The Strict Definition of Intended Effects and Two Questions for Critics
I present the strict definition of intended effects and pose two questions for its critics: (1) Apart from rationalizing moral intuitions about the craniotomy and other controversial cases, why classify an effect as intended if it does not explain the action? (2) What definition of intended effects...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Interlibrary Loan: | Interlibrary Loan for the Fachinformationsdienste (Specialized Information Services in Germany) |
| Published: |
2021
|
| In: |
American catholic philosophical quarterly
Year: 2021, Volume: 95, Issue: 4, Pages: 651-678 |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Summary: | I present the strict definition of intended effects and pose two questions for its critics: (1) Apart from rationalizing moral intuitions about the craniotomy and other controversial cases, why classify an effect as intended if it does not explain the action? (2) What definition of intended effects can people use to guide their actions? These questions show that broad definitions of intended effects have no basis in action theory and are too vague to guide people's actions. I suggest that broad definitions seem plausible because people confuse what someone intends and what someone is responsible for causing. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2153-8441 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: American catholic philosophical quarterly
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.5840/acpq2021728236 |
