Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T08:59:15.824Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Intention in Ethics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

Joseph Shaw
Joseph Shaw*
Affiliation:
University of Oxford Oxford0X1 4LF UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The use of intention in ethics has been the subject of intense debate for many years, but no consensus has emerged over whether intention is morally relevant, or even how it should be understood. In this paper I wish to make a thorough, though by no means exhaustive, examination of the concept and the concepts around it, some to be seen as near-synonyms, and some as contrasting ideas. My interest is in the ethical use of the concept, though my own analysis of it will be indebted to discussions in the philosophy of action. The most famous ethical use, which will not, however, be my direct focus here, is the ‘principle of double effect,’ which states that an agent may cause or allow something bad as long as, first, no evil is intended as an end or a means; and, second, that the foreseen bad is not out of proportion with the anticipated good. It is important to note the principle's testimony to the plausibility of prohibitions expressed in terms of intentions (indicated by the first condition), and, alongside these, a general prohibition on doing inordinate harms even without intention (indicated by the second condition).

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Philosophy , Volume 36 , Issue 2 , June 2006 , pp. 187 - 223
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 E.g. Nagel, Thomas ‘War and massacre’, in Mortal Questions, Nagel, Thomas ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1979) 53–74,Google Scholar at 60.

2 Bentham, Jeremy The Principles of Marals and Legislation (London, 1781) Ch VIIIVI, 84Google Scholar

3 Bennett, Jonathan The Act Itself (Oxford: Oxford University Press 1995), 203;Google Scholar Bratman, Michael Intention, Plans, and Practical Reason (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press 1987), 142Google Scholar

4 Hart, H.L. A. ‘Intention and Punishmenf in Punishment and Responsibility: Essays in the Philosophy of Law, Hart, H.L.A. ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press 1968) 113–35,Google Scholar at 118, 120; Kenny, Anthony ‘Intention and Purpose in Law’, in Essays in Legal Philosophy, Summers, Robert S. ed. (Oxford: Basil Blackwell 1970) 146–63,Google Scholar at 147.

5 See Finnis, John ‘Intention in tort law’, in Philosophical Foundations of Tort Law, Owen, D.G. ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press 1995) 229–47;Google Scholar Finnis, ‘Intention and Side Effects’, in Liability and Responsibility: Essays in Law and Marals, Frey, R.G. and Morris, Christopher W. eds. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1991) 32–64,CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 48, 60f; cf. the ‘Felony Murder’ rule, in Christopher Boorse and Sorenson, Roy 'Ducking Harm’, Journal of Philosophy 85 (1988) 115–34,Google Scholar at 123, n. 12

6 Sidgwick, Henry The Methods of Ethics, 7th ed. (London: Macmillan 1907), 202Google Scholar

7 Williams, Glanville The Sanctity of Life and the Criminal Law (London: Faber and Faber 1958), 286;Google Scholar cf. Frey, R.G. ‘Some aspects of the doctrine of double effect’, Canadian Journal of Philosophy 5 (1975) 259–83,CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed at 264

8 Chisolm, Roderick M. ‘The Structure of Intention’, Journal of Philosophy 67 (1970) 633–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar; cf. Neil, Onora (O'Neill) Acting on Principle: An Essay on Kantian Ethics (New York: Columbia University Press 1975), 71Google Scholar

9 Boyle, Joseph M. Jr. and Sullivan, Thomas D. ‘The Diffusiveness of Intention Principle: A Counter Example’, Philosophical Studies 31 (1977) 357–60,CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 358

10 Harman, Gilbert ‘Practical Reasoning’, Review of Metaphysics 2 (1976) 431–63,Google Scholar at 433

11 Boyle and Sullivan, 359

12 The phrase is Alfred Mele's: Mele, Alfred ‘Recent Work on Intentional Action’, American Philosophical Quarterly 29 (1992) 199–217,Google Scholar at 205

13 Cf. Garcia, Jorge L.A. ‘The New Critique of Anti-Consequentialist Moral Theory’, Philosophical Studies 71 (1993) 1–32,CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 7

