Previous articleNext article No AccessQuinn on Double Effect: The Problem of "Closeness"John Martin Fischer, Mark Ravizza, and David CoppJohn Martin Fischer Search for more articles by this author , Mark Ravizza Search for more articles by this author , and David Copp Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Ethics Volume 103, Number 4Jul., 1993 Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/293549 Views: 36Total views on this site Citations: 15Citations are reported from Crossref Copyright 1993 The University of ChicagoPDF download Crossref reports the following articles citing this article:Jonathan Crowe Natural Law and the Nature of Law, 81 (Apr 2019).https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108653237Uwe Steinhoff The Secret to the Success of the Doctrine of Double Effect (and Related Principles): Biased Framing, Inadequate Methodology, and Clever Distractions, The Journal of Ethics 22, no.3-43-4 (Jun 2018): 235–263.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10892-018-9272-6Sydney Levine, Alan M. Leslie, John Mikhail The Mental Representation of Human Action, Cognitive Science 42, no.44 (May 2018): 1229–1264.https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12608Fiona Woollard Double effect, doing and allowing, and the relaxed nonconsequentialist, Philosophical Explorations 20, no.sup2sup2 (Oct 2017): 142–158.https://doi.org/10.1080/13869795.2017.1356355Dana Kay Nelkin, Samuel C. Rickless So Close, Yet So Far: Why Solutions to the Closeness Problem for the Doctrine of Double Effect Fall Short, Noûs 49, no.22 (Jun 2013): 376–409.https://doi.org/10.1111/nous.12033Simon Fitzpatrick Distinguishing Between Three Versions of the Doctrine of Double Effect Hypothesis in Moral Psychology, Review of Philosophy and Psychology 5, no.44 (Jun 2014): 505–525.https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-014-0192-5HOWARD NYE On the Equivalence of Trolleys and Transplants: The Lack of Intrinsic Difference between ‘Collateral Damage’ and Intended Harm, Utilitas 26, no.44 (Aug 2014): 432–479.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0953820814000181Dana Kay Nelkin, Samuel c. Rickless Three Cheers for Double Effect, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 89, no.11 (Dec 2012): 125–158.https://doi.org/10.1111/phpr.12002Michael S. Moore FOUR FRIENDLY CRITICS: A RESPONSE, Legal Theory 18, no.44 (Oct 2012): 491–542.https://doi.org/10.1017/S1352325212000134Vincent Chiao Intention and Attempt, Criminal Law and Philosophy 4, no.11 (Sep 2009): 37–55.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11572-009-9085-6Ian A. Smith A New Defense of Quinn's Principle of Double Effect, Journal of Social Philosophy 38, no.22 (Jun 2007): 349–364.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9833.2007.00383.xAlison Hills Intentions, foreseen consequences and the doctrine of double effect, Philosophical Studies 133, no.22 (Oct 2006): 257–283.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-005-4603-4Joseph Shaw Intention in Ethics, Canadian Journal of Philosophy 36, no.22 (Jan 2020): 187–223.https://doi.org/10.1353/cjp.2006.0012J. L. A. Garcia Intentions in Medical Ethics, (Jan 1997): 161–181.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-25098-1_10Michael Gorr Should the Law Distinguish Between Intention and (Mere) Foresight?, Legal Theory 2, no.44 (Feb 2009): 359–380.https://doi.org/10.1017/S1352325200000574