Premium
Why Kamm's P rinciple of S econdary P ermissibility Cannot Save the Doctrine of Double Effect
Author(s) -
Øverland Gerhard
Publication year - 2016
Publication title -
journal of applied philosophy
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.339
H-Index - 30
eISSN - 1468-5930
pISSN - 0264-3758
DOI - 10.1111/japp.12110
Subject(s) - appeal , counterintuitive , argument (complex analysis) , doctrine , judgement , original sin , law , theology , philosophy , political science , medicine , epistemology
Abstract The DDE yields counterintuitive verdicts about certain cases: it may deem it permissible to kill a certain number of people when they are not used as means and their death is not intended, but deny that killing fewer of these people is permissible if that requires intending their death, or using them as means. To accommodate the judgement that we may kill the lesser number in such cases, supporters of the DDE may appeal to F rances K amm's P rinciple of S econdary P ermissibility ( PSP ). The principle says, roughly, that if it is permissible to kill n people when not intending their death, or using them as means, then it is permissible to kill n − m people in a way that does involve intending their deaths, or using them as means, as ‘secondarily permissible’ (where m > 0 ). In this article I argue that appealing to the PSP to solve the puzzling cases of the DDE is generally misleading and that it fails in particular cases. The crux of my argument is that the PSP allows killings that go against the grain of the DDE .