14 Cf. ibid., 8f

15 Finnis, ‘Intention in Tort Law’, 243Google Scholar

16 See Mele, ‘Recent Work’, 200f; Mele, ‘Acting for Reasons and Acting Intentionally’, Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 73 (1992) 355–75,CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 363-72

17 Woodward, P.A. ‘Nancy Davis and the Means-End Relation: Toward a Defense of the Doctrine of Double Effect’, American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 77 (2003) 437–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 442f; Donagan, Alan The Theory of Morality (Chicago: University of Chicago Press 1977), 124CrossRefGoogle Scholar

18 Gury, Jean Compedium Theologiae Moralis (1853), Volume 1Google Scholar, Caput II, Articulus Primus, §2, Principia

19 Costa, ‘The Trolley Problem’, 298; cf. Dworkin, Gerald ‘Intention, Forseeability and Responsibility’, in Responsibility, Character, and the Emotions: New Essays in Moral Psychology, Ferdinand David Schoeman, ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1987) 338–54,Google Scholar at 341

20 Ramsey, Paul War and the Christian Conscience: How shall Modern War be Conducted Justly? (Durham NC: Duke University Press 1961), 48Google Scholar

21 Boyle, Joseph M. Jr., Towards Understanding the Principle of Double Effect’, Ethics 90 (1980) 527–38,CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 531; Frey, ‘Some Aspects’, 280Google Scholar

22 Cf. Boyle, Jr. ‘Towards Understanding’, 531Google Scholar

23 Cf. Lichtenberg, Judith ‘War, Innocence, and the Doctrine of Double Effect’, Philosophical Studies 3 (1994) 347–68,CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 353

24 See New Catholic Encydopaedia, ‘Double Effect, Principle of’, and Dworkin, ‘Intention, Foreseeability’, 341

25 See Roberti, Francesco Dictionary of Moral Theology (London: Burns and Oates 1962);Google Scholar Roberti, ‘Effect, Double'; Ramsey, War and the Christian Conscience, 48Google Scholar

26 Nagel, Thomas The View From Nowhere (Oxford: Oxford University Press 1986), 176Google Scholar

27 Ibid., 181

28 See Finnis, ‘Intention and Side-Effects’, 34fGoogle Scholar

29 Bennett, The Ad Itself, 215;Google Scholar Lichtenberg, ‘War, innocence’, 351;Google Scholar Marquis, Donald B. 'Four Versions of Double Effect’, in The Doctrine of Double Effect, Woodward, P.A. ed. (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press 2001) 156–85,Google Scholar at 167

30 Kenny, ‘Intention and Purpose in Law’, 155Google Scholar

31 Oderberg, David S. Moral Theory: A Non-Consequentialist Approach (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers 2000), 105Google Scholar

32 Cf. Joseph Shaw, ‘Intentions and Trolleys’, Philosophical Quarterly (forthcoming).

33 Fischer, Pace and Ravizza, ‘Introduction’, in Ethics: Problems and Principles, Fischer, John Martin and Ravizza, Mark eds. (Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich 1992), 8Google Scholar

34 Donagan, The Theory of Morality, 127;Google Scholar Fischer, John Martin Ravizza, Mark and Copp, David ‘Quinn on Double Effect: The Problem of “Closeness“/ Ethics 103 (1993) 707–25,CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 720f; Lichtenberg, ‘War, Innocence’, 355;Google Scholar Dworkin, ‘Intention, Forseeability’, 347;Google Scholar Kagan, Shelly The Limits of Morality (Oxford: Clarendon Press 1989), 183;Google Scholar Delaney, Neil ‘To Double Business Bound: Reflections on the Doctrine of Double Effect’, American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 75 (2001) 561–83,CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 579

