Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigExact(2)
The argument against this view appeals to a pair of related distinctions, between intending a consequence and (merely) foreseeing it, and between doing and allowing.
As to the second argument, the distinction between intending and merely foreseeing harms is one to which many people attach moral significance, and it is central to the Doctrine of Double Effect.
Similar(58)
Alexander Litvinenko solved his own murder; Theresa May merely foresaw her own embarrassment.
To intend harm is worse than to merely foresee harm as a result of one's action.
The basic idea is that there is a morally relevant distinction between intended versus merely foreseen outcomes.
While there is some debate on the correct specification of the Doctrine, the basic idea is that it is worse to intend harm than to merely foresee it.
Some opponents of the principle of double effect do indeed deny that the distinction between intended and merely foreseen consequences has any moral significance.
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.
These independent considerations are not derived from the distinction between intended and merely foreseen consequences and do not depend on it (Davis (1984), McIntyre (2001)).
The suggestion that judgments of moral permissibility may influence us in describing a harmful result as merely foreseen contest the explanatory value of the principle of double effect.
If the bad outcome is a means to the good end, then it is intended (as a means), and is not merely foreseen.
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com