Yet Another Revised DDE? A Note on David K. Chan's DDEd
David K. Chan wants to save the DDE from the considerable criticism levelled against it, by making the moral distinction it refers to rest on a difference in desire instead of in intention. I argue that the revised version, too, is counter-intuitive and confuses the blameworthiness of an actor with...
| 主要作者: | |
|---|---|
| 格式: | 電子 Article |
| 語言: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | 載入...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| 出版: |
Springer Science + Business Media B. V
2006
|
| In: |
Ethical theory and moral practice
Year: 2006, 卷: 9, 發布: 2, Pages: 231-236 |
| Further subjects: | B
Blameworthiness
B Desire B craniotomy B hysterectomy B permission B 意圖 B doctrine of double effect B tactical bomber B terror bomber |
| 在線閱讀: |
Volltext (JSTOR) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| 總結: | David K. Chan wants to save the DDE from the considerable criticism levelled against it, by making the moral distinction it refers to rest on a difference in desire instead of in intention. I argue that the revised version, too, is counter-intuitive and confuses the blameworthiness of an actor with the wrongness of the act. It also invites abuse instead of preventing it. Besides, Chan's DDE omits three of the four criteria of the traditional DDE, and it is couched in terms of lesser objectionability, while the traditional DDE is couched in terms of permission. Therefore, Chan's DDE has so little in common with the traditional DDE that it should not even count as a revised version of it. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1572-8447 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Ethical theory and moral practice
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1007/s10677-005-9002-6 |