The doctrine of triple effect and why a rational agent need not intend the means to his end. The moral difference between throwing a trolley at a person and throwing a person at a trolley: II - John Harris

Frances M. Kamm, John Harris

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

5 Scopus citations

Abstract

Frances Kamm sets out to draw and make plausible distinctions that would show how and why it is, in some circumstances, permissible to kill some to save many more, but is not so in others. To do so she draws on a famous, and famously artificial, example of Judith Thomson, which illustrates the fact that people intutitively reject some instances of such killings but not others. The irrationality, implausibility and in many cases the self-defeating nature of such distinctions I had attempted to expose in my 'The Survival Lottery' over 25 years ago. I still think these distinctions irrational and implausible and I will try, in this response, to show why this remains the case and why doctrines of additional effects, to however many powers they are taken, remain unhelpful in ethics.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)41-57
Number of pages17
JournalProceedings of the Aristotelean Society, Supplementary Volumes
Volume74
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 2000

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Philosophy

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'The doctrine of triple effect and why a rational agent need not intend the means to his end. The moral difference between throwing a trolley at a person and throwing a person at a trolley: II - John Harris'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this