tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28278152.post5728517588751572363..comments2023-09-24T08:22:14.199+01:00Comments on Joseph Shaw's Philosophy Blog: Why I was wrong about Triple EffectUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28278152.post-39667521871060849362013-05-30T14:21:27.777+01:002013-05-30T14:21:27.777+01:00this is the best blog and you are doing very well ...this is the best blog and you are doing very well job. This is one of the most informative information I've read. It really helps a lot. Thanks for sharing this and teaching some of your Idea's. also check <a href="http://selfhelpfeedingdisorder.com/communicable-diseases" rel="nofollow">communicable diseases</a>.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13974492238087303146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28278152.post-46207382671535341402011-10-10T12:20:55.511+01:002011-10-10T12:20:55.511+01:00Joseph, I don't see why you need to insist tha...Joseph, I don't see why you need to insist that the agent does intend the causal means in Kamm's examples. Why isn't it enough to assert, as in your final paragraph, that `the good consequences of an action must not flow causally from the bad foreseen side effects', or, `[a]t least, if the bad side effects are such that it would be wrong to intend them, one cannot justify the action on the basis of further, good, effects which flow from them'? Or why not adopt Kamm's own suggestion for PDE, viz. that the action must be undertaken for the sake of the outweighing good? Or, more weakly, as Alexander Pruss has it, undertaken for the sake of a non-trivial good?Daniel Hillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07823511443088751096noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28278152.post-45481838113650382262011-10-10T12:20:26.421+01:002011-10-10T12:20:26.421+01:00This comment has been removed by the author.Daniel Hillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07823511443088751096noreply@blogger.com