Understand the idea
Ethical disagreements often persist even when people agree on the outcomes. An outcome-focused view emphasizes the harms prevented; other views also constrain what one may do to a person. Doing versus allowing harm is one proposed distinction, while intending harm versus foreseeing it is another. These distinctions should not be collapsed. Thought experiments let a learner vary one feature at a time and test whether a moral principle remains consistent. They do not establish that intuitions alone settle an ethical theory. [S03]
Worked example
A rescue controller can redirect a threatening process away from five trapped workers toward one. Compare that with failing to operate a rescue device, and with intentionally using someone as a means of rescue. Before choosing, list which facts change and which remain fixed.
Where the idea stops
A refusal to act can still carry responsibility. Duties, consent, intention, and outcomes may conflict; several defensible ethical frameworks weigh them differently. [S03]
Connect it
Economics and history: policy tradeoffs and responsibility for foreseeable harms.
Go deeper
How do doing harm, allowing harm, and intending harm differ?
Sources
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy · Research reference · Date: 2025-07-08, substantive revision
Shows why outcomes, agency, and intention raise distinct ethical questions.
Link checked 2026-10-17 · Public webpage accessed; no specialist peer review of this brief.