Permissibility

[northcity4]

I know a lot about permissibility and it's themes, but never went into the kind of depth Kamm did. There are a couple of things I would like help understanding from her book

F.M. Kamm, Intricate Ethics: Rights, Responsibilities, and Permissible Harm.

There is a review done on this book at http://ndpr.nd.edu/news/25299-intricate-ethics-rights-responsibilities-and-permissible-harm/

I also need help understanding the DTE and DPP which are posted respectively.

DTE:

A greater good that we cause and whose expected existence is a condition of our action, but which we do not necessarily intend, may justify a lesser evil* that we must not intend but may have as a condition of action.

DPP(2 statements):

(1) If an evil* cannot be at least initially sufficiently justified, it cannot be justified by the greater good that it is necessary (given our act) to causally produce.  However, such an evil* can be justified by the greater good whose component(s) cause it, even if the evil* is causally necessary to help sustain the greater good or its components.

(2) In order for an act to be permissible, it should be possible for any evil* side effect (except possibly indirect side effects) of what we do, or evil* causal means that we must use (given our act) to bring about the greater good, to be at least the effect of a [greater good that] is working itself out (or the effect of means that are noncausally related to that greater good that is working itself out).

[OldTrees]

It would help if you could submit some of the examples that are used to derive the principles. (Linking the paper would be even better)

DTE seems* to be saying that an unintended positive consequence can justify an unintended negative consequence.
What is the reasoning to conclude that an unintended negative consequence is not merely unfortunate but immoral?

DPP seems* to be saying that a lesser evil to cause a greater good is not justified by the greater good but a greater good that causes a lesser evil can justify the lesser evil.

Obviously these principles have nuances that I cannot be expected to interpret accurately without the context. Nor can these statements be judged without knowing the premises.

*examples may show my interpretation to be off.

[northcity4]

It would help if you could submit some of the examples that are used to derive the principles. (Linking the paper would be even better)

DTE seems* to be saying that an unintended positive consequence can justify an unintended negative consequence.
What is the reasoning to conclude that an unintended negative consequence is not merely unfortunate but immoral?

DPP seems* to be saying that a lesser evil to cause a greater good is not justified by the greater good but a greater good that causes a lesser evil can justify the lesser evil.

Obviously these principles have nuances that I cannot be expected to interpret accurately without the context. Nor can these statements be judged without knowing the premises.

*examples may show my interpretation to be off.

Before I say anything else, the DPP based off what you said, understanding "Obviously these principles have nuances that I cannot be expected to interpret accurately without the context. Nor can these statements be judged without knowing the premises," means that it is wrong for doing a little evil to do a ton of good? Like kill someone to save multiple people verses I saved this person, but the result was it killed these 3 people in the process?

[OldTrees]

It would help if you could submit some of the examples that are used to derive the principles. (Linking the paper would be even better)

DTE seems* to be saying that an unintended positive consequence can justify an unintended negative consequence.
What is the reasoning to conclude that an unintended negative consequence is not merely unfortunate but immoral?

DPP seems* to be saying that a lesser evil to cause a greater good is not justified by the greater good but a greater good that causes a lesser evil can justify the lesser evil.

Obviously these principles have nuances that I cannot be expected to interpret accurately without the context. Nor can these statements be judged without knowing the premises.

*examples may show my interpretation to be off.

Before I say anything else, the DPP based off what you said, understanding "Obviously these principles have nuances that I cannot be expected to interpret accurately without the context. Nor can these statements be judged without knowing the premises," means that it is wrong for doing a little evil to do a ton of good? Like kill someone to save multiple people verses I saved this person, but the result was it killed these 3 people in the process?

Yes it seems that:
Killing 1 to save many is impermissible
BUT
Saving many with the consequence of killing 1 might be permissible

[northcity4]

So let's take the topic of Hitler. You are very good at shooting targets from your sniper rifle. You see Hitler walking down the road, is it permissible to shoot him?

On the other hand, what does this say about standing up for someone else?

[OldTrees]

So let's take the topic of Hitler. You are very good at shooting targets from your sniper rifle. You see Hitler walking down the road, is it permissible to shoot him?

I do not know for certain what Kamm would say but I am fairly confident that you left out details that Kamm would find morally significant.

It would help if you could submit some of the examples that are used to derive the principles. (Linking the paper would be even better)

[northcity4]

So let's take the topic of Hitler. You are very good at shooting targets from your sniper rifle. You see Hitler walking down the road, is it permissible to shoot him?

I do not know for certain what Kamm would say but I am fairly confident that you left out details that Kamm would find morally significant.

It would help if you could submit some of the examples that are used to derive the principles. (Linking the paper would be even better)

An example Kamm used: A tactical bomber is permitted to bomb a munitions factory in a just war, knowing that the vibrations will collapse the roof of an adjacent school, which will kill children; whereas, he is not permitted to bomb the factory if pieces of the bomb itself will fly off into the school and kill the children.

Your take on this?

site: http://ndpr.nd.edu/news/25299-intricate-ethics-rights-responsibilities-and-permissible-harm/ scroll about half way down

[OldTrees]

So let's take the topic of Hitler. You are very good at shooting targets from your sniper rifle. You see Hitler walking down the road, is it permissible to shoot him?

I do not know for certain what Kamm would say but I am fairly confident that you left out details that Kamm would find morally significant.

It would help if you could submit some of the examples that are used to derive the principles. (Linking the paper would be even better)

An example Kamm used: A tactical bomber is permitted to bomb a munitions factory in a just war, knowing that the vibrations will collapse the roof of an adjacent school, which will kill children; whereas, he is not permitted to bomb the factory if pieces of the bomb itself will fly off into the school and kill the children.

Your take on this?

site: http://ndpr.nd.edu/news/25299-intricate-ethics-rights-responsibilities-and-permissible-harm/ scroll about half way down

While the example is consistent with the DPP principle*, I cannot evaluate it until I read the original argument for the DPP principle. The review article will help but is not sufficient by itself.

*Kamm's position
When the action (the bomb) directly causes the negative consequence (killing children) then it is impermissible.
When the positive action (destroying munitions in a just war) causes the negative consequence then it can be permissible.

[northcity4]

So let's take the topic of Hitler. You are very good at shooting targets from your sniper rifle. You see Hitler walking down the road, is it permissible to shoot him?

I do not know for certain what Kamm would say but I am fairly confident that you left out details that Kamm would find morally significant.

It would help if you could submit some of the examples that are used to derive the principles. (Linking the paper would be even better)

An example Kamm used: A tactical bomber is permitted to bomb a munitions factory in a just war, knowing that the vibrations will collapse the roof of an adjacent school, which will kill children; whereas, he is not permitted to bomb the factory if pieces of the bomb itself will fly off into the school and kill the children.

Your take on this?

site: http://ndpr.nd.edu/news/25299-intricate-ethics-rights-responsibilities-and-permissible-harm/ scroll about half way down

While the example is consistent with the DPP principle*, I cannot evaluate it until I read the original argument for the DPP principle. The review article will help but is not sufficient by itself.

*Kamm's position
When the action (the bomb) directly causes the negative consequence (killing children) then it is impermissible.
When the positive action (destroying munitions in a just war) causes the negative consequence then it can be permissible.

Correct.

Now in your opinion, do u agree with Kamm? I understand Kamm worded her statement in a 'just war,' but let's take the scenario farther with the previous example: 

Let's use the Hitler example again, it's during WWII. You understand what Hitler has been doing. Shooting him would save millions of lives and this is different from the harvesting organ example since Hitler has already killed so many (or is it?), thus can you as the shooter justify standing up for the Jews? Or would Hitler have to directly attack you to justify killing him?

Feel free to add or ask about premises you feel are important in this scenario so that we can discuss if should you want.

Using the DPP second clause, permissible acts may contain evil outcomes, if and only if they are a result of the aftermath and it contained to the least amount possible.

If Hitler was attacking me, I can defend myself. I save my life as long as I do my best to make sure Hitler stays alive. I am not sure if Kamm would agree completely on killing Hitler on the spot because there is the possibility of arresting him or at least trying first (like what cops do to armed villains).

If Hitler is not directly attacking me....

[OldTrees]

Now in your opinion, do u agree with Kamm?

I cannot answer that question until I evaluate Kamm's argument. I should not evaluate an argument from a review article.

If you can link me to Kamm's paper I would be grateful.

[northcity4]

F.M. Kamm, Intricate Ethics: Rights, Responsibilities, and Permissible Harm-->there is no online version. I would have to buy it to have the real deal

[northcity4]

There are some pages listed on google books here http://books.google.com/books?id=XEf_ISQntggC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false