35 E.g. Fried, Charles Right and Wrong (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press 1978), 21,Google Scholar 41; Garcia, ‘The New Critique’, 3;Google Scholar Kaufman, Whitley R.P. ‘On a Purported Error About the Doctrine of Double Effect: A Reply to Sophie Botros’, Philosophy 75 (2000) 283–95,CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 291; Foot, Philippa ‘Morality, Action, and Outcome’, in Morality and Objectivity: A Tribute to J.L. Mackie, Honderich, Ted ed. (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul 1985) 23–38,Google Scholar at 26; cf. Joseph Shaw, ‘Proportionality and the Duty of Aid’, American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly (forthcoming)

36 E.g. Finnis, John Grisez, Germain and Boyle, Joseph M Jr., ‘“Direct” and “Indirect“: A Reply to Critics of our Action Theory’, The Thomist 65 (2001) 1–44,CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 4; Grisez, Germain Gabriel The Way of the Lord Jesus Vol. I: Christian Moral Principles (Chicago: Franciscan Herald Press 1983),Google Scholar Ch 9 QF, 239; Oderberg, Moral Theory, 89;Google Scholar Davis, Henry Moral and Pastoral Theology, Volume I: Principles, 3rd ed. (London: Sheed and Ward 1938), 13;Google Scholar pace Chappell, Timothy ‘Two Distinctions that Do Make a Difference: The Act/Omission Distinction and the Principle of Double Effect’, Philosophy 77 (2002) 211–33,CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 225

37 Bratman, Pace Intention, Plans, 125Google Scholar

38 Fried, Right and Wrong, 52;Google Scholar Quinn, Warren ‘Reply to Boyle's “Who is Entitled to Double Effect?'” in Warren Quinn and Philippa Foot, Morality and Action (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1993) 194–6,Google Scholar at 196

39 Feinberg, Joel Doing & Deserving: Essays in the Theory of Responsibility (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press 1970), 193;Google Scholar Kenny, ‘Intention and Purpose in Law’, 158Google Scholar

40 Davis, Moral and Pastoral Theology Vol. 1 341–52;Google Scholar cf. Casey, John ‘Morality and the consequences’, in Morality and Moral Reasoning: Five Essays in Ethics, Casey, John ed. (London: Methuen 1971) 155–205,Google Scholar at 163

41 Davis, Moral and Pastoral Theology Vol. 1, 342Google Scholar

42 See ibid., 67.

43 See ibid., 17.

44 Bostock, David Aristotle's Ethics (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2000), 104;Google Scholar cf. Chappell, ‘Two Distinctions’, 229fGoogle Scholar

45 Bratman, Intentions, Plans, 119;Google Scholar cf. Oderberg, Moral Theory, 137;Google Scholar Chappell, ‘Two Distinctions’, 223;Google Scholar Woodward, ‘Nancy Davis and the Means-End Relation’, 449;Google Scholar Scanion, T.M. ‘Intention and Permissibility’, Aristotelian Society Supplemental Vol. 74 (2000) 301–17;Google Scholarat 306; Casey, John ‘Morality and the Consequences’, 192Google Scholar

46 See Trammell, Richard L. ‘Saving Life and Taking Life’, in Killing and Letting Die, 2nd ed., Steinbock, Bonnie and Norcross, Alastair eds. (New York: Fordham University Press 1994) 290–7,Google Scholar at 296; Malm, H.M. ‘Killing, Letting Die, and Simple Conflicts’, Philosophy and Public Affairs 18 (1989) 238–58,Google ScholarPubMed at 255; Kagan, The Limits of Morality, 94-9

47 Walen, Alec ‘Doing, Allowing, and Disabling: Some Principles Governing Deontological Restrictions’, Philosophical Studies 80 (1995) 183–215,Google Scholar at 197; Kagan, The Limits of Morality, 140f;Google Scholar Quinn, ‘Actions, Intentions and Consequences: The Doctrine of Double Effect’, in Quinn, Morality and Outcome 149-74, at 187

48 Finnis, John ‘The Rights and Wrongs of Abortion: A Reply to Judith Thomson’, Philosophy and Public Affairs 2 (1973) 117–45,Google ScholarPubMed at 137

49 See Searle, John R. Intentionality: An Essay in the Phüosophy of Mind (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1983), 103CrossRefGoogle Scholar

50 See Bennett, The Ad Itself, 216;Google Scholar cf. Fried, Right and Wrong, 24;Google Scholar Grisez, Germain Towards a Consistent Natural-Law Ethics of Killing’, American Journal of jurisprudence 15 (1970) 64–96, at 95CrossRefGoogle Scholar

51 E.g., Bratman, Intentions, Plans, 142 n.6 (191f);Google Scholar Bennett, The Act Itself, 217Google Scholar

52 Cf. Finnis, John Grisez, Germain and Boyle, Joseph M Jr., ‘“Direct” and “Indirecf””, 39Google Scholar

53 See Bennett, The Act Itsrtf, 216fGoogle Scholar

54 Davis, Nancy ‘The Doctrine of Double Effect: Problems of Interpretation’, Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 65 (1984) 107–23,CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed at 119; Marquis, Donald B. Tour Versions of Double Effect’, in The Doctrine of Double Effect, Woodward, P.A. ed. (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press 2001) 156–85,Google Scholar at 171

55 Woodward, ‘Nancy Davis and the Means-End Relation’, 445;Google Scholar Dworkin, ‘Intention, Forseeability’, 341, 345; Marquis, ‘Four Versions’, 171;Google Scholar Shun, Kwong-Loi ‘Intending as a Means’, Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 66 (1985) 216–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar

56 Chappell, ‘Two Distinctions’, 231Google Scholar

57 E.g. Bennett, The Act Itself, 194f;Google Scholar Scanion, ‘Intention and Permissibility’, 306;Google Scholar Davidson, Donald ‘Intending’, in Essays on Actions and Events, Davidson, Donald ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press 1980) 83–103,Google Scholar at 84; cf. Roberti, The Dictionary of Moral Theology, ‘Intention'; Bentham, The Principles of Marals Ch VIIIVI, 84Google Scholar

58 Oderberg, Moral Theory, 89Google Scholar

59 Anscombe, Intention, 9, 15f;Google Scholar cf. Fried, Right and Wrong, 22Google Scholar

60 See Stratton-Lake, Philip Kant, Duty, and Moral Worth (London: Routledge 2000), 20–3Google Scholar

61 Cf. Bennett, The Act Itself, 216Google Scholar

62 Fried, Right and Wrong, 22Google Scholar

63 Bennett, The Act Itself, 53Google Scholar

64 See Kamm, F.M. ‘The Doctrine of Triple Effect and Why a Rational Agent Need Not Intend the Means to his End’, Aristotdian Society 74 (2000) 21–39;CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Shaw, ‘Intentions and Trolleys'

65 Cf. G.E.M. Anscombe, ‘Medallist's Address: Action, Intention, and Double Effect’, in The Doctrine of Double Effect, P.A. Woodward, ed., 50-66, at 63; Alison Mclntyre, 'Doing Away with Double Effect’, Ethics 111 (2001) 219-55, at 244-6; Michael Costa, 'Another Trip on the Trolley’, in Ethics, Fischer and Ravizza, eds., 303-8, at 305; Philippa Foot, ‘The Problem of Abortion and the Doctrine of Double Effect’, in Killing and Letting Die, Steinbock and Norcross, eds., 266-79, at 268

66 Chappell, ‘Two Distinctions’, 212; cf. O'Neill, Onora Constructions of Reason: Explorations of Kant's Practical Philosophy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1989), 34;Google Scholar Anscombe, G.E.M. Intention, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Basil Blackwell 1963), 35,Google Scholar 66

