Ends, Means, and Character: Recent Critiques of the Intended-Versus-Forseen Distinction and the Principle of Double Effect

Abstract

In this essay I first provide a brief explanation of the principle of double effect (PDE) and the propositions that it entails regarding the distinction between intention and foresight (I/F distinction) and the distinction's relevance to ethical evaluation. Then I address several recent critiques of PDE and the I/F distinction by influential ethicists including Judith Jarvis Thomson, Tom Beauchamp and James Childress, and Jonathan Bennett. I argue that none of these critiques is successful. In the process of refuting the critiques, I also give prima facie reason to believe that the I/F distinction is relevant to evaluation of agents and their actions and that PDE is a defensible ethical principle.