twentieth anniversary of the foundation of the Linacre centre 28–31 July 1997, ed. L. Gormally, 353–370. London: The Linacre Centre.Google Scholar
  26. Long, S.A. 2007. The teleological grammar of the moral act. Naples, FL: Sapientia Press.Google Scholar
  27. Paul VI. 1968. Humanae vitae. Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana.Google Scholar
  28. Williams, G. 1965. The mental element in crime. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Lionel Cohen lectures. Jerusalem & Oxford: Magnes Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Saint John Theological SeminaryDenverUSA

Personalised recommendations