The Ethical Significance of the Consequences of Our Actions: Contemporary Theory of Action, Aquinas, and the Utilitarian Point of View

Anscombe, G. E. M. (1976). Intention, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
  Google Scholar

Baier, A. (1971). The Search for Basic Actions. American Philosophical Quarterly, 8 (2), 161-170.
  Google Scholar

Bergström, L. (1966). The Alternatives and Consequences of Actions, Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.
  Google Scholar

Birnbacher, D. (2013). Analytische Einführung in die Ethik, Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110315707   Google Scholar

Brandt, R. (1959). Ethical Theory: The Problems of Normative and Critical Ethics, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc.
  Google Scholar

Brandt, R., and Jaegwon, K. (1963). Wants as Explanations of Actions. Journal of Philosophy, 60 (15), 425-435.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2023428   Google Scholar

Brandt, R. (1984). A Theory of the Good and the Right, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
  Google Scholar

Brandt, R. (1992). Fairness to Indirect Optimific Theories in Ethics: Morality, Utilitarianism, and Rights, Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.
  Google Scholar

Brandt, R. (1995). Conscience (Rule) Utilitarianism and the Criminal Law. Law and Philosophy, 14, 65-89.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01000525   Google Scholar

Brandt, R. (1996). Facts, Values, and Morality, Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.
  Google Scholar

Danto, A. (1965). Basic Actions. American Philosophical Quarterly, 2, 142-148.
  Google Scholar

Davidson, D. (2002). Agency. In: D. Davidson (ed.), Essays on Actions and Events (43-62), Oxford: Oxford University Press.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/0199246270.003.0003   Google Scholar

Deferrari, R., Barry, M., and McGuiness, I. (2004). A Lexicon of St. Thomas Aquinas, Based on the Summa Theologica and Selected Passages of His Other Works. Fitzwilliam, NH: Loreto Publications.
  Google Scholar

Gewirth, A. (1982). Are There Any Absolute Rights? In: A. Gewirth (ed.), Human Rights: Essays on Justification and Applications (218-233), London/Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  Google Scholar

Goldman, A. (1970). A Theory of Human Action, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Inc.
  Google Scholar

Goldman, A. (1971). The Individuation of Action. Journal of Philosophy, 68 (21), 761-774.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2024949   Google Scholar

Hofmann, S. (2020). Die normative Bedeutung der Handlungsfolgen nach Thomas von Aquin. Theologie und Philosophie, 95, 200-223.
  Google Scholar

Hofmann, S. (2022). Normative Bedeutung der Handlungsfolgen: Paradigmatische utilitaristische Ansätze und katholische Moraltheologie, Berlin: De Gruyter.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110781670   Google Scholar

Honnefelder, L. (1989). Güterabwägung und Folgenabschätzung. Zur Bedeutung des sittlich Guten bei Thomas von Aquin. In: D. Schwab (ed.), Staat, Kirche, Wissenschaft in einer Pluralistischen Gesellschaft. Festschrift für P. Mikat (81-98), Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.
  Google Scholar

Hyman, J. (2015). Action, Knowledge, and Will, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198735779.001.0001   Google Scholar

Johansson, I. (1989). Ontological Investigations: An Inquiry into the Categories of Nature, Man and Society, London: ontos verlag.
  Google Scholar

Kaczor, C. (1998). Double-Effect Reasoning from Jean Pierre Gury to Peter Knauer. Theological Studies, 59, p. 297-316.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/004056399805900206   Google Scholar

Kamp, G. (2016). Basishandlungen. In: M. Kühler and M. Rüther (eds), Handbuch Handlungstheorie. Grundlagen, Kontexte, Perspektiven (69-77), Stuttgart: J. B. Metzler.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-476-05359-6_7   Google Scholar

Keil, G. (2015). Handeln und Verursachen, Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Klostermann.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5771/9783465142409   Google Scholar

Lee, P. (2017). Distinguishing Between What Is Intended and Foreseen Side Effects. American Journal of Jurisprudence, 62 (2), p. 231-251.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ajj/aux021   Google Scholar

Lutz, R. (2017), Die klassische Lehre von den Umständen einer Handlung. Ein Beitrag zur Handlungstheorie Thomas von Aquins. In: F.-J. Bormann (ed.), Lebensbeendende Handlungen: Ethik, Medizin und Recht. Zur Grenze von ‚Töten‘ und ‚Sterbenlassen‘ (95-121), Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110488531-006   Google Scholar

