Search research articles

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by

Same journal

Separating Law and Liberty.

Law and philosophy·2026

Same journal

Retributivism and Over-Punishment.

Law and philosophy·2021

Same journal

Opportunity Costs Pacifism.

Law and philosophy·2020

Same journal

Punishment as Moral Fortification and Non-Consensual Neurointerventions.

Law and philosophy·2020

Same journal

Punishing Wrongs from the Distant Past.

Law and philosophy·2019

Same journal

The concept of fetal rights.

Law and philosophy·2002

ABOUT JoVE

Overview Leadership Blog JoVE Help Center

AUTHORS

Publishing Process Editorial Board Scope & Policies Peer Review FAQ Submit

LIBRARIANS

Testimonials Subscriptions Access Resources Library Advisory Board FAQ

RESEARCH

JoVE Journal Methods Collections JoVE Encyclopedia of Experiments Archive

EDUCATION

JoVE Core JoVE Business JoVE Science Education JoVE Lab Manual Faculty Resource Center Faculty Site

Terms & Conditions of Use

Search research articles

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Aug 28, 2025

Errors as a Means of Reducing Impulsive Food Choice

Errors as a Means of Reducing Impulsive Food Choice

Published on: June 5, 2016

Lesser-Evil Justifications: A Reply to Frowe.

Kerah Gordon-Solmon¹, Theron Pummer²

¹Department of Philosophy, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, KY16 9AL Fife UK.

Law and Philosophy

|September 19, 2022

Summary

This study challenges Helen Frowe's argument on lesser-evil justifications, asserting that agents must almost always act on these justifications. It defends the traditional view that such justifications typically expand, rather than restrict, permissible actions.

More Related Videos

The Joint Effect of Social Comparison and Social Distance on Evaluation of Intertemporal Choice Outcomes in Event-related Potential Studies

The Joint Effect of Social Comparison and Social Distance on Evaluation of Intertemporal Choice Outcomes in Event-related Potential Studies

Published on: August 25, 2023

Continuous Theta Burst Stimulation of the Posterior Medial Frontal Cortex to Experimentally Reduce Ideological Threat Responses

Continuous Theta Burst Stimulation of the Posterior Medial Frontal Cortex to Experimentally Reduce Ideological Threat Responses

Published on: September 28, 2018

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Aug 28, 2025

Errors as a Means of Reducing Impulsive Food Choice

Errors as a Means of Reducing Impulsive Food Choice

Published on: June 5, 2016

The Joint Effect of Social Comparison and Social Distance on Evaluation of Intertemporal Choice Outcomes in Event-related Potential Studies

The Joint Effect of Social Comparison and Social Distance on Evaluation of Intertemporal Choice Outcomes in Event-related Potential Studies

Published on: August 25, 2023

Continuous Theta Burst Stimulation of the Posterior Medial Frontal Cortex to Experimentally Reduce Ideological Threat Responses

Continuous Theta Burst Stimulation of the Posterior Medial Frontal Cortex to Experimentally Reduce Ideological Threat Responses

Published on: September 28, 2018

Area of Science:

Moral Philosophy
Ethics
Justification Theory

Background:

The concept of lesser-evil justification allows contravening rights to prevent significant harm.
Non-consequentialist orthodoxy posits that these justifications expand permissible actions.
Helen Frowe controversially argues that agents are almost always obligated to act on lesser-evil justifications.

Purpose of the Study:

To refute Helen Frowe's central argument regarding lesser-evil justifications.
To present a positive case supporting the non-consequentialist orthodox view on justification.

Main Methods:

Philosophical argumentation and conceptual analysis.
Critical examination of Frowe's ethical framework.
Development of counterarguments to Frowe's claims.

Main Results:

The study refutes Frowe's flagship argument against the traditional understanding of lesser-evil justifications.
Evidence suggests that lesser-evil justifications typically do not eliminate permissible options.

Conclusions:

The non-consequentialist orthodox view, where lesser-evil justifications expand options, is upheld.
Frowe's claim that agents must almost always act on these justifications is rejected.
Further support is provided for the idea that ethical justifications generally enhance, not restrict, agency.