Abstract
ABSTRACTMy focus in this paper is the use of the doctrine of double effect (DDE) in the context of Just War Theory. Different versions of DDE have different degrees of plausibility. Two distinctions are crucial. First, I distinguish between epistemically idealized and non-idealized scenarios. Second, I distinguish between versions of DDE that make a ceteris paribus comparison between intentional and non-intentional outcomes, from versions that either make a comparison that is not ceteris paribus or are non-comparative. After undertaking these classificatory tasks, I defend the following claims: First, in an idealized world, ceteris paribus versions of DDE are plausible. Second, we cannot transfer such plausibility to stronger (non-ceteris paribus) versions of DDE. Finally, in a non-idealized world, DDE is plausible. The argument for this last claim combines the reasons for defending ceteris paribus versions of DDE in idealized circumstances with an argument about how to proceed when we face hard choices under uncertainty.
Highlights
The doctrine of the double effect (DDE) remains, after centuries, a matter of controversy
My focus in this paper is the use of the doctrine of double effect (DDE) in the context of Just War Theory
DDE has been used for different purposes in different discussions, ranging from self-defense to Just War Theory to bioethics
Summary
The doctrine of the double effect (DDE) remains, after centuries, a matter of controversy. We must distinguish versions of DDE that make a ceteris paribus comparison between (roughly speaking) intentional and non-intentional outcomes, from versions that either make a comparison that is not ceteris paribus or are non-comparative. We cannot transfer such plausibility to stronger versions of DDE (non-ceteris paribus and non-comparative versions) (section 3.3). The (admittedly exploratory) argument for this last claim combines the reasons for defending ceteris paribus versions of DDE in idealized circumstances with an argument about how to proceed when we face hard choices under ineradicable uncertainty (section 4)
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have