Mangan, J. (1949). An Historical Analysis of the Principle of Double Effect. Theological Studies, 10 (1), 41-61.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/004056394901000102   Google Scholar

Masek, L. (2010). Intentions, Motives, and the Doctrine of Double Effect. Philosophical Quarterly, 60 (240), 567-585.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9213.2009.633.x   Google Scholar

Masek, L. (2018). Intention, Character, and Double Effect, Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
  Google Scholar

Mason, E. (2014), Objectivism, Subjectivism, and Prospectivism. In: B. Eggleston and D. Miller (eds), The Cambridge Companion to Utilitarianism (177-198), Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CCO9781139096737.010   Google Scholar

Nida-Rümelin, J. (2001). Strukturelle Rationalität. Ein philosophischer Essay über praktische Vernunft, Stuttgart: Reclam.
  Google Scholar

Pilsner, J. (2006). The Specification of Human Actions in St Thomas Aquinas, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/0199286051.001.0001   Google Scholar

Regan, R. J. and B. Davies (eds.). (2001). The De malo of Thomas Aquinas. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195091823.001.0001   Google Scholar

Ricken, F. (2013). Allgemeine Ethik, Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.
  Google Scholar

Runggaldier, E. (1996). Was sind Handlungen? Eine philosophische Auseinandersetzung mit dem Naturalismus, Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.
  Google Scholar

Runggaldier, E. (2011), Handlung. In: P. Kolmer and A. Wildfeuer (eds), Neues Handbuch philosophischer Grundbegriffe, Freiburg im Breisgau: Verlag Karl Alber.
  Google Scholar

Ryle, G. (1949). The Concept of Mind, London: Hutchinson House.
  Google Scholar

Sandis, C. (2010). Basic Actions and Individuation. In: T. O’Connor and C. Sandis (eds), A Companion to the Philosophy of Action (10-17), Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444323528.ch2   Google Scholar

Schlosser, M. (2019). Agency. In: E. N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2019 Edition), accessed at: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2019/entries/agency/ (16 January 2024).
  Google Scholar

Schroth, J. (2009). Deontologie und die moralische Relevanz der Handlungskonsequenzen. Zeitschrift für philosophische Forschung, 63, 55-75.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3196/004433009787717406   Google Scholar

Searle, J. (1983). Intentionality: An Essay in the Philosophy of Mind, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173452   Google Scholar

Smart, J. (1961). An Outline of a System of Utilitarian Ethics, Melbourne: Melbourne University Press.
  Google Scholar

Smart, J. (1973). An Outline of a System of Utilitarian Ethics. In: J. Smart and B. Williams (eds), Utilitarianism: For and Against (1-74), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840852.001   Google Scholar

Smart, J. (1977). Benevolence as an Over-Riding Attitude. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 55, 127-135.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00048407712341151   Google Scholar

Smart, J. (1978). Utilitarianism and Justice. Journal of Chinese Philosophy, 5 (3), 217-342.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6253.1978.tb00063.x   Google Scholar

Smart, J. (1981). Utilitarianism and Criminal Justice. Justice and Legal Reasoning. Special Issue of the Bulletin of the Australian Society of Legal Philosophy.
  Google Scholar

Smart, J. (1984). Ethics, Persuasion, and Truth, London/Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
  Google Scholar

Smart, J. (1986). Utilitarianism and Its Applications. In: R. Fox and J. DeMarco (eds), New Directions in Ethics (24-41), New York/London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003031475-2   Google Scholar

Stout, R. (2005). Action, Chesham: Acumen.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/UPO9781844653546   Google Scholar

Thalberg, I. (1977). Perception, Emotion, and Action: A Component Approach, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
  Google Scholar

Timmons, M. (2013). Moral Theory: An Introduction, Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
  Google Scholar

Tran, D. B. Q. (2008). Ultimate End, Intention, and Consequences of Human Action: A Critical Reflection on Jeremy Bentham’s Utilitarian Ethics of Happiness in the Light of St. Thomas Aquinas’s Teaching, Rome (dissertation).
  Google Scholar

Williams, B. (1973). A Critique of Utilitarianism. In: J. Smart and B. Williams (eds), Utilitarianism: For and Against (77-150), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  Google Scholar

Wright, G. von (1971). Explanation and Understanding, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
  Google Scholar