67 See Anscombe, ‘Medallist's Address’, 63Google Scholar

68 Ibid., 63

69 Davidson, ‘Individuating Events’, in Essays on Actions and Events, Davidson, ed., 163–80, at 180Google Scholar

70 See Bennett, The Act Itself, 27-45 and passim

71 Boyle, Pace ‘Towards Understanding’, 535;Google Scholar cf. Marquis, ‘Four Versions’, 168Google Scholar

72 Anscombe, Intention, 63;Google Scholar Russell, Bruce ‘On the Relative Strictness of Negative and Positive Duties’, American Philosophical Quarterly 14 (1977) 87–97,Google ScholarPubMed at 95; cf. Herman, Barbara The Practice of Moral Judgement (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press 1993), 140Google Scholar

73 Finnis, ‘Intention and Side-Effects’, 57;Google Scholar cf. Chappell, ‘Two Distinctions’, 224Google Scholar

74 Finnis, ‘Intention and Side-Effects’, 58Google Scholar

75 Bennett, The Act Itself, 208;Google Scholar Searle, Intentionality, 100fGoogle Scholar

76 Cf. Grisez, Germain and Shaw, Russell Beyond the New Morality (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press 1974),Google Scholar 141f 77 Maclntyre, Pace ‘Doing away’, 234;Google Scholar for a contrary view see Davis, ‘The Doctrine of Double Effect’, 119Google Scholar

78 See John Finnis, ‘Intention in Tort Law'

79 R. V. Steane (1947) K.B. 997; see Hart, ‘Intention and Punishment’, 125-7

80 See Finnis, ‘Intention and Side-Effects’, 45 n.

81 The answer is 40,320

82 Anscombe, Intention §25, 41Google Scholar

83 Ibid. 42

84 Ibid. 45

85 Ibid. 45

86 Intention was first published in 1957; ‘The Justice of the Present War Examined’ in 1939; ‘Mr Truman's Degree’ in 1957; ‘War and Murder’ in 1961; ‘Medallisf s Address' was delivered in 1982.

87 Anscombe, ‘The Justice of the Present War Examined’, 79;Google Scholar ‘Mr Truman's Degree’, 66; ‘War and Murder’, 59

88 Anscombe, ‘Medallist's address’, 59Google Scholar

89 Ibid. 58

90 See Walzer, Michael Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations, 2nd ed. (New York: Basic Books 1992), 173Google Scholar

91 Anscombe, ‘The Justice of the Present War Examined’, 76Google Scholar

92 Anscombe, . ‘Mr Truman's Degree’, 66Google Scholar

93 Cf. Nagel, ‘War and Massacre’, 61;Google Scholar Ramsey, War and the Christian Conscience, 65Google Scholar

94 Anscombe, ‘Mr Truman's Degree’, 66Google Scholar

95 Ibid.

96 Walzer, Just and Unjust Wars, 174Google Scholar

97 Kagan, The Limits of Morality, 138f;Google Scholar cf. Fried, Right and Wrong, 44;Google Scholar Quinn, ‘… the Doctrine of Double Effect’, 188Google Scholar

98 Bennett, The Act Itself, 210Google Scholar

99 Ibid. 211; cf. Russell, ‘On the Relative Strictness’, 95;Google Scholar Finnis, ‘The Rights and Wrongs of Abortion’, 136;Google Scholar Quinn, ‘…the Doctrine of Double Effect’, 179Google Scholar

100 Kamm, F.M. Momlity, Mortality Vol. II (New York: Oxford University Press 1993), 155;Google Scholar Kamm, ‘Non-Consquentialism, the Person as an End-in-Itself, and the Significance of Status’, Philosophy and Public Affairs 21 (1992) 354–89,Google Scholar at 377; Delaney, ‘To Double Business Bound’, 577Google Scholar

101 Bennett, The Act Itself, 211Google Scholar

102 See Ford, John C. SJ, ‘The Morality of Obliteration Bombing’, in War and Morality, Wasserstrom, Richard A. ed. (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth 1970) 261–301,Google Scholar at 228

103 Cf. Shaw, ‘Intentions and Trolleys'

104 Notably the ‘Craniotomy’ case: see Shaw, Joseph ‘Killing in the Catholic Tradition — I: Craniotomy’, Downside Review 123 (2005) 180–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar