Can deontological principles be unified? Reflections on the mere means principle
- Author
- Stijn Bruers (UGent)
- Organization
- Abstract
- The mere means principle says it is impermissible to treat someone as merely a means to someone else’s ends. I specify this principle with two conditions: a victim is used as merely a means if the victim does not want the treatment by the agent and the agent wants the presence of the victim’s body. This principle is a specification of the doctrine of double effect which is compatible with moral intuitions and with a restricted kind of libertarianism. An extension of this mere means principle, where not only using but also considering someone as merely a means is immoral, can explain and unify other deontological principles: doing versus allowing, partiality in imperfect duties of beneficence, and the asymmetry of procreational duties. A loop trolley dilemma is often presented as a counterexample of the mere means principle, but I argue that this dilemma generates a moral illusion, comparable to perceptual illusions.
- Keywords
- Mere means, Deontological ethics, Trolley dilemma, Double effect, Doing versus allowing, Libertarianism, Partiality
Downloads
-
(...).pdf
- full text (Published version)
- |
- UGent only
- |
- |
- 478.18 KB
Citation
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication: http://hdl.handle.net/1854/LU-7174786
- MLA
- Bruers, Stijn. “Can Deontological Principles Be Unified? Reflections on the Mere Means Principle.” PHILOSOPHIA, vol. 44, no. 2, 2016, pp. 407–22, doi:10.1007/s11406-016-9711-1.
- APA
- Bruers, S. (2016). Can deontological principles be unified? Reflections on the mere means principle. PHILOSOPHIA, 44(2), 407–422. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11406-016-9711-1
- Chicago author-date
- Bruers, Stijn. 2016. “Can Deontological Principles Be Unified? Reflections on the Mere Means Principle.” PHILOSOPHIA 44 (2): 407–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11406-016-9711-1.
- Chicago author-date (all authors)
- Bruers, Stijn. 2016. “Can Deontological Principles Be Unified? Reflections on the Mere Means Principle.” PHILOSOPHIA 44 (2): 407–422. doi:10.1007/s11406-016-9711-1.
- Vancouver
- 1.Bruers S. Can deontological principles be unified? Reflections on the mere means principle. PHILOSOPHIA. 2016;44(2):407–22.
- IEEE
- [1]S. Bruers, “Can deontological principles be unified? Reflections on the mere means principle,” PHILOSOPHIA, vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 407–422, 2016.
@article{7174786,
abstract = {{The mere means principle says it is impermissible to treat someone as merely a means to someone else’s ends. I specify this principle with two conditions: a victim is used as merely a means if the victim does not want the treatment by the agent and the agent wants the presence of the victim’s body. This principle is a specification of the doctrine of double effect which is compatible with moral intuitions and with a restricted kind of libertarianism. An extension of this mere means principle, where not only using but also considering someone as merely a means is immoral, can explain and unify other deontological principles: doing versus allowing, partiality in imperfect duties of beneficence, and the asymmetry of procreational duties. A loop trolley dilemma is often presented as a counterexample of the mere means principle, but I argue that this dilemma generates a moral illusion, comparable to perceptual illusions.}},
author = {{Bruers, Stijn}},
issn = {{0048-3893}},
journal = {{PHILOSOPHIA}},
keywords = {{Mere means,Deontological ethics,Trolley dilemma,Double effect,Doing versus allowing,Libertarianism,Partiality}},
language = {{eng}},
location = {{Union Coll, Schenectady, NY, USA}},
number = {{2}},
pages = {{407--422}},
title = {{Can deontological principles be unified? Reflections on the mere means principle}},
url = {{http://doi.org/10.1007/s11406-016-9711-1}},
volume = {{44}},
year = {{2016}},
}
- Altmetric
- View in Altmetric
- Web of Science
- Times cited: