Will the Real Closeness Problem Please Stand Up?

Journal of Value Inquiry:1-20 (forthcoming)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

The “closeness objection” to the Principle of Double Effect (PDE) has been formulated in various ways in the literature with insufficient attention paid to the differences. Here I survey different formulations of the objection and argue that the strongest one may take the form of a dilemma based on two extant formulations. I argue that the resulting dilemma remains unsolved.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive

    This entry is not archived by us. If you are the author and have permission from the publisher, we recommend that you archive it. Many publishers automatically grant permission to authors to archive pre-prints. By uploading a copy of your work, you will enable us to better index it, making it easier to find.

    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 104,276

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2025-03-02

Downloads
6 (#1,742,590)

6 months
6 (#710,066)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Harrison Lee
University of Mississippi

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Harming as making worse off.Duncan Purves - 2019 - Philosophical Studies 176 (10):2629-2656.
A Defense of the Counterfactual Comparative Account of Harm.Justin Klocksiem - 2012 - American Philosophical Quarterly 49 (4):285 – 300.
Defending double effect.Ralph Wedgwood - 2011 - Ratio 24 (4):384-401.

View all 22 references / Add more references