Sentence examples for foreseen harm from inspiring English sources

Warren Quinn has argued that double effect does not rest on the distinction between intended and merely foreseen harm, but instead is best formulated using a distinction between direct and indirect agency (see the Formulations section).

Michael Walzer (1977) has argued that an additional condition is required: that agents minimize the foreseen harm even if this will involve accepting additional risk or foregoing some benefit.

But that doesn't mean no one could have foreseen harm.

It is counter argued that choosing not to save someone's life is not the same as murder, and that although utilitarianism makes no distinction between causing an event and allowing it to happen when it was physically within our power to prevent [ 40], people (and deontologist) differentiate between intended harm and foreseen harm [ 21].

The anomalies to be considered include attaching greater moral importance to intended harms than to foreseen harms, to harms by commission than to harms by omission, etc, and being readier to ascribe intentional harmfulness than intentional helpfulness.

Recall that the most plausible formulations of double effect would require agents to seek to minimize or avoid the merely foreseen harms that they cause as side effects.

On this view, the distinction between direct and indirect harmful agency is what underlies the moral significance of the distinction between intended and merely foreseen harms, but it need not align perfectly with it.

To intend harm is worse than to merely foresee harm as a result of one's action.

Traditionally, the legal system's interactions with software like robotics only finds liability where the developer was negligent or could foresee harm.

Thomas, of Slater and Gordon, said: "We will be arguing that the Ministry of Defence should have foreseen that harm was going to come to members of the local community as a result of the cadets escaping from Bassingbourn barracks.

He was eventually acquitted of murder, but because the jury decided that he had been at the park and could have foreseen serious harm, they were obliged to find him guilty of manslaughter using the doctrine.