Advertisement

Human Values pp 252-268 | Cite as

Intention, Foresight, and Success

Chapter

Abstract

My topic is the normative relevance of the intended/foreseen distinction. The normative relevance of this distinction appears most formally, and prominently, in the principle of double effect. This principle has been variously formulated, but in essentials — at least in its standard formulations — it holds that an action that foreseeably brings about evil can be permissible provided that the action is not intended to bring about that evil and that proportionate good is to be brought about through that action. Put another way: the principle of double effect proposes two distinct standards, one for intended evil and one for foreseen evil. It proposes that intentional evil is always forbidden; it proposes that foreseen evil is forbidden unless proportionate good is to be gained through the action.

Keywords

Rational Agent True Belief Success Condition Double Effect Practical Rationality 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anscombe, G.E.M. (1957) Intention, Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  2. Aulisio, Mark P. (1995) ‘In Defense of the Intention/Foresight Distinction’, American Philosophical Quarterly 32: 341–54.Google Scholar
  3. Baldwin, James Mark etal. (1925) Dictionary of Philosophy and Psychology, Vol. I, Gloucester, MA: P. Smith.Google Scholar
  4. Bennett, Jonathan (1995) The Act Itself, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Boyle, Joseph and Thomas Sullivan (1977) ‘The Diffusiveness of Intention Prindple: A Counter-Example’, Philosophical Studies 31: 357–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chisholm, Roderick (1970) ‘The Structure of Intention’, Journal of Philosophy 67: 633–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Finnis, John (1991) Moral Absolutes: Tradition, Revision, and Truth, Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press.Google Scholar
  8. Griffin, James (1986) Well-Being: Its Meaning, Measurement, and Moral Importance, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Kaczor, Christopher (2001) ‘Distinguishing Intention from Foresight: What is Included in a Means to an End?’, International Philosophical Quarterly 41: 77–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Murphy, Mark C. (2001) Natural Law and Practical Rationality, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Murphy, Mark C. (2002) The Natural Law Tradition in Ethics’, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Ed Zalta (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-law-ethics/).Google Scholar
  12. Nagel, Thomas (1986) The View from Nowhere, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Nussbaum, Martha (1988) ‘Non-Relative Virtues: An Aristotelian Approach’, Midwest Studies in Philosophy 13: 32–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Parfit, Derek (1984) Reasons and Persons, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Scanlon, Thomas (1998) What We Owe to Each Other, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Sidgwick, Henry (1981) The Methods of Ethics, 7th edn, Indianapolis: Hackett.Google Scholar
  17. Weinberg, Jonathan, Shaun Nichols, and Stephen Stich (2001) ‘Normativity and Epistemic Intuitions’, Philosophical Topics 29: 429–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Mark C. Murphy 2004

Authors and Affiliations

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations