Skip to main content

The Action-Omission and Double Effect Distinctions

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Philosophy and Medicine ((PHME,volume 110))

Abstract

One crucial question for the Natural Law Theory of ethics that has been advocated by Joseph Boyle over the course of his distinguished career is: Exactly what is to count as (minimal) respect for a good or value? Under what circumstances do we fail to reach the threshold even of respect for some good, and so count as violating it? I take this to be the hardest question of all for the New Natural Law Theory; it is obvious from Boyle’s writings that he takes it to be a crucial question too, and that he has done more than most to clarify it.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  • Austin, J.L. 1956. A plea for excuses. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 57:1–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, J. 1998. The act itself. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Denyer, N. 1997. Is anything absolutely wrong? In Human Lives: Critical Essays on Consequentialist Bioethics, eds. D.S. Oderberg and J.A. Laing, 39–57. London: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dowe, P. 2000. Physical causation. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dowe, P. 2004. Causation and misconnections. Philosophy of Science 71:926–931.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frankfurt, H. 1969. Alternate possibilities and moral responsibility. Journal of Philosophy 66:829–839.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, J. 1985. The value of life. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howard-Snyder, F. 2002. Doing and allowing harm. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/doing-allowing/.

  • Kim, J. 1995. Causation. In The Cambridge dictionary of philosophy, ed. R. Audi, 110–112. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mackie, J.L. 1974.The cement of the Universe: A study of causation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mangan, J. 1949. An historical analysis of the principle of double effect. Theological Studies 10:41–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • McIntyre, A. 2004. Doctrine of Double Effect. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/double-effect/.

  • McMahan, J. 2002. The ethics of killing: Problems at the margins of life. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mill, J.S. 1872. A System of Logic, 8th edition. London: Online Library of Liberty. http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=246&Itemid=27.

  • Parfit, D. 1978. Innumerate ethics. Philosophy and Public Affairs 7:285–301.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rachels, J. 1975. Active and passive euthanasia. New England Journal of Medicine 2:8–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salmon, W. 1997. Causality and explanation: A reply to two critiques. Philosophy of Science 64:461–477.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salmon, W. 1998. Causality and explanation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sartorio, C. 2005. A new asymmetry between actions and omissions. Noûs 39:460–482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaw, J. 2006. Intention in ethics. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 36:187–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sidgwick, H. 1874. The methods of ethics. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomson, J.J. 1985. Casual priority: A comment. Noûs 19:249–2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taurek, J. 1977. Should the numbers count? Philosophy and Public Affairs 6:293–316.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Timothy Chappell .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Chappell, T. (2011). The Action-Omission and Double Effect Distinctions. In: Tollefsen, C. (eds) Bioethics with Liberty and Justice. Philosophy and Medicine(), vol 110. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9791-0_